Ricky Jones Cleared

[DancingFerret]

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

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

So you don't know, and haven't watched the video, then?
Or is it just that you don't want to answer the question? It's a simple question.

For people who feel she was badly advised, the Court of Appeal didn't seem to agree.

(Are we allowed to post facts ?)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King-1.pdf

Lucy Connolly’s potential mitigations as the mother of a young daughter, who had previously lost her infant son in tragic circumstances which naturally made her sensitive to the news of murdered children, seem not to have mattered as much. ‘

Potential mitigation. She should have elected to put that in front of a jury.

You're contradicting yourself. You seem to be arguing that Connelly and Jones should be treated exactly the same by the judicial system even though the laws they broke, the circumstances of the offence and their pleas were different.

You've been peppering your posts with misinformation eg bail, sentence and charges.

Expected social or community opinion/reaction should in no way change the process followed for them or the outcome of any case against them.

Yet you're saying that the outcome reached by the jury is wrong because it doesn't meet the expectations of the chronically uninformed on social media.

‘One important difference is that, whereas Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty last summer, Ricky Jones fought his charges in court (defended by a silk from Garden Court chambers).

But this only points to a further aspect of two-tier justice; namely, who has the means to fight their case. The privately-paid solicitor will naturally make sure his privately-paying client is aware of all the defences available to him. By contrast, the harried duty solicitor is not exactly best-placed to give considered advice.

Either way, I suspect few who hear about these two cases will care very much about distinctions like guilty and not guilty pleas. Most will simply compare the two ‘offences’ with the respective punishments doled out, and judge for themselves.

Crucially, like most of those arrested at the time, Lucy Connolly was denied bail. Facing a potential delay of months inside while awaiting trial, she may have felt that she had no choice but to plead guilty to the charges laid before her. This element of potential coercion was perhaps the starkest example of ‘two-tier justice’. Since Jones was granted bail, he had more than a year to prepare his defence after multiple delays to his trial.

Two-tier justice exists across multiple realities and manifestations; from the granting of bail to financial disparity – not to mention the fact that activist lawyers are sometimes only too happy to waive fees where they agree with the accused. ‘

And look at the silk who defended him attached here, a Very Interesting and depressing read) . The chambers who defences. Hamas and are very left wing.

Again Labour stinks from top to bottom.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-radical-barristers-who-really-lay-down-the-law-in-britain/

...and?

Anything can be bought up in defence, the judge can direct accordingly.

Once again, LC pleaded guilty.... there fore, of course, her defence had sailed....

Why is this a difficult concept for you?

Do you have any evidence that Connelly was coerced into pleading guilty? Have you considered the fact that she actually is guilty?

The evidence is that Ricky Jones has walked free whilst Lucy Connolly is in prison, following a judicial process which treated them differently

What's your hard proof for your touching trust that the system is fair, hasn't gone awry, and doesn't need fixing?

The Spectator 🙄

But this only points to a further aspect of two-tier justice; namely, who has the means to fight their case. The privately-paid solicitor will naturally make sure his privately-paying client is aware of all the defences available to him. By contrast, the harried duty solicitor is not exactly best-placed to give considered advice.

That is nothing new, nor isolated to this case. People with money get better outcomes. If that upsets people now then where have they been these past 1,000 years ?

No. But it was completely different treatment to Ricky Jones.

And she has been denied an appeal.

😂😂oh dear.

Tell me - what did You see when you watched the video where Ricky incited people to slit other people’s throats?

She had a privately paid for legal team when she tried for an appeal, 3 judges decided she had no grounds for appeal and dismissed her application.

Once again, the 'right attack our institutions for their own political gain..... just as Bojo did a few years ago... "those leftie judges....."

Your response says a lot more about you than your sad little comment says about me.

It was a different charge to Jones. There needs to be a good reason for an appeal which wasn't found. Try dealing with facts.

Course it does. Everyone knows how right wing the Spectator is and how they support Connelly.

Its even worse it went to trial and despite video evidence this was the verdict.

Did she initially get a solicitor to advise on a plea do you know?

Someone said in pp she was advised her sentence would be light, was that the police

Took the jury 30mins to find him Not Guilty..... the evidence clearly wasn't as clear cut as you think....

So was she sent to prison because she was a white woman married to a Tory councillor? Genuine question here..

Also there was no need for her to be remanded. Absolutely no way.

Agree why would she need to be remanded?

😂 hilarious.

What did You see when you watched the video of Ricky Jones inciting people to slit the throat of other people?

What did You see when you watched the video of Ricky Jones inciting people to slit the throat of other people?

It's hilarious that the Spectator is doggedly right wing and supports Connelly?

I saw Jones saying that the fascists who were putting razor blades under stickers, where women and children could be harmed, should have their throats slit. Unlike others, I didn't see a baying mob, ready to follow instructions, the woman near him was smiling and the crowd seemed very relaxed. He shouldn't have said it but was found not guilty of encouraging violence.