Here we go, blatant two tier judiciary

DanH said:
Making a real show of yourself here.

Having to imagine in your own head that somehow ALL 12 of these jurors, all who took an oath when sworn in, were ALL biased based on racist and/or political grounds, rather than actually doing the job legally required of them under the British legal system.

You lot don't want people to understand how the system works. In fact it's deeply unhelpful for your cause the more they understand it. You just need them to be convinced it's rigged against them.
Click to expand...
Do you think that people who disagree with you should have their throats cut?
 
The jury hears Ricky Jones endured persistent racial abuse & bullying throughout his school years — a background that is argued shaped his decisions, & vulnerability to the path that ultimately led him into this criminal case.

🔴11:30: JURY SENT OUR FOR DELIBERATION:

🔴 11:30 JONES KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING

Prosecution argues Ricky Jones acted with clear intent, citing calculated actions as regards the offence — behaviour consistent with deliberate planning, not a spontaneous act. Evidence points to knowledge & control during the incident, the prosecution claims

Get your childhood experiences ready for when you appear in court. Maybe use the injustice of Palace being relegated to the Conference; any excuse will do.
 
DanH said:
No you don’t, you need to convince the gullible that’s how it works, and you know it.

The fringe/online right is the deliberately ignorant leading the actually ignorant.
Click to expand...


LOL. The man literally advised people to go and cut throats. And run his finger across his throat by way of reinforcing that. And gets found not guilty by a jury in London. I don't have to convince anybody. All I need is people like you to defend his acquittal. Keep up the good work!

Your Country Needs YOU!
 
DanH said:
Making a real show of yourself here.

Having to imagine in your own head that somehow ALL 12 of these jurors, all who took an oath when sworn in, were ALL biased based on racist and/or political grounds, rather than actually doing the job legally required of them under the British legal system.

You lot don't want people to understand how the system works. In fact it's deeply unhelpful for your cause the more they understand it. You just need them to be convinced it's rigged against them.
Click to expand...
In my experience that's not how it worked at Snaresbrook. On the juries I was on at least 3 or 4 hadn't got a clue what the cases were about and another 3 or 4 wouldn't have believed the police if they'd had video evidence, dozens of witnesses and signed notarised confessions.
 
DanH said:
Making a real show of yourself here.

Having to imagine in your own head that somehow ALL 12 of these jurors, all who took an oath when sworn in, were ALL biased based on racist and/or political grounds, rather than actually doing the job legally required of them under the British legal system.

You lot don't want people to understand how the system works. In fact it's deeply unhelpful for your cause the more they understand it. You just need them to be convinced it's rigged against them.
Click to expand...

What makes me laugh is that you think I am the one making a show of myself.

Personally I wouldn't have jailed either of the two people that have been referred to today. Maybe I'd have had a word with them but that's it.....I don't put people behind bars for words made out of frustration....that's social liberals and the left.

But the system and how these two people were handled by that system treated them both very differently.

You are an apologist for it.
 
Stirlingsays said:
What makes me laugh is that you think I am the one making a show of myself.

Personally I wouldn't have jailed either of the two people that have been referred to today. Maybe I'd have had a word with them but that's it.....I don't put people behind bars for words made out of frustration....that's social liberals and the left.

But the system and how these two people were handled by that system treated them both very differently.

You are an apologist for it.
Click to expand...

I don’t think either should have been jailed too but people need to learn the difference between someone pleading guilty to something and being acquitted by a jury.

Even Penge acknowledged that she shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. Blame her crappy legal advice, not the system.

You realise Ricky Jones would have gone to prison if he pleaded guilty too, don’t you?
 
DanH said:
I don’t think either should have been jailed too but people need to learn the difference between someone pleading guilty to something and being acquitted by a jury.

Even Penge acknowledged that she shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. Blame her crappy legal advice, not the system.

You realise Ricky Jones would have gone to prison if he pleaded guilty too, don’t you?
Click to expand...
Her legal advice was a circuit solicitor who would have been prompted to clear the cases the cheapest and quickest way.
Jones had high end lawyers and barristers who convinced 12 idiots that he didn’t know what he was saying. Albeit he can speak for events and trouser some dough so clearly a born liar who employed a lying doctor to write up his medical condition.
In a nutshell !
 
cryrst said:
Her legal advice was a circuit solicitor who would have been prompted to clear the cases the cheapest and quickest way.
Jones had high end lawyers and barristers who convinced 12 idiots that he didn’t know what he was saying. Albeit he can speak for events and trouser some dough so clearly a born liar who employed a lying doctor to write up his medical condition.
In a nutshell !
Click to expand...

Do you know who represented both parties or are you just making things up?
 
Stirlingsays said:
Personally I wouldn't have jailed either of the two people that have been referred to today.
Click to expand...


I would have jailed him but not her. The 'free-speech' ship has long sailed and is well and truly over the horizon now.

We need to do to our enemies what they have been doing to us. There is no going back to some wonderful time when we could all voice different opinions and agree to disagree.

I am now firmly against free speech and look forward to huge swathes of Left-Wingers being jailed for what they say.

The only rule that matters from now on is the Friend/Enemy distinction.
 
DanH said:
Do you know who represented both parties or are you just making things up?
Click to expand...
I think it is quite obvious, given how quick cases were “cleared”, that those convicted at the time of Southport, would only have had representation from an on call solicitor. They had no time to employ their own. Yes they could have pleaded not guilty but if your assigned solicitor advises you to plead guilty, most would have followed that advice.
 
DanH said:
I don’t think either should have been jailed too but people need to learn the difference between someone pleading guilty to something and being acquitted by a jury.

Even Penge acknowledged that she shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. Blame her crappy legal advice, not the system.

You realise Ricky Jones would have gone to prison if he pleaded guilty too, don’t you?
Click to expand...

Dan, you are correct.

However, Stirling points out an interesting nuance about demographics of juries. There is some evidence that jurors' decisions can be influenced by shared ethnicity. But we don't know the ethnic make-up of this jury and he is just speculating.

Yes, Lucy may have got crappy legal advice but she (and others) was denied bail twice. She was told expect to rot in prison for a year if she plead not guilty.

Ricky Jones was arrested, briefly held on remand. He got bail and has been free since January. THAT is the two-tier system people are referring to.
 
Spiderman said:
I think it is quite obvious, given how quick cases were “cleared”, that those convicted at the time of Southport, would only have had representation from an on call solicitor. They had no time to employ their own. Yes they could have pleaded not guilty but if your assigned solicitor advises you to plead guilty, most would have followed that advice.
Click to expand...

The judgement with the actual facts, timeline, and who represented her are here, for those who would rather deal in facts rather than making their own suppositions.

 
I'm hearing from a reliable source, that Ricky 'Cutthroat' Jones' defence was led by none other than the legendary Sir Bob Massingbird.

If some are not familiar with his work, here's a description of one of his most infamous cases:

Bob Massingbird was the most brilliant legal mind in all of England. He once got a killer freed (and knighted in the New Year's Honours list), even though the man had been seen committing the murder by 13 witnesses, held the murder weapon in his hand and told arresting officers: "I'm glad I killed the b******" indicating that he was clearly guilty. The family of the victim was even forced to pay to have the blood washed out of the killer's jacket.
Massingbird also got Oscar Wilde convicted for acts of homosexuality, despite hard evidence of Wilde's heterosexuality. (as told by a certain Captain Edmund Blackadder)
 
Matov said:
I would have jailed him but not her. The 'free-speech' ship has long sailed and is well and truly over the horizon now.

We need to do to our enemies what they have been doing to us. There is no going back to some wonderful time when we could all voice different opinions and agree to disagree.

I am now firmly against free speech and look forward to huge swathes of Left-Wingers being jailed for what they say.

The only rule that matters from now on is the Friend/Enemy distinction.
Click to expand...

I get what you say but if that ever happens within a right wing authoritarian state, I think that's for a different time.....and I'm not sure that it's even likely for a very long time as the left outnumber the right in this country.....I think we'd have to go through an extensive period of collapse from progressive policies first.....and even then, it's not something I like as I believe justice should try to be impartial....it's partly why I'm rather beak about the future.

What I'm saying is for a society which is trying to actually keep itself together and be impartial.
 
Stirlingsays said:
What I'm saying is for a society which is trying to actually keep itself together and be impartial.
Click to expand...


Who wants to keep it together? They are trying to replace us. This is the point. Our Government hates us. Even the King champions alien cultures. There is no going back to any kind of 'impartial' justice system.
 
DanH said:
The judgement with the actual facts, timeline, and who represented her are here, for those who would rather deal in facts rather than making their own suppositions.

Click to expand...
Very interesting. I note that historical factors affecting Lucy Connolly, namely the death of her own infant, which a medical report confirmed her suffering from PTSD, and her statement that she didn’t expect her tweet to be taken literally and were on the spur of the moment, match uncannily with Ricky Jones’ own defence. Yet a different result.
 
DanH said:
Making a real show of yourself here.

Having to imagine in your own head that somehow ALL 12 of these jurors, all who took an oath when sworn in, were ALL biased based on racist and/or political grounds, rather than actually doing the job legally required of them under the British legal system.

You lot don't want people to understand how the system works. In fact it's deeply unhelpful for your cause the more they understand it. You just need them to be convinced it's rigged against them.
Click to expand...

Well there is something very awry because it was even filmed and televised. The fact he has been cleared and his defence was…’I did say it but I didn’t really mean it’ tells you all you need to know!

That defence just shouldn't cut the mustard, the fact it has means there’s been an overwhelming prejudice of either; race, or politics or a combination of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top