Ricky Jones Cleared

[DancingFerret]

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

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

It's a politically loaded question, attempting to shame me for standing up for 'disgusting Nazi Fascists'.

Even disgusting Nazi Fascists are protected by the law.

Accusations of racism are politically loaded.

That is a fact.

It's a fact that Connelly made racist comments, it's a fact that she made those comments before racist riots and it's a fact that she pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred and endangering life.

So the transcript of the appeal courts ruling that I posted ?

Or maybe it was, just not in the way people want to believe.

And Connolly being remanded in custody versus Jones being released on bail?

She made her 100s of tweets over many months, she admitted the offence but saw nothing wrong in what she'd done..... was seen as an on going risk.

Jones was an isolated incident, made during a time when there was no widespread rioting.

The dangers of middle-aged, middle class women!

Anyone can incite violence & have people who will be encouraged by it....

Or are you calling for the decriminalisation of hate speech/incitement?

I'll add, she has no class.

So many people post online, men post violent stuff, so much is noise.

a man who re tweeted her post, was jailed for 38months..... hardly noise.

Remanded no less. Why?

I wonder what sentence if she'd taken the gamble and found guilty.

Sigh. Okay, you're going to avoid any tricky questions that expose the weakness of your position. I'll keep going though just for the sake of others who may be reading.

He was referring to slitting the throats of a specific group of people who allegedly attempted to slash and main innocent people with razor blades. In other words, violent criminals. (Not innocent people and politicians, as Lucy Connolly did.)

It's not something I'd say, and it seems to me a horrible and distasteful thing to say. But the question is should it be illegal?

So, @strawberrybubblegum , if someone says "peadophiles - hang them all! In fact I'd pull the lever myself!" - do you think that should be illegal and worthy of a jail sentence?

@Lucyintheskywithdiamonnds 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.

And all that proves is that most people appear to be fucking idiots with an inability to understand basic facts.Which in all honesty comes as no surprise. I do sometimes wonder if universal suffrage is actually such a good idea. Perhaps since people have to pass a test on Britishness to become a citizen (a test which most people born in Britain cannot pass), perhaps there should be a test for voting? We could apply the same test for sitting on a jury perhaps? That way only people who are able to apply logic to basic facts would be able to vote or sit on juries.

Of course the flaw with that would be that since half of MN cannot understand the difference between "guilty" and "not guilty", pretty much nobody on this site would be allowed to vote. On the other hand, maybe not so much of a flaw after all.

I don’t think so. As that quote goes justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done, along those lines.

The public find the outcome not in line with what they think should be justice. That is reasonable and an issue for some politicians.

Well she must have known she couldn't be found not guilty if she pleased guilty. Surely that has to be obvious to everyone.

Really? How can anyone know what a jury will decide with certainty

Both Jones and Connelly denied bail BUT she pleaded guilty, he did not.....innocent until proven...

Justice has been and seen to have been done, its just that many people are thick and/or blinded by their political leanings.

But there is still hope when people like JRM can still be objective.

We don't need to overly wonder. There are guidelines.

Well one pleaded guilty and one pleaded not guilty, they couldn't be treated the same could they.

And all that proves is that most people appear to be fucking idiots with an inability to understand basic facts

Like if you can't reach a verdict - guilty or not guilty - it's a fucking mistrial not an acquittal.

Victoria Bowen was charged and sentenced for throwing a milkshake into Nigel Farage. She received a 13 week jail sentence suspended for one year plus ordered to pay compensation and some sort of community service. She admitted assault by beating and criminal damage at a previous court hearing. She also admitted to police that she did not regret her actions. She shouted at Farage saying he was a cunt.

So basically a slap on the wrist.

Peter Lynch a 61 year old grandfather, went to a protest, shouted provocative remarks at police, held a placard with a strange conspiracy theories and pleaded guilty to a charge of violent disorder and was jailed for two years and eight months. He sadly took his own life while in prison.

Anyone who says there is no such thing as two tier justice you are not fooling anyone.

*edited to remove Thursday

Having served on a jury it was clear that most people there don’t want to make a guilty decision. I came away thinking if I’m ever charged with anything then I’m opting for a jury trial (if a triable either way offence).

Are you comparing someone throwing milkshake to someone inciting racial hatred and endangering life? After Connelly posted her rant, people set light to occupied hotels. How are they comparable?