• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Societal collapse?

I can think a jury got it wrong, I often do.

But what exactly is the complaint here? Ordinary people don't understand the law and shouldn't be trusted to make these kind of decisions? I have some sympathy with that viewpoint.

Now try and go on a Brexity Facebook page and say "jury trials should be abolished" and see what reaction you get.
 
I think the complaint is that there are different rules depending on who you are.

If you think that what this labour bloke said is as bad was what Lucy Connelly tweeted, but see different outcomes, it reinforces the view of two tier justice.

The mechanics of how that's achieved then becomes "evidence" of the disparity.
 
More like there are different rules depending on how you plead. Mind-bending stuff I know.
 
The similarities between what?

The offence and non-offence? Yes, absolutely.

The outcome? Not really, not even in the same ballpark. It's not like-for-like in the slightest.

And the batshit conspiracy (not from you) is that people espousing horrible right wing/racist views get disproportionately punished, isn't it? Well cry me a fucking river. Chat shit, get banged (up).
 
AndyWolves said:
I think the complaint is that there are different rules depending on who you are.

If you think that what this labour bloke said is as bad was what Lucy Connelly tweeted, but see different outcomes, it reinforces the view of two tier justice.

The mechanics of how that's achieved then becomes "evidence" of the disparity.
Click to expand...

It’s a mendacious complaint though. People who plead guilty tend to get guilty verdicts. See Tommy Robinson. Lucy Connelly pleaded guilty, it isn’t remotely the same as pleading not guilty and a jury finding the same. The same rules were applied in both circumstances, it was the decisions made by the individuals concerned that shaped the outcomes.
 
How different were the actual acts though, really? One's having a takeaway tonight and one's in actual prison.

To be clear, I think she's a nasty thick cunt.
 
Del Woppio said:
How different were the actual acts though, really? One's having a takeaway tonight and one's in actual prison.

To be clear, I think she's a nasty thick cunt.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter does it.

Let's say you and I both mutually decide that chucking a brick through a chippy's window is a good idea.

The one I smashed up is pissed off but can't be arsed with the hassle of calling the police and just gets his window fixed tomorrow.

You're unlucky as your man saw you, recognised you as a regular chip eater, reported you and now you're doing Community Service for a while. Enjoy.

The fact that the offence is the same is irrelevant.

And Connolly is a cunt and anyone defending her is a cunt.
 
I'm not asking for legalese, either. Just common sense comparison, a real opinion.

If for example this was ten names Tommy saying this about about Palestine Action, attitudes would be different.

What he said was disgusting and violent and has no place on the streets of this country, and I'm staggered that people can say that 'not guilty' is a reasonable position
 
I am not sure i have said it was reasonable or not. Not guilty is the legal position. I set out originally that this was not two tier justice. It is an example of a functioning judicial system, and a functioning judicial system sometimes comes to conclusions that people disagree with or find difficult to understand. Sometimes a functioning judicial system comes to the wrong outcome.

I was not present in court to properly examine and consider the prosecution and defence cases but it is more likely than not that the proesection did not meet the threshold to convict on the charge they were considering in the minds of the jury. A jury does not have the option to come to a conclusion on a charge they are not asked to consider.

Such deliberation did not happen in the Connolly case because she pleaded guilty of the charges laid against her and her comments were racially motivated She could then only offer mitigation whereas Jones successfully argued that he had no intent. The jury accepted his explanation.

As an aside, I believe that Connelly's sentence was harsh...but i dont care.
 
Yes yes I get all that.

But how does it make you feel? What are your actual thoughts? Play a hypothetical with me.

Ignoring optics and politics and burdens of proof and charge levels, just focusing on the actual acts.

You're king, police, law, judge, jury and executioner - they're both in front of you, and you know what they've said and when.

What do you do?
 
Del Woppio said:
Yes yes I get all that.

But how does it make you feel? What are your actual thoughts? Play a hypothetical with me.

Ignoring optics and politics and burdens of proof and charge levels, just focusing on the actual acts.

You're king, police, law, judge, jury and executioner - they're both in front of you, and you know what they've said and when.

What do you do?
Click to expand...
I feel contempt for the racist and empathy for the anti racist.

That's why we have rules that appear to have been followed in both cases so justice, even when it is imperfect, isn't based on "feels".

It is this narrative that has helped emboldened the racists.
 
I said focusing on the actual acts. You're focusing on the people and their beliefs.

What they did/said wasn't dissimilar. Certainly not different enough to result in one spending a year in prison while the other gets off without punishment.

They both made a disgusting, unambiguous public call to violence. One is a racist, one is not. That shouldn't be enough for such a wild disparity in consequence.
 
Del Woppio said:
I said focusing on the actual acts. You're focusing on the people and their beliefs.

What they did/said wasn't dissimilar. Certainly not different enough to result in one spending a year in prison while the other gets off without punishment.

They both made a disgusting, unambiguous public call to violence. One is a racist, one is not. That shouldn't be enough for such a wild disparity in consequence.
Click to expand...
If the acts are the same (or very similar) but the outcome is different you can understand why people think there are different "rules" depending on which is group is perpetrating.

For the avoidance of doubt i think both are abhorrent.
 
I would feel the same way because one is a racist and the other isn't.

The wild disparity in consequence has got nothing to do with what they said...one was found not guilty, the other pleaded guilty. Had Jones been found guilty, the sentencing guidelines allow for a similar sentence to Connolly. The disparity in consequence is simply down to how justice works.

Connolly also appealed her sentence and it was found not to be excessive. Her argument that she didn't know what she was pleading guilty to (inciting racial hatred) was not accepted as credible by the appeal court. Her racist comment that she deleted was not an isolated one, there were others before and after.

She could have chosen to plead not guilty and argue her case in front of a jury. It would have been uncomfortable to have her racism put on trial but a jury might have come to.a different conclusion and not found her guilty. That is an option she took away from herself.

As far as I can tell, Jones comments were isolated to this event, in a particular context and, the jury believed, did not amount to inciting others to violence. That is their role, to make that call based on the evidence presented. They took 30 minutes.

I think Connolly's sentence was harsh but I haven't lost any sleep over it. I don't think this is evidence of two tier justice but may indicate that the law and/or sentencing guidelines are not fit for purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top