It really annoys me when someone pleads guilty and gets dealt with really quickly and when someone pleads not guilty gets to walk away. I’ve always had the opinion that if you have got as far as a court, you must have done something.
What is indefensible though is Lucy Connelly being denied bailed twice, whilst Ricky Jones has been free all this time.
My understanding is that as she had been a campaigner on that particular issue for a long time including supporting various Stephen Yaxley Lennon campaigns and across various social media platforms, therefore she was considered likely to post or campaign on those same lines again and push the line of the law again. She was also considering a risk of interfering with the investigations through her posts on social media.
Ricky Jones at least seems to have been a one off spout rather than a continued campaign.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
We are likely agreeing.
My point stands the Palestine group knew in advance and wanted to be arrested. That’s a unique scenario.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
We are likely agreeing.
My point stands the Palestine group knew in advance and wanted to be arrested. That’s a unique scenario.
Yes I'm not quibbling the legality of what they were doing. The point was simply to demonstrate that the concept of politically motivated two tier justice is just ridiculous. The law is applied as the law no matter which side breaks it.
To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.
They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.
It’s not the same thing to compare.
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.
I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.
I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.
No you seem to have missed my point and therefore demonstrated it. That the law is applied in that way in those cases shows that the claim of politically motivated two tier justice doesn't actually exist.
Comments
I’ve always had the opinion that if you have got as far as a court, you must have done something.
Ricky Jones at least seems to have been a one off spout rather than a continued campaign.
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.