Riot!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Bromptonaut

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke, Northants
If you read the full account of his trial it's quite clear that the extracts of Ricky Jones's speech that went viral we're out of context and aimed at National Front activity involving stickers and razor blades.

The fact that the jury was only out for 30 minutes suggests that there was no energy for a guilty verdict.
 
spen666

spen666

Über Member
dutchguylivingintheuk said:
The law should be equal to anyone meaning that saying ''lets burn these hotels'' should have the same legal implications at ''lets cut some throats'' butlegal loopholes, leftish people in general being a bit smarter or i should say a bit better in legal wordings has lead to many situation when you can say just a bit more as left-wing lunatic than a right wing lunatic.
Despite their not being an legal difference.
Click to expand...

Not sure you understand how the law works in England.

So they make a law that deals with the saying "lets burn these hotels" and sets out the legal implications for it. Great idea, but then people will say simply "lets burn those hotels" and its then not covered by your law.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Shaman
The charge was stirring up racial hatred. The prosecution would surely have had to show that her post had led to specific acts, otherwise she hadn't stirred up racial hatred, she was just gobbing off in the heat of the moment, same as Ricky Jones. Moot point really though as she pleaded guilty and was unfortunate enough to get a deterrent sentence. If she hadn't, and had the benefit of a trial long after the event, she might have done better.

Even the National Front have the right to be protected from people calling to cut their throats.
 
Bromptonaut

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke, Northants
AuroraSaab said:
The charge was stirring up racial hatred. The prosecution would surely have had to show that her post had led to specific acts, otherwise she hadn't stirred up racial hatred, she was just gobbing off in the heat of the moment, same as Ricky Jones. Moot point really though as she pleaded guilty and was unfortunate enough to get a deterrent sentence. If she hadn't, and had the benefit of a trial long after the event, she might have done better.

Even the National Front have the right to be protected from people calling to cut their throats.
Click to expand...

They just need to show the comments were intended to stir up racial hatred and were likely to do so.

The text of the legislation, taken from the Court of Appeal decision on Lucy Connolly's appeal against sentence, is as follows:

19.
Publishing or distributing written material

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred,

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

<the next section is irreleavant and not quoted by the court>

(3) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
 
Pross

Pross

Active Member
AuroraSaab said:
The charge was stirring up racial hatred. The prosecution would surely have had to show that her post had led to specific acts, otherwise she hadn't stirred up racial hatred, she was just gobbing off in the heat of the moment, same as Ricky Jones. Moot point really though as she pleaded guilty and was unfortunate enough to get a deterrent sentence. If she hadn't, and had the benefit of a trial long after the event, she might have done better.

Even the National Front have the right to be protected from people calling to cut their throats.
Click to expand...

I don’t think incitement has to lead to action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
icowden

icowden

Shaman
AuroraSaab said:
Moot point really though as she pleaded guilty and was unfortunate enough to get a deterrent sentence.
Click to expand...
She did not get a deterrent sentence. She was sentenced according to the law (introduced by a very right wing Conservative party you will note) and the sentencing guidelines for the offence. Aggravating and mitigating factors were all taken into account.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Lucy-Connolly.pdf

Her offence was categorised as A1, most severe.
In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence.
In relation to harm it is again agreed, correctly, that what you did encouraged activity which threatened or endangered life and therefore falls within category 1.
There is also further relevant factor in relation to harm in that you sought, and achieved, widespread dissemination of your statement by posting it on social media.
Click to expand...
Then there were the aggravating factors
There is also further relevant factor in relation to harm in that you sought, and achieved, widespread dissemination of your statement by posting it on social media. 14. The starting point after a trial is therefore one of 3 years imprisonment. 15. There is a further significant aggravating factor namely, the timing of the publication when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the evening of the 29th July of this year. 16. All of those factors would require a significant increase in the sentence beyond the starting point
Click to expand...
And the mitigating factors:
You are now 41 years of age. It is clearly a mitigating factor that you have no previous convictions. I have also read the character references on your behalf from those who know you. They speak of a caring person including those for whom you acted as a child minder for their children. You have a good family and a young daughter who is undoubtedly missing you terribly. I also take into account that this will be the first time you have been in prison and present circumstances.
In relation to the offence I have regard to the fact that although it was widely read, you did not repeat any such statement and in due course deleted it and you sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer.

You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss. There is no recent psychiatric evidence and whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred. There is no evidence of any mental disorder having any material affect on you committing this offence. Similarly whilst I accept you regret your actions and I have been referred to messages in which you say that you disagree with racism and violence, it is clear from the evidence of your own words in the days following your actions, what you said to the police and what you said to the probation officer that you have little insight into, or acceptance of, your actions.
Click to expand...

In other words she was hoist by her own petard. The sentence would have been 42 months. She received a 25% discount for pleading guilty (indicating that she did *not* plead guilty at the earliest opportunity) which took it to 31 months of which 40% is to be served in prison.
So no deterrent sentence. Just a sentence as required by the sentencing council under the law enacted by the Conservative Government. The only criticism that is justifiable in this case is that the draconian protest laws introduced by Boris / Sunak et al remain on the statute books and Starner's government have done nothing to repeal them.
 
glasgowcyclist

glasgowcyclist

Veteran
matticus said:
I wonder how much - if any - clemency she would have earned by tweeting an apology, instead of messaging her friends with:
" ..raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol"

We'll never know ...
Click to expand...

Other evidence showed her racism was not a one-off event either, nor had she any real remorse for her actions.

She sent another message to friends that she’d become aware of a public backlash to her comment about setting fire to the hotel. She also knew that the police and Ofsted had been tagged regarding it and she said that if Ofsted were to get involved, she would deny it was her. She didn’t exactly help her defence by going on to say that if she got arrested she would “play the mental health card”.
 
secretsqirrel

secretsqirrel

Active Member
glasgowcyclist said:
Other evidence showed her racism was not a one-off event either, nor had she any real remorse for her actions.

She sent another message to friends that she’d become aware of a public backlash to her comment about setting fire to the hotel. She also knew that the police and Ofsted had been tagged regarding it and she said that if Ofsted were to get involved, she would deny it was her. She didn’t exactly help her defence by going on to say that if she got arrested she would “play the mental health card”.
Click to expand...

Looks like she hasn’t got to grips with the fact that tweeting is actual broadcasting, not chatting amongst like minded friends.
 
cookiemonster

cookiemonster

Guru
Location
Far away from the asylum
IMG_3491.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom