Here we go, blatant two tier judiciary

[ASCPFC]

View attachment 1748

An adult replies.

Always amusing when those who are supposed to believe in ‘law or order’ show they don’t actually believe in anything of the sort.

If there was equal treatment under the law, then Ricky would be in prison. The evidence is for all to see. Even a child could see that. The only people that can't are those who are full of bias and prejudice. Dominic Grieve is hardly a detached observer.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

How was he ‘right’? Firstly he showed the area was roughly half white british, so if you are assuming the jury is the same make up then that’s half of them. You could have also had other white people on there that don’t fit into that category.

Even then, you then have to take the even greater leap that somehow all 12, including the white British people on the jury, came to their verdict based purely on a racial basis and completely disregarded the oath they took when sworn in and committed perjury.

You lot are utterly deluding yourself if you think it’s the case. Utterly blinded by race politics when most people don’t give a f*ck about it.

If it makes any difference the jury will have been drawn from all over Newham, I lived in Forest Gate when I was called, where the census lists 14.8% as "White British".

 

[Badger11]

The jury literally don’t take any personal circumstances into account - their one and only job is literally to assess whether the person broke the law of which they are claiming they are not guilty of doing so.

Personal circumstances are taken into account when sentencing if found guilty.

I suggest it would be ‘common sense’ to educate yourself a bit more about the British legal system before posting more on this.

Point of order Mr Chairman.

I was on a Jury trial for a serious offence we had to listen to 3 written statements from character references and one person who gave a character reference in person. The judge repeatedly told us the defendant was previously a person of good character and had no convictions.

I agree with you that none of the above had any relevance to the trial and was amazed it was allowed. Anyway I took no notice of any of that as the character witnesses had no evidence to give that was relevant to the case, I have no idea what my fellow jurors thought though or whether it influenced them.

Common sense tells me that any person of impeccable character is capable of reacting or behaving in a bad way given the right circumstance, so all this guff about their upbringing etc, is just that. It should only be relevant in the sentencing phase.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

If it makes any difference the jury will have been drawn from all over Newham, I lived in Forest Gate when I was called, where the census lists 14.8% as "White British".

And who were those 15% of people ? let me guess. Male Bank-Managers or Single Mothers ? or Other ? Do not be surprised if they listed as fishery ancilliary workers who commute daily to the Outer Hebrides.

 

[DanH]

Point of order Mr Chairman.

I was on a Jury trial for a serious offence we had to listen to 3 written statements from character references and one person who gave a character reference in person. The judge repeatedly told us the defendant was previously a person of good character and had no convictions.

I agree with you that none of the above had any relevance to the trial and was amazed it was allowed. Anyway I took no notice of any of that as the character witnesses had no evidence to give that was relevant to the case, I have no idea what my fellow jurors thought though or whether it influenced them.

Common sense tells me that any person of impeccable character is capable of reacting or behaving in a bad way given the right circumstance, so all this guff about their upbringing etc, is just that. It should only be relevant in the sentencing phase.

Very much agreed!

 

[Stirlingsays]

If it makes any difference the jury will have been drawn from all over Newham, I lived in Forest Gate when I was called, where the census lists 14.8% as "White British".

He doesn't care about inconvenient facts.

He wants to hide the truth around the laughable excuse that our legal system and certain 'juries' are impartial.....when it's obvious to anyone honest.

 

[DanH]

He doesn't care about inconvenient facts.

He wants to hide the truth around the laughable excuse that our legal system and certain 'juries' are impartial.....when it's obvious to anyone honest.

Literally no winning with you. Laughable that you want to be taken seriously on some subjects where your racial biases take over any form of objectivity.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

This is from the Independent.

The jury also heard a medical report by experts from the prosecution and defence agreed that Jones “suffers from a number of neurodivergent challenges” – including “impaired verbal comprehension potentially leading to misunderstanding the impact of his words” and “slower cognitive processing meaning he may not have
evaluated the situation in real time”.

This being the case it can only be a matter of time before he has another unfortunate outburst.

 

[ASCPFC]

This is from the Independent.

The jury also heard a medical report by experts from the prosecution and defence agreed that Jones “suffers from a number of neurodivergent challenges” – including “impaired verbal comprehension potentially leading to misunderstanding the impact of his words” and “slower cognitive processing meaning he may not have
evaluated the situation in real time”.

This being the case it can only be a matter of time before he has another unfortunate outburst.

He doesn't really sound suitable for his job.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

This is from the Independent.

The jury also heard a medical report by experts from the prosecution and defence agreed that Jones “suffers from a number of neurodivergent challenges” – including “impaired verbal comprehension potentially leading to misunderstanding the impact of his words” and “slower cognitive processing meaning he may not have
evaluated the situation in real time”.

This being the case it can only be a matter of time before he has another unfortunate outburst.

And he’s a Labour counsellor!

Oops, councillor!

 

[DanH]

He doesn't really sound suitable for his job.

Agreed.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

And he’s a Labour counsellor!

With a harsh approach to counselling.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Literally no winning with you. Laughable that you want to be taken seriously on some subjects where your racial biases take over any form of objectivity.

That's rich coming from you!

 

[Stirlingsays]

He doesn't really sound suitable for his job.

He sounds over qualified for a Labour councillor.

 

[Stirlingsays]

This is from the Independent.

The jury also heard a medical report by experts from the prosecution and defence agreed that Jones “suffers from a number of neurodivergent challenges” – including “impaired verbal comprehension potentially leading to misunderstanding the impact of his words” and “slower cognitive processing meaning he may not have
evaluated the situation in real time”.

This being the case it can only be a matter of time before he has another unfortunate outburst.

When you watch the video, in my view it's quite clear that he knew he'd over-stepped the mark.

And I just want to state once again that Jones makes a claim about the 'far right' leaving razor blades hidden on a train as a justification for his 'slit throat' statement that once the Police looked into it had no evidence to back it up.

Like Nick Lowe of HNH he made a claim during that time which was untrue designed to stir up hatred against the groups they didn't like and the state left them alone while they went after working class people for tweets.

 

[Runningman]

And he’s a Labour counsellor!

Very much suitable then !

 

[Penge Eagle]

People are barking up the wrong tree here. A jury would have likely found Lucy innocent too. The system kind of works well. However...

The "two-tier" people refer to is when Starmer smeared Lucy and others as "far right" which could have influenced a jury. Especially if members were particularly sensitive to racism.

Lucy was twice denied bail and Ricky was allowed bail right away.

Lucy got a disproportionately large sentence for a tweet she deleted. The judge parroted Starmer's talking points and did not show judicial restraint.

 

[Stirlingsays]

People are barking up the wrong tree here. A jury would have likely found Lucy innocent too. The system kind of works well. However...

The "two-tier" people refer to is when Starmer smeared Lucy and others as "far right" which could have influenced a jury. Especially if members were particularly sensitive to racism.

Lucy was twice denied bail and Ricky was allowed bail right away.

Lucy got a disproportionately large sentence for a tweet she deleted. The judge parroted Starmer's talking points and did not show judicial restraint.

Personally I regard that as highly unlikely.

About as likely as the OJ Simpson jury was to find him guilty....which had a mountain of evidence....As in that case I think it's probable that the selected jury were thick as two short planks and if the jury demographics reflected the area, racially biased to boot.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Literally no winning with you. Laughable that you want to be taken seriously on some subjects where your racial biases take over any form of objectivity.

sorry Dantifa, bias is when an opinion deviates significantly from the facts and the evidence.

Next you will be telling us the 'Asian Grooming Gangs' were all Chinese Hairdressers ? or that the Stabby Yoof of Croydon all grew up in a stable home with a dad. A man who works a job every day.

 

[DanH]

sorry Dantifa, bias is when an opinion deviates significantly from the facts and the evidence.

Next you will be telling us the 'Asian Grooming Gangs' were all Chinese Hairdressers ? or that the Stabby Yoof of Croydon all grew up in a stable home with a dad. A man who works a job every day.

Fair play for getting the crack pipe out so early today, sir.