We really do have a two tier justice system
Discussion
I don’t often get really irate and angry but this really does piss me off.
Labour MPS says
“far-right protesters' throats to be cut”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo
Gets off not guilty and serves no punishment.
But we have someone who posted
"mass deportation now", adding "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o
Gets 30 months.
IMO, one calls for action, the other says they wouldn’t care if something happened.
Isuppose the real solution is one plead guilty one didn’t. I reckon if she pled not guilty she would have got off not guilty.
Imagine if nobody pled guilty for the Palestine Action protests last week. The whole system would collapse.
Labour MPS says
“far-right protesters' throats to be cut”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo
Gets off not guilty and serves no punishment.
But we have someone who posted
"mass deportation now", adding "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o
Gets 30 months.
IMO, one calls for action, the other says they wouldn’t care if something happened.
Isuppose the real solution is one plead guilty one didn’t. I reckon if she pled not guilty she would have got off not guilty.
Imagine if nobody pled guilty for the Palestine Action protests last week. The whole system would collapse.
MB140 said:
I don’t often get really irate and angry but this really does piss me off.
Why? It's how the justice system works. Do we trial everyone regardless of plea? Do we pay for that?MB140 said:
Isuppose the real solution is one plead guilty one didn’t. I reckon if she pled not guilty she would have got off not guilty.
Maybe. But she chose a guilty plea.MB140 said:
Imagine if nobody pled guilty for the Palestine Action protests last week. The whole system would collapse.
Why? People are already challenging the legal status of PA.As soon as I read the OP I knew who was going to be responding and what their spin would be, so far I am correct.
The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
Getragdogleg said:
As soon as I read the OP I knew who was going to be responding and what their spin would be, so far I am correct.
The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
There is no spin.The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
My personal view is that Jones should be in jail too.
But I'll quote something I posted on the specific thread about that case.
He was arrested.
He was charged.
He pleaded not guilty.
It went to court.
He was tried before a jury.
The jury heard all the available evidence.
They found him not guilty.
Same question to you as I posed on that thread - what else would you like to have happened?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Getragdogleg said:
As soon as I read the OP I knew who was going to be responding and what their spin would be, so far I am correct.
The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
There is no spin.The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
My personal view is that Jones should be in jail too.
But I'll quote something I posted on the specific thread about that case.
He was arrested.
He was charged.
He pleaded not guilty.
It went to court.
He was tried before a jury.
The jury heard all the available evidence.
They found him not guilty.
Same question to you as I posed on that thread - what else would you like to have happened?
Id have liked both to have had the same treatment for what is essentially the same crime but he was let off and she was made a political example of.
There is no justice, that's clear.
I'm definitely on the right politically, so my initial reaction was frustration and to reach for the 'Two Tier' button.
However, all this proves is that for crimes with no specific victim, such as social media posts, the best option is to plead not guilty.
Lucy Connelly should have plead not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility, had her day in court where she should have said she was tired, upset, emotional and had had a couple of glasses of wine.
Once she had calmed down she deleted the tweet.
The above is reason why you shouldn't drive a car drunk, or tired, or in a emotionally upset state, and hand all of that over to a Jury, who doubtless would have taken into account previous good character, and she almost certainly would not be in prison now.
So in short, we do not have a 2 tier justice system in the sense that the courts and police let 'Lefties' off and persecute the political right.
We do have a huge mis-match between the burden of proof needed to find someone guilty by jury trial (beyond all reasonable doubt) and the idea of fiar play that makes you think that you get some sort of credit for owning up to your mistakes.
It is contrary to the lessons of good behaviour we have ingrained in us from childhood.
However, all this proves is that for crimes with no specific victim, such as social media posts, the best option is to plead not guilty.
Lucy Connelly should have plead not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility, had her day in court where she should have said she was tired, upset, emotional and had had a couple of glasses of wine.
Once she had calmed down she deleted the tweet.
The above is reason why you shouldn't drive a car drunk, or tired, or in a emotionally upset state, and hand all of that over to a Jury, who doubtless would have taken into account previous good character, and she almost certainly would not be in prison now.
So in short, we do not have a 2 tier justice system in the sense that the courts and police let 'Lefties' off and persecute the political right.
We do have a huge mis-match between the burden of proof needed to find someone guilty by jury trial (beyond all reasonable doubt) and the idea of fiar play that makes you think that you get some sort of credit for owning up to your mistakes.
It is contrary to the lessons of good behaviour we have ingrained in us from childhood.
Getragdogleg said:
Id have liked a trial for her, I understand why she didn't go down that route, the timing was poor, mid riot, and her advice was poor and I don't doubt she was scared of being placed on remand.
Id have liked both to have had the same treatment for what is essentially the same crime but he was let off and she was made a political example of.
There is no justice, that's clear.
She could have pleaded not guilty and had a trial.Id have liked both to have had the same treatment for what is essentially the same crime but he was let off and she was made a political example of.
There is no justice, that's clear.
Instead she pleaded guilty.
That doesn't mean there is no justice or "two tier" or whatever.
Afzal sums it up quite nicely.
Getragdogleg said:
<snip>
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
Oh I fully expect that. There are some that post within this part of the forum I totally ignore and refuse to engage with or acknowledge they even exist. Greendubber, BlueRiley and another cop/ex-cop whose username escapes me right now along with one who posted already. (The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.)
I find it’s just not worth engaging with them. It makes use of this forum so much more pleasurable.
You can’t argue with someone who refuses to argue back.
Many people IMO were basdly advised to plead guilty after the Stramer riot crackdown.
Here is another example of why not admitting guilt in the hope of a minimal sentence is correct.
Protestor charged with displaying a sign offering conversation within an exclusion zone declined a formal warning from the police. The Crown Office took no proceedings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8ry0e8k77ko
Here is another example of why not admitting guilt in the hope of a minimal sentence is correct.
Protestor charged with displaying a sign offering conversation within an exclusion zone declined a formal warning from the police. The Crown Office took no proceedings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8ry0e8k77ko
I'm with bhstewie on this one - the optics ARE terrible, BUT the outcomes are a direct result of their legal advice / their decision how to plead.
The justice system did NOT do this, and to blame the justice system / call it two-tier is a gross misrepresentation.
(I have no doubt, however, that the usual far-right rabble-rousers will make a lot of hay from this with their followers and with some fence-sitters)
...and this is one of my fundamental problems with society today - people are far too quick to swallow soundbites and headlines and make NO effort to critically assess the situation / seek out the facts.
...which only leads to more populism, more extremism and tribalism, and a more dysfunctional society.
Do I believe she deserved that sentence? No. Her words, in context of the time, were fking awful, but IMHO the sentence WAS sent out there as a warning and was unreasonable.
Do I believe he deserved punishment? On the face of it, yes...but for whatever reason a jury, in posession of more facts, didn't.
hstewie on this one - the optics ARE terrible, BUT the outcomes are a direct result of their legal advice / their decision how to plead.The justice system did NOT do this, and to blame the justice system / call it two-tier is a gross misrepresentation.
(I have no doubt, however, that the usual far-right rabble-rousers will make a lot of hay from this with their followers and with some fence-sitters)
...and this is one of my fundamental problems with society today - people are far too quick to swallow soundbites and headlines and make NO effort to critically assess the situation / seek out the facts.
...which only leads to more populism, more extremism and tribalism, and a more dysfunctional society.
Do I believe she deserved that sentence? No. Her words, in context of the time, were f
king awful, but IMHO the sentence WAS sent out there as a warning and was unreasonable.Do I believe he deserved punishment? On the face of it, yes...but for whatever reason a jury, in posession of more facts, didn't.
"I qualified as a solicitor and Higher Court Advocate having completed my professional training with Carter Osborne. I have co-represented with Queens’ Counsel on a Murder, an Attempt Murder Trial and a case involving many sexual allegations. I have been successful in defending serious cases including Complex Fraud, Conspiracy to Supply Drugs and Sexual Offences. I am a born and bred Corby lad."
But couldn't successfully advise a client on a dumb "heat of the moment" tweet.
But couldn't successfully advise a client on a dumb "heat of the moment" tweet.
Getragdogleg said:
As soon as I read the OP I knew who was going to be responding and what their spin would be, so far I am correct.
The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.
Accusations of two-tier remain infantile as the justice system didn't make judgement on both cases.The optics of this case when compared to the other case are appalling.
As the OP stated, one called for action, the other said she didn't care. Ignoring the legal advice dished out to either party this just feels wrong. They both 100% did say/type what they were accused of, one is in prision and one is not.
Apart from any "side" you might be on its not hard to see why the accusation of two tier is easy bandy around these days is it?
The side in power "got away with it". That's what the man on the Clapham omnibus is seeing/saying.
(The usual suspects will now try to launch irrelevant whataboutery and ignore the point because it does not fit their world view.
I guess it was pretty obvious that ignorance would yet again be the basis for the "two tier" crowd.
havoc said:
I'm with bhstewie on this one - the optics ARE terrible, BUT the outcomes are a direct result of their legal advice / their decision how to plead.
The justice system did NOT do this, and to blame the justice system / call it two-tier is a gross misrepresentation.
(I have no doubt, however, that the usual far-right rabble-rousers will make a lot of hay from this with their followers and with some fence-sitters)
...and this is one of my fundamental problems with society today - people are far too quick to swallow soundbites and headlines and make NO effort to critically assess the situation / seek out the facts.
...which only leads to more populism, more extremism and tribalism, and a more dysfunctional society.
Do I believe she deserved that sentence? No. Her words, in context of the time, were fking awful, but IMHO the sentence WAS sent out there as a warning and was unreasonable.
Do I believe he deserved punishment? On the face of it, yes...but for whatever reason a jury, in posession of more facts, didn't.
When I say two tiered I don’t just mean left vs right politically but also in terms of rich vs poor. hstewie on this one - the optics ARE terrible, BUT the outcomes are a direct result of their legal advice / their decision how to plead.The justice system did NOT do this, and to blame the justice system / call it two-tier is a gross misrepresentation.
(I have no doubt, however, that the usual far-right rabble-rousers will make a lot of hay from this with their followers and with some fence-sitters)
...and this is one of my fundamental problems with society today - people are far too quick to swallow soundbites and headlines and make NO effort to critically assess the situation / seek out the facts.
...which only leads to more populism, more extremism and tribalism, and a more dysfunctional society.
Do I believe she deserved that sentence? No. Her words, in context of the time, were f
king awful, but IMHO the sentence WAS sent out there as a warning and was unreasonable.Do I believe he deserved punishment? On the face of it, yes...but for whatever reason a jury, in posession of more facts, didn't.
The MP undoubtedly could afford a decent solicitor and bail, she probably not so much and even if not in her case many can’t. They take a guilty plea because they can’t afford to fight it compared to the more affluent.
That’s not justice for all.
Her solicitor must have been the dregs of the barrel but I do understand the optics of Sir Kier trying to stamp out protests and physical violence going on at the time perhaps altering the solicitors advice.
119 said:
"I qualified as a solicitor and Higher Court Advocate having completed my professional training with Carter Osborne. I have co-represented with Queens’ Counsel on a Murder, an Attempt Murder Trial and a case involving many sexual allegations. I have been successful in defending serious cases including Complex Fraud, Conspiracy to Supply Drugs and Sexual Offences. I am a born and bred Corby lad."
But couldn't successfully advise a client on a dumb "heat of the moment" tweet.
Ignorance, again.But couldn't successfully advise a client on a dumb "heat of the moment" tweet.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/defence-solicito...
MB140 said:
I do understand the optics of Sir Kier trying to stamp out protests
I don't, using people's liberty to stamp out the disorder of others is not the actions of a just society.The tweet was up for about 3 1/2 hours.
She should have plead not guilty as I describe above, however a suspended sentence or even better community service, would have been a just punishment for the crime of being a moron online.
MB140 said:
When I say two tiered I don’t just mean left vs right politically but also in terms of rich vs poor.
The MP undoubtedly could afford a decent solicitor and bail, she probably not so much and even if not in her case many can’t. They take a guilty plea because they can’t afford to fight it compared to the more affluent.
That’s not justice for all.
Her solicitor must have been the dregs of the barrel but I do understand the optics of Sir Kier trying to stamp out protests and physical violence going on at the time perhaps altering the solicitors advice.
You don't have to like what's happened with Jones - I don't - but that's what happens with jury trials sometimes.The MP undoubtedly could afford a decent solicitor and bail, she probably not so much and even if not in her case many can’t. They take a guilty plea because they can’t afford to fight it compared to the more affluent.
That’s not justice for all.
Her solicitor must have been the dregs of the barrel but I do understand the optics of Sir Kier trying to stamp out protests and physical violence going on at the time perhaps altering the solicitors advice.
They will sometimes result in what you or I might think are perverse verdicts.
But respectfully that isn't proof of any of the stuff you've just posted.
It's just projection and a bit of a strop because you don't like what's happened.
MB140 said:
Her solicitor must have been the dregs of the barrel but I do understand the optics of Sir Kier trying to stamp out protests and physical violence going on at the time perhaps altering the solicitors advice.
Starmer doesn't have influence over the laws and sentencing guidelines in that instance...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff