Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Ricky Jones Cleared

438 replies

DancingFerret · 15/08/2025 12:33

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-15003437/Labour-councillor-cleared-cutting-throats-comment-rally.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 16:26

D23456789 · 15/08/2025 16:14

Agree; I've heard similar attitudes from others being called for jury duty. I remember watching that jury experiment on the TV; they took two different groups and observed how they responded to a renactment of a real case. Both came up with different results but what shocked me were the attitudes and biases emerging within the jury members. I'm wondering if something similar happened here.

is this still being shown? Sounds very interesting

D23456789 · 15/08/2025 16:33

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 16:26

is this still being shown? Sounds very interesting

It was a while back now but yes it was a fascinating and troubling watch. If I find a link I'll share it.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 16:36

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 15:36

The ‘for all I care’ is what makes it passive.

She’s not telling people to burn hotels, she saying she doesn’t care if they do.

It’s not the same thing.

It’s not a nice tweet, but it’s also not telling people to burn hotels as you stated.

If we’re going to discuss this it’s important that we do so with accuracy, and not put words into peoples mouths.

Connelly was charged under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 under which a person is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up racial hatred. It has a maximum sentence of 7 years.

The prosecution's case was that there was not only intention to incite serious violence but also to directly encourage activity which threatened or endangered life. This placed the offence on the A1 category of the relevant sentencing guidelines, which meant a starting point of three years in prison, which could go up to six years.

I understand that you think you know better than the courts but they don't agree.

Public Order Act 1986

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/19

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 16:37

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 16:36

Connelly was charged under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 under which a person is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up racial hatred. It has a maximum sentence of 7 years.

The prosecution's case was that there was not only intention to incite serious violence but also to directly encourage activity which threatened or endangered life. This placed the offence on the A1 category of the relevant sentencing guidelines, which meant a starting point of three years in prison, which could go up to six years.

I understand that you think you know better than the courts but they don't agree.

Edited

But standing up in front of a crowd saying 'We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' whilst making a throat slitting motion doesn't directly encourage behaviour which threatens life?

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 16:46

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 16:37

But standing up in front of a crowd saying 'We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' whilst making a throat slitting motion doesn't directly encourage behaviour which threatens life?

The jury doesn't agree.

PInkyStarfish · 15/08/2025 16:48

Daniel Jupp -

If you are the wife of a Conservative councillor in the UK and post online rhetorically that you don’t care if something bad happens to asylum hotels, you go to prison for 31 months for encouraging violence after a rushed trial where you have been processed as rapidly as possible.

If you are a serving Labour councillor who literally tells people in person to slit the throats of protestors you disagree with, you are not guilty and after your case has been delayed until everyone hopefully forgets about it, you are free to go.

Two tier policing, two tier sentencing, two tier sick, depraved injustice.

My country is a shithole. A tyrannical, failed, joke of a nation that pisses all over the freedom of its own, and would be considered a horrifying vision of Hell by any of the better generations that built it.

The contrast of the Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones cases could not make it any clearer. Our judges and police enforce a leftist tyranny where those aligned with or championed by Labour can call for murder, while those who oppose leftwing policies online have no freedom of speech at all even if their language is clearly non literal.

Connolly said ‘I do not care if…’.

Jones said ‘slit their throats’.

But Connolly rots in prison and Jones walks free.

Jones was filmed telling people to murder other people. A flat out, unambiguous instruction to kill.

No sane person could look at the contrast of these statements and these judgements without realising there is no justice in the UK and without realising that the basic principle of equal justice before the law is completely dead here.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2025 16:48

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 16:36

Connelly was charged under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 under which a person is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up racial hatred. It has a maximum sentence of 7 years.

The prosecution's case was that there was not only intention to incite serious violence but also to directly encourage activity which threatened or endangered life. This placed the offence on the A1 category of the relevant sentencing guidelines, which meant a starting point of three years in prison, which could go up to six years.

I understand that you think you know better than the courts but they don't agree.

Edited

There wasn’t a trial for Lucy Connolly so we can’t say what a jury would determine in court.

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 16:49

The jury saw a clip of what he said beforehand. He wasn't referring to the protesters.

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 16:56

PInkyStarfish · 15/08/2025 16:48

Daniel Jupp -

If you are the wife of a Conservative councillor in the UK and post online rhetorically that you don’t care if something bad happens to asylum hotels, you go to prison for 31 months for encouraging violence after a rushed trial where you have been processed as rapidly as possible.

If you are a serving Labour councillor who literally tells people in person to slit the throats of protestors you disagree with, you are not guilty and after your case has been delayed until everyone hopefully forgets about it, you are free to go.

Two tier policing, two tier sentencing, two tier sick, depraved injustice.

My country is a shithole. A tyrannical, failed, joke of a nation that pisses all over the freedom of its own, and would be considered a horrifying vision of Hell by any of the better generations that built it.

The contrast of the Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones cases could not make it any clearer. Our judges and police enforce a leftist tyranny where those aligned with or championed by Labour can call for murder, while those who oppose leftwing policies online have no freedom of speech at all even if their language is clearly non literal.

Connolly said ‘I do not care if…’.

Jones said ‘slit their throats’.

But Connolly rots in prison and Jones walks free.

Jones was filmed telling people to murder other people. A flat out, unambiguous instruction to kill.

No sane person could look at the contrast of these statements and these judgements without realising there is no justice in the UK and without realising that the basic principle of equal justice before the law is completely dead here.

Edited

My country is a shithole. A tyrannical, failed, joke of a nation that pisses all over the freedom of its own, and would be considered a horrifying vision of Hell by any of the better generations that built it.

Says the person who posted an image taken from a far-right fascist....

The better generations that built it fought a war to stop fascists and nazi's. You won't get much sympathy from them for that view.

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 17:00

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 16:49

The jury saw a clip of what he said beforehand. He wasn't referring to the protesters.

The clip should be released so that people can see it. Though I guess it wouldn't make much difference. Some on MN are dying to see a bit of trouble erupt over this, especially as it is a warm weekend. Same on X.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2025 17:05

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 17:00

The clip should be released so that people can see it. Though I guess it wouldn't make much difference. Some on MN are dying to see a bit of trouble erupt over this, especially as it is a warm weekend. Same on X.

Labour have walked into this one. Two people with similar actions, two starkly different outcomes.

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 17:06

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 16:49

The jury saw a clip of what he said beforehand. He wasn't referring to the protesters.

Yes I read that. It has been said he was referring to NF who had put up posters with hidden razor blades on trains. But this speech was at a counter protest rally at a time of high tension and regardless of his intended targets he was inciting violence.

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 17:11

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 17:06

Yes I read that. It has been said he was referring to NF who had put up posters with hidden razor blades on trains. But this speech was at a counter protest rally at a time of high tension and regardless of his intended targets he was inciting violence.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I do wonder if the charge was a mistake. He might have been found guilty of a lesser charge.

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 17:11

EasternStandard · 15/08/2025 17:05

Labour have walked into this one. Two people with similar actions, two starkly different outcomes.

Edited

Two people. Two completely different pleas. Two completely different legal processes. Two completely different outcomes.

If LC had taken her chances with a jury, she might have had a not guilty verdict too, like the other chap mentioned (I think on another thread).

Devilsmommy · 15/08/2025 17:13

SinisterBumFacedCat · 15/08/2025 14:09

He’s gone full Gregg Wallace using his neurodivergence as an excuse. Lucy Connelly was a grieving mother.
Men on the left can really get away with whatever the fuck they want.

Not just the ones on the left, most men get away with all manner of heinous shit😡

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 17:15

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 17:11

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I do wonder if the charge was a mistake. He might have been found guilty of a lesser charge.

Oh yes I agree. The CPS authorised 1 charge against him. I'm not a lawyer but was this the only/best option?

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 17:20

And now we have idiots on X inciting people to slit throats as they believe it is not a crime.

dapsnotplimsolls · 15/08/2025 17:26

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 17:15

Oh yes I agree. The CPS authorised 1 charge against him. I'm not a lawyer but was this the only/best option?

I'm not sure. Encouraging GBH or something similar? I wouldn't have lost any sleep if he'd been found guilty of something along those lines. I also hope he gets kicked out of the Labour party. I suspect he'll challenge it if they do.

ThatbloodyRoblox · 15/08/2025 19:09

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 14:54

There are going to be a whole lot of angry people regarding this verdict.
X is already showing it.

Again, just another nail in Labour's coffin because, whatever the reason, it just smacks of political bias. Optics are dreadful.

I think tbh the Shadow Home Secretary has come out of this looking like a complete and utter idiot with his ridiculous tweet.

Pepperlee · 15/08/2025 23:48

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 16:46

The jury doesn't agree.

Why? Were they blind and deaf?

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 23:52

Pepperlee · 15/08/2025 23:48

Why? Were they blind and deaf?

I assume juries are privy to information the general public aren't, therefore they make decisions based on that.

Southern25 · 16/08/2025 00:33

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 23:52

I assume juries are privy to information the general public aren't, therefore they make decisions based on that.

Yes but what Jones said was there for all to see . What other evidence can there be ? He said it on camera.
He obviously had a sympathetic jury

Southern25 · 16/08/2025 00:37

I’ve no idea why Connelly was remanded straight to jail though even after her guilty plea.. was Jones realised after two days or something?

MiloMinderbinder925 · 16/08/2025 00:37

Southern25 · 16/08/2025 00:33

Yes but what Jones said was there for all to see . What other evidence can there be ? He said it on camera.
He obviously had a sympathetic jury

I have no idea what other evidence was presented. He was charged with encouraging violence but the crowd weren't exactly aggressive, perhaps he didn't mean for what he said to be taken seriously. He obviously shouldn't have said it but no one actually acted on it.

Pepperlee · 16/08/2025 07:26

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 23:52

I assume juries are privy to information the general public aren't, therefore they make decisions based on that.

I can't understand how anyone cannot be furious at this verdict. Britain used to have a reputation for fairness. It's double standards to my mind. I care.not what the jury may or may not have seen. I know what I saw and heard. He's guilty as hell. I'm not surprised people are angry at the outcome.