Ricky Jones Cleared

[DancingFerret]

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

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

People can see what people actually did and will form a view on how similar or the level of severity etc.

Whatever the machinations of the legal system, they’ll compare outcomes with that view.

Were sentences outside guidelines ?

Care to cite any more cases where people admitted their crime and received the sentence as laid down by parliament ? I'm sure you could find one or two.

I think it's more people really want to be sure. And a good defence barrister will have examined the evidence in enough detail and with enough clarity that they have their doubts.

Also remember juries have made horrendous mistakes. Just ask Andrew Malkinson who lost decades of his life in prison (and luckily not his life like Timothy Evans) about juries getting it wrong.

And in what way does that demonstrate that "the public" have even basic intelligence? "The public" don't understand that if you plead guilty you cannot be found not guilty? You are suggesting that they are that bloody stupid? Although, to be fair, this thread is definitely suggesting that is the case.

Of course, the fact is that in the two hours I was out and about in my local area this morning, nobody even mentioned this case, nobody was frothing about it, nobody gave a damn, and in all honesty most of them probably don't even know about it. Huge numbers of "the public" can't even be arsed to go out and vote. Over half the UK population say they get their news from social media, which I doubt anyone except the terminally stupid would consider to be a reliable source of "news".

Honestly, most of "the public" don't give a shit about any of it.

Do you use “air quotes” that many times because you think there’s no such thing as the public? Of course the public have intelligence, some higher than others. Some average, some not, that’s how it is.

They also can form a view on people who do various things such as tweeting or other.

And in the end get to vote too, what they think is important to politicians.

I was surprised to see him found not guilty but can't see how it shows two tier justice/ policing.

He was arrested by the police. Charged and taken to court by the cps.

Most likely he was granted bail because he did not argue with the police that what he said was reasonable and did not have a litany of similar incidents behind him. Presumably there are guidelines for granting bail which he met ( but Lucy Connolly didn't.)

Having heard all the evidence the jury found him not guilty, and did not take long to do it either.

As many posters have said the jury trial is a cornerstone of British justice.

I'm comparing Victoria Bown's sentence with that of Peter Lynch. Both were protesting, one individual physically assaulted someone but walked free. The other shouted abuse but went to prison.

I don't think there should be a difference dependant in how worthy we think the group being spoken about is. Everyone in the UK is entitled to the same protection by the law: asylum seekers, opinionated middle aged women, paedophiles, Nazis and criminals.

Should someone go to jail for saying online that they hate one of those groups? I don't think so: otherwise the jails would be overflowing. There's a line though, where someone is actually inciting violence - when that line is crossed, it's a crime.

Why are some groups treated as more worthy of protection than others, based on political opinion of how 'worthy' they are.

That's what two tier justice is.

That doesn't really all make much sense. But you are talking about the public like they all think in one way - and I quote "The public find the outcome not in line with what they think should be justice".

"The public" don't exist. Not in the way you describe them. Some might that these two outcomes (despite being entirely different scenarios) are not justice, Some might think the two outcomes are justice. And some really don't give a damn.

You claim to speak for "the public" and you do not. This "air quotes". Your views represent some of them, and all the evidence is that it isn't even a majority of them.

Entirely different circumstances as you know.

Many people in the public. I thought you’d not need that part.

Your views don’t either, everyone would know that usually. Public sentiment still will hold a view on justice.

The Stanley Baldwin argument (for those that get the reference 😉)

I can only comment on the juries I was on (4 separate cases on 2 occasions) but it was clear people just didn’t want to find someone guilty. One of the women on a jury admitted she knew the bloke was guilty but didn’t want to be responsible for sending someone to prison.

Every case has different circumstances. He was made an example of as a deterrent to others. I find it disgusting.

Err yet again, thats not what has happened.....

She pleaded Guilty & as a pp has said, she then cannot be found Not Guilty.

Connelly didn't just say she hated asylum seekers, thats probably a common view & one i've read often on FB etc.... she called upon other people, to murder them ands to kill elected MPs too.... we've already had 2 murdered.

She had a long history of racial hatred tweets.

I know what you mean, we had the same although he did go to prison.

I think LC could have done with better legal advice and gone to trial. Not sure about the remand part which seems overly severe.

I was surprised to see him found not guilty but can't see how it shows two tier justice/ policing.

There have been many cases - jury trials - where despite my views, the defendant was found guilty. I guess that's life.

The only unifying conclusion all these threads on the Ricky Jones case are arriving at, is that despite it never being taught in schools, the legal system is clearly something everyone is an expert at 😀

Which is why there is provision for a majority verdict. Not that many on this thread will care.

she called upon other people, to murder them ands to kill elected MPs too

No, she didn't. She said she didn't care if people did.

She pleaded Guilty

The difference in treatment started before she pleaded guilty. It started when she was denied bail

Lynch was taking part in a riot, outside a hotel, attacking Police, pretty terrifying for those inside.

He didn't need to there.

In fact, it started when she was arrested, when people posting similarly hate-filled comments about other groups were not.

The no bail is bizarre.

All the people who took part in the riots were given sentences that also acted as a deterrent. There were riots raging where people were made to feel very unsafe and the police were being attacked. People chose to take part in racist riots and were prosecuted. I think taking part in a racist riot is disgusting.

You're comparing someone throwing milkshake to taking part in a racist riot. Some of these arguments beggar belief.

“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

You ve twisted what she actually said.

Connolly was seen as a re offending risk, thats why she didn't get bail, she saw nothing wrong in what she did.

It is you who has twisted what she said.