I haven't been following the case but was surprised by the verdict. Calling to slit the throats of the Right Wing opponents was wrong. Given the febrile nature of events last summer, it was really unwise of Jones. He had been incredibly lucky . I think that there is a broader issue that needs to be considered and that is the misinformation used by the Right. There is no easy solution and I think that social media is almost impossible to police. The element that is not considered by the media is the use of civil law. Why is no one suing the people using threatening behaviour outside the hotels ? I am sure that there must be a civil case somewhere. In addition, I cannot believe that the thugs protesting are not put under scrutiny by the press other than The Guardian. I want to see the press looking at whether these people have a criminal record, are they claiming benefit or do they have a job and have they taken off time from work to protest. The press are being lazy. I just suspect that they are not upstanding citizens.
The argument is that the advice given to those tweeting last year was to plead guilty and they got hammered whereas the advice given to this (ex) Labour councillor was to plead not guilty, hence it went to trial by jury and he got off.
I'm the other way. No-one should be going to jail for saying nasty things. Doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they are.
Are you completely blind to the fact that the left are as guilty of misinformation? Why do you always bang on about this as if it is a right wing problem? It is across the board! You really do need to get out a bit more and realise that it isn't angels vs demons! It is is real world Operation Mindcrime! And which "thugs" need scrutiny? The "counter protestors" that come charging in for a ruck? Or their partners in crime on the right that arrive late and takeover? Can you not see thugs on both sides?
Terrible argument, though. You know that. Both given independent advice by their defence, not by the government, by poorly paid, overworked free counsel. The advice to the racist lady who wanted to burn people in their beds (if that makes me racist I am a racist) was the best advice available: everything she had said, including claiming she would get off the charge by pretending mental health issues, was there in black and white. What idiot solicitor will suggest going against that? Let’s add she was also party connected through her husband, so it isn’t like one is this apolitical victim and the other connected to the mob. Then you have the Labour guy. He was willing to risk harsher sanctions by playing the Jury lottery. Do you know that his solicitor advised that? No. You don’t. You want to assume it to play the narrative game. And if he was advised it, what evidence did he disclose to them that he then used in the trial? Have we read the court papers? Hot air. Impotent arguments. Guilty plea vs trial by jury… but let’s blame the system that hates nice people who want to burn brown people in their beds!
Sorry I don't understand. Are you suggesting that defence solicitors are basing their advice on politics and are working in tandem with the government?
Not at all. Just saying that those last year that said bad things were advised to plead guilty. Bang to rights as Loading has said. Labour fella was advised to plead not guilty (or decided to) and he was in amongst a crowd of people with a loudhailer on video so bang to rights was found not guilty. Loading can make out its a bad lottery all he wants but I guess these defences were provided by the state or advised by judge or their teams as to what to guide their client to plead. Anyways both were bang to rights in terms of what they said and the evidence. neither should have gone to court for saying nasty stuff. Its out there in public, doxxed, they have to walk around with people knowing what sort of things they say. As for the defence solicitors working in tandem with the government? You guys are stretching. I merely said that last year's were advised to plead guilty and this guy wasn't (allegedly) keep stretching looking for the boogeyman conspiracist theories.
Yeah we all know the differences in pleas for each case. Your response to me read that you thought there was something nefarious about that. Apologies if I misunderstood that. What makes you believe the defences were provided by the state? The threshold for qualifying for legal aid is quite low (or used to be anyway) so I'd assume Jones and Connolly wouldn't qualify for that and therefore would have to hire a solicitor themselves. Do judges tell defence solicitors what to advise clients? Not sure that's accurate. I'm not looking for conspiracies, I think it's as simple as somebody plead guilty and got (wrongly imo) let off by the jury. Others plead guilty and probably regret that now. Don't think there's anymore to it than that.
One thing I do think is relevant is that Lucy Connolly was remanded in custody while Ricky Jones was allowed out on bail. I imagine someone who's being kept in prison and knows a not guilty plea means they'll likely stay in prison until a trial happens (which may take months) is more likely to plead guilty in the hope of getting out sooner than someone who's able to live a fairly normal life and sleep in their own bed. I'm not going to start talking about a conspiracy but the fact she was remanded in custody seems odd to me, and a barrister I saw talking about this a while ago said the same thing. He said that normally the starting position is that a court will release someone on bail who hasn't been convicted/pleaded guilty unless there's a reason not to and, while he's isn't familiar with all the details, he can't see that any of the usual reasons for keeping someone in custody would apply to her. For what it's worth, she's also been denied things like ROTL (release on temporary licence), which she'd normally have been allowed and again the reasons for that aren't obvious.
Skimmed through the above Jones - Connolly posts, a quick search brought up this that I found interesting. On a personal note anything that upsets the gatemouthed gobshite Farage and his cronies, tories or reform PLC, is alright by me. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ricky-jones-cleared-lucy-connolly-jailed-b2808629.html "A jury’s decision to clear a suspended Labour councillor of encouraging violent disorder after he called for far-right activists’ throats to be cut cannot be compared to the case of Lucy Connolly, lawyers have claimed. Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as “disgusting Nazi fascists” in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”
It is unnecessary because the moral argumemt is in the side of the pro Palestinian protesters. I admire the fact that they are defending the human rights of the vulnerable. I perceive those of the Right are more interested in themselves.
Sorry Ian, you are right that maybe the moral argument is with them, but totally wrong IMO on the rest of the post. it isn’t a left and right thing. What is moral to you maybe wrong to others. Not saying it is, but that fortunately is free speech. You can’t exempt people from retribution, just because their underlying argument is ‘right’
And everyone always thinks they are morally right. In reality people aren’t claiming to be evil supervillains.
Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here, but I absolutely loved the way the staff at the Bull pub/restaurant threatened to not turn up if J D Vance was allowed to eat there. It shows how the collective power of people can influence situations and also shows why the Tories put so much time, effort and money into smashing unions. One day, I hope the working people will once again realise that unions and collective power is the only way to improve their working conditions.
I was surprised by the Ricky Jones verdict myself as he had called for violence. It is really annoying when the Left make these kinds of mistakes as it renders them no better than the idiots on the Right. I did wonder if he had called for the throat slitting in social media, where there is a great audience, that the sentence would have been difference. I do understand Woolstonian's argument but feel.something needs to be done to silence the extreme Right who seem to have more traction these days than in the late 1970s and the time when Blair Peach was murdered. I totally get the two tier justice argument but faced with the rise of the unacceptable face of the Right, using thr courts is a better solution that using the police to mete out violence against the Right Wing Gammons who are threatening the lives of immigrants.
According to unofficial sources, a new simplified income-tax form containing only four lines is to be introduced shortly: 1. What was your income for the year? 2. What were your expenses? 3. How much have you left? 4. Send it in.
Somehow I missed that there was a UKIP rally in Portswood today, looked like a whole 50 people there tops when I drove past (wasn't aware it was there until I was actually in Portswood) with about an equal number of counter protestors. The fact it is passing by quite quietly is a decent sign I suppose, hate that they seem to have a monopoly on national iconography though, if I was counter protesting i'd be bringing a Union flag along.
