O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Med Pie]

Dont forget he hasnt been convicted of anything yet.

Because he got better legal advice and pleaded not guilty, as most of them should have done. However, his guilt is fairly self evident if the same principles and standards are applied, he did actually say that people throats should be cut and emphasised that with a hand movement.

[bule1]

Dont forget he hasnt been convicted of anything yet.

He is on film/video clearly saying "we need to cut their throats and get rid of them", Starmer said anyone inciting trouble (or something to that effect) should be dealt with severly, that statement is clear incitement IMHO. I ask you if Ricky Jones is not convicted would you say that mean he is right to say that or that the legal system is wrong?

[LincsPie]

He is on film/video clearly saying "we need to cut their throats and get rid of them", Starmer said anyone inciting trouble (or something to that effect) should be dealt with severly, that statement is clear incitement IMHO. I ask you if Ricky Jones is not convicted would you say that mean he is right to say that or that the legal system is wrong?

Third possibility - he gets/has got better legal representation to pick holes in the CPS case - you could include that in 'the legal system being wrong' I suppose.

[bule1]

Third possibility - he gets/has got better legal representation to pick holes in the CPS case - you could include that in 'the legal system being wrong' I suppose.

Sort of the 2nd option of the legal system being wrong but a fair point... Stop being reasonable in this thread it is not the norm

[Med Pie]

Third possibility - he gets/has got better legal representation to pick holes in the CPS case - you could include that in 'the legal system being wrong' I suppose.

Everybody has the right to elect trial by jury and many of the convicted should have done just that, as Ricky Greene did. It's long been a criticism of the UK legal system that people are 'scared' in to a guilty plea at the prospect of receiving a much harsher sentence if they don't and solicitors undoubtedly underscored that in this case for various reasons, not necessarily their clients best interests.

I would be very surprised however, if, given the sentencing history of the riots (and don't try and tell me that the courts were not influenced by government pronouncements), RG gets not guilty, his offence should be far less subjective than the Lucy Connolly case for example.

Lucy Connolly said, not quite verbatim 'burn the asylum hotels down for all I care which leaves a lot more room for interpretation than 'slash their throats' Green's comment.

[Elite_Pie]

Lucy Connolly said, not quite verbatim 'burn the asylum hotels down for all I care which leaves a lot more room for interpretation than 'slash their throats' Green's comment.

So here is the verbatim start to the tweet that got her in trouble:

"Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f*cking hotels full of the b@stards for all I care".

Not much room for interpretation in my opinion. As with Ricky Jones, both seem to be a clear incitement of violence. In an ideal world, they should both be made to share a cell for the same amount of time.

[Med Pie]

So here is the verbatim start to the tweet that got her in trouble:

"Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f*cking hotels full of the b@stards for all I care".

Not much room for interpretation in my opinion. As with Ricky Jones, both seem to be a clear incitement of violence. In an ideal world, they should both be made to share a cell for the same amount of time.

So whose words were more likely to have been read and carried influence? Connolly deleted her tweet shortly after but RG's comments were at a large, televised gathering of baying, lefties.

Connolly's words with the addition of 'for all I care', would genuinely, be understood to be harmless rhetoric, born of frustration by most, simply venting whereas RG's comment could be seen more as a direct instruction to commit violence.

[LincsPie]

So whose words were more likely to have been read and carried influence? Connolly deleted her tweet shortly after but RG's comments were at a large, televised gathering of baying, lefties.

Connolly's words with the addition of 'for all I care', would genuinely, be understood to be harmless rhetoric, born of frustration by most, simply venting whereas RG's comment could be seen more as a direct instruction to commit violence.

As you've pointed out somewhere else, the education system is not the best and not everyone is as erudite as yourself, so it's not 'the most' who we should be concerned about, it's the easily influenced at both ends of the political spectrum.

[Elite_Pie]

Connolly's words with the addition of 'for all I care', would genuinely, be understood to be harmless rhetoric, born of frustration by most.

Are you real????

Her words would