4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It needs to be applied equally.

 

If Lucy Connolly deserved a custodial sentence, then so did Ricky Jones. 

 

In fact I would argue his offense was worse, yet his case took 12 months to come to trial, during which time he was out on bail and then found not guilty. Lucy was arrested, charged, tried and sentenced within a week. 

 

The double standard is clear for all to see. It's money in the bank for Labour's opponents. A free hit. 

 

I see you're still refusing to answer whether you think Ricky Jones was actually inciting violence. 😃 I guess that would undermine your entire argument so you're refusing to answer like the other coward.

I see your reading comprehension is at it's usual myopic level. My previous post clearly stated 'Now with this in mind, the only debate left is whether the jury themselves were correct as on the face of it, you could certainly see why the charges were brought. 'We need to cut all their throats...' certainly sounds like encouraging violent disorder but perhaps context is everything and again, jurors are less critical of someone saying these things to Nazi's. It might not be fair but that's what happens when you leave such a decision to 12 strangers.

 

If Lucy Connolly thought she was right then perhaps, just perhaps she shouldn't have pleaded guilty and had her day in court too. Ricky Jones had his day and rightly or wrongly was aquitted. Same judicial system. Same jury of peers. It's hardly the justice systems fault that she was stupid enough to plead guilty.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s nothing odious about the incitement laws, there’s nothing fake about holding people responsible for their criminal actions.

 

 

The point is that the inchoate offences are meant for preventing harm, ie situations where REAL criminal intent and criminal harm would result, because the perpetrator was on a clear path to commit a crime.

 

However, with most incitement laws, that's usually not the case. That's why they are "fake" inchoate offences. Nothing is actually prevented.

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It needs to be applied equally.

 

If Lucy Connolly deserved a custodial sentence, then so did Ricky Jones. 

 

In fact I would argue his offense was worse, yet his case took 12 months to come to trial, during which time he was out on bail and then found not guilty. Lucy was arrested, charged, tried and sentenced within a week. 

 

The double standard is clear for all to see. It's money in the bank for Labour's opponents. A free hit. 

 

I see you're still refusing to answer whether you think Ricky Jones was actually inciting violence. 😃 I guess that would undermine your entire argument so you're refusing to answer like the other coward.

Two different cases.

Two different court hearings.

 

One following a guilty plea, the other ending in acquittal.

 

Your idea that Connolly should have her incarceration deterred by Jones’ Jury is an amusing departure from reality and logic.

13 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

What on earth are you prattling on about? People get jailed for social media posts all the time or is it just when it doesn't suit your agenda.

 

I assume then you would let this guy off https://www.fox7austin.com/news/san-antonio-man-faces-prison-time-threatening-president-trump-online?

 

Or this one https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/port-matilda-man-charged-threatening-then-president-elect-donald-j-trump

 

or this one https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/indiana-woman-charges-trump-threats

 

The hypocracy of you lot knows no bounds

 

Conveniently skipped this one Cameroni I see.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s nothing odious about the incitement laws, there’s nothing fake about holding people responsible for their criminal actions.

 

 

There's something very wrong about Ricky Jones being found not guilty after this.

 

 

Do you think that represents incitement to violence Chomps?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s nothing odious about the incitement laws, there’s nothing fake about holding people responsible for their criminal actions.

 

So according to you Chomps you can be held for criminal actions ? Incitement is an offence correct ? yet a labout councillor incited a crowd telling them to slit the throats of right wing protesters, should he then have been locked up for his criminal actions.

Just now, johnnybangkok said:

Conveniently skipped this one Cameroni I see.

 

No, but it's a stupid comment. Obviously the same rules would apply, if no harm was done, if the author of the social media texts was not really on the path to commit a clear crime , and was effectively just shooting off his mouth, like Lucy Connolly was, then the texts should be ignored.

 

If, however, it is a case of a clear criminal about to undertake a real criminal offence, then of course sanctions should apply.

 

It's  not rocket science.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

The point is that the inchoate offences are meant for preventing harm, ie situations where REAL criminal intent and criminal harm would result, because the perpetrator was on a clear path to commit a crime.

 

However, with most incitement laws, that's usually not the case. That's why they are "fake" inchoate offences. Nothing is actually prevented.

There was real criminal intent.

A real arson during a real riot at a real hotel.

And a real guilty plea. 
 

 

Just now, BarraMarra said:

So according to you Chomps you can be held for criminal actions ? Incitement is an offence correct ? yet a labout councillor incited a crowd telling them to slit the throats of right wing protesters, should he then have been locked up for his criminal actions.

This has been answered so many times. Please at least have the decency to read the thread before commenting.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Two different cases.

 

Exactly.

 

One a white Tory.

 

The other a Labour minority.

 

Hence the verdicts.

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

There was real criminal intent.

A real arson during a real riot at a real hotel.

And a real guilty plea. 
 

 

 

We both know that guilty pleas are tactical and do not necessarily mean  anything other than the accused trying to reduce his or her sentence.

 

The question with Lucy Connolly rather is did she really criminally intend for hotels to be burned down, herself, or by others, or was she just shooting off her mouth.

 

it seems the latter really in this instance.

 

Nor can you prove a causal link between any of the arson being traceable to being caused by her social media texts.

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

'We need to cut all their throats...' certainly sounds like encouraging violent disorder but perhaps context is everything and again, jurors are less critical of someone saying these things to Nazi's.

 

Which Nazis? 😄 I didn't see any Nazi's present. Can you provide a link to identify the Nazi's please. 

 

Even if they were "Nazi's", whatever Jones meant by that - does that mean the incitement to violence was not a crime?

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

There's something very wrong about Ricky Jones being found not guilty after this.

 

 

Do you think that represents incitement to violence Chomps?

 

 

No, it’s already been determined it doesn’t by a Jury.

Acquitted, case closed.

 

I don’t do that counter factual grievance stoking thing.

 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

We both know that guilty pleas are tactical and do not necessarily mean  anything other than the accused trying to reduce his or her sentence.

 

The question with Lucy Connolly rather is did she really criminally intend for hotels to be burned down, herself, or by others, or was she just shooting off her mouth.

 

it seems the latter really in this instance.

 

Nor can you prove a causal link between any of the arson being traceable to being caused by her social media texts.

She had legal representation she chose to plead guilty under oath.

 

She was sentenced, she appealed her sentence, her appeal upheld her sentence.

 

She’s served her time.

 

I hope she refrains from future criminal behavior, if only for the sake of her child.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Which Nazis? 😄 I didn't see any Nazi's present. Can you provide a link to identify the Nazi's please. 

 

Even if they were "Nazi's", whatever Jones meant by that - does that mean the incitement to violence was not a crime?

Is that you admitting the alleged incitement, for which Jones was acquitted, was against nobody?

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, it’s already been determined it doesn’t by a Jury.

 

I'm asking for your opinion.

 

Not the jury's.

 

What do you think Chomps? Do you have a mind of your own? 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, but it's a stupid comment. Obviously the same rules would apply, if no harm was done, if the author of the social media texts was not really on the path to commit a clear crime , and was effectively just shooting off his mouth, like Lucy Connolly was, then the texts should be ignored.

 

If, however, it is a case of a clear criminal about to undertake a real criminal offence, then of course sanctions should apply.

 

It's  not rocket science.

Irrespective of YOUR interpretation of what you think the law is, it's a federal crime to threaten the life of the POTUS. Whether they were going to do it or not is irrelevant to the process - the threat itself is the illegal part and carries with it the consequences. This is the same with Lucy Connolly. UK law clearly states you have free speach UNLESS your speach is a threat to national security or public safety,or is encouraging crime and disorder or against the rights of others. 

 

By your 'interpretation', law enforcement would have to wait until a crime is actually committed before taking any action - a ridiculous proposition by anyones thinking. 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Is that you admitting the alleged incitement, for which Jones was acquitted, was against nobody?

 

 

It's me saying you can't get away with incitement to violence by labelling them "a Nazi" first. 

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Exactly.

 

One a white Tory.

 

The other a Labour minority.

 

Hence the verdicts.

 

One last time.

 

White Tory - pleaded guilty. Got sentanced accordingly. There is no 'verdict' required when someone pleads guilty.

 

Labour minority - pleaded not guilty. Was found not-guilty by a jury of his peers.

 

Your feeble attenmpt to try and paint this as some prejudicial matter keeps conveniently ignoring that Lucy pleaded guilty.

 

16 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I see your reading comprehension is at it's usual myopic level. My previous post clearly stated 'Now with this in mind, the only debate left is whether the jury themselves were correct as on the face of it, you could certainly see why the charges were brought. 'We need to cut all their throats...' certainly sounds like encouraging violent disorder but perhaps context is everything and again, jurors are less critical of someone saying these things to Nazi's. It might not be fair but that's what happens when you leave such a decision to 12 strangers.

 

If Lucy Connolly thought she was right then perhaps, just perhaps she shouldn't have pleaded guilty and had her day in court too. Ricky Jones had his day and rightly or wrongly was aquitted. Same judicial system. Same jury of peers. It's hardly the justice systems fault that she was stupid enough to plead guilty.

And I see you conviently skipped this post Jonny despite you asking me several times for my viewpoint.

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Irrespective of YOUR interpretation of what you think the law is, it's a federal crime to threaten the life of the POTUS. Whether they were going to do it or not is irrelevant to the process - the threat itself is the illegal part and carries with it the consequences. This is the same with Lucy Connolly. UK law clearly states you have free speach UNLESS your speach is a threat to national security or public safety,or is encouraging crime and disorder or against the rights of others. 

 

By your 'interpretation', law enforcement would have to wait until a crime is actually committed before taking any action - a ridiculous proposition by anyones thinking. 

 

With POTUS it would make sense that exceptional rules apply, given the greater likelihood of assassination for political reasons. But a situation like the one with Lucy Connolly is different. This was just a woman mouthing off, she was not a threat to national security or public safety. As you conceded yourself, none of the offences can be directly attributed to her words. None of the perpetrators said  they did what they did because of her texts.

 

So her texts did not cause any public order offence, nor were they an issue of national security.

 

By your interpretation you'd basically be free to imprison anyone who ever said anything controversial because there "might" be public safety issues, but that's wrong. That should only happen if there is a clear intent, and a very clear path to an actual offence about to be committed.

 

Even if you miss a few offences, that are real, this is preferable to imprisoning people for no reason.

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She had legal representation she chose to plead guilty under oath.

 

Only because she'd receive a lesser sentence. Not because she admitted her texts directly caused public safety issues.

 

 

For all you who live outside the UK you can only rely on what you watch on the News and read in the press. If you live here you see the true side of whats happening to the locals news that is not allowed to be reported on. For instance Councils removing union flags being flown yet Palastinian flags allowed. A school in the South of England teaching under twelves, what Jihad is by putting up posters in the School. The true storys of two tier justice from Woke judges. Monsters like Rudakubana given all his privalidges back because he says he will behave now in Prison.

 

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Which Nazis? 😄 I didn't see any Nazi's present. Can you provide a link to identify the Nazi's please. 

 

Even if they were "Nazi's", whatever Jones meant by that - does that mean the incitement to violence was not a crime?

 

During the trial, Jones admitted his comments were "ill-advised" but denied they were intended to incite or encourage violence. He testified that his comment about "cutting throats" did not refer to the far-right protesters involved in the riots, but rather to people who had reportedly left National Front stickers with razor blades hidden behind them on a train. He told the court he was "appalled" by political violence and believes the best way to protest is peacefully.

The prosecution (on behalf of the King/government) had argued that Jones used "inflammatory, rabble-rousing language" in a setting where violence could have been anticipated. However, because Jones pleaded not guilty, the decision was ultimately in the hands of the jury, which decided there was not enough evidence to prove his intent to incite violence.

Hope this helps.

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

During the trial, Jones admitted his comments were "ill-advised" but denied they were intended to incite or encourage violence. He testified that his comment about "cutting throats" did not refer to the far-right protesters involved in the riots, but rather to people who had reportedly left National Front stickers with razor blades hidden behind them on a train. He told the court he was "appalled" by political violence and believes the best way to protest is peacefully.

The prosecution (on behalf of the King/government) had argued that Jones used "inflammatory, rabble-rousing language" in a setting where violence could have been anticipated. However, because Jones pleaded not guilty, the decision was ultimately in the hands of the jury, which decided there was not enough evidence to prove his intent to incite violence.

Hope this helps.

Tommy Robinson never told his followers to slit the throats of Muslims but he was sent to Prison.

17 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And I see you conviently skipped this post Jonny despite you asking me several times for my viewpoint.

 

Already replied to it. Put your glasses on.

4 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Tommy Robinson never told his followers to slit the throats of Muslims but he was sent to Prison.

 

But he is white and right wing. 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

But he is white and right wing. 

 

And committed contempt of court, which is why he was jailed.

7 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

During the trial, Jones admitted his comments were "ill-advised" but denied they were intended to incite or encourage violence. He testified that his comment about "cutting throats" did not refer to the far-right protesters involved in the riots, but rather to people who had reportedly left National Front stickers with razor blades hidden behind them on a train. He told the court he was "appalled" by political violence and believes the best way to protest is peacefully.

The prosecution (on behalf of the King/government) had argued that Jones used "inflammatory, rabble-rousing language" in a setting where violence could have been anticipated. However, because Jones pleaded not guilty, the decision was ultimately in the hands of the jury, which decided there was not enough evidence to prove his intent to incite violence.

Hope this helps.

 

We all know what happened Chomps, sorry I mean Brewster.

 

We've moved to on discuss the double standards. 

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

We all know what happened Chomps, sorry I mean Brewster.

 

We've moved to on discuss the double standards. 

 

Just wanted to clarify the references to "Nazis" that was causing you some confusion.  Glad it's clear now.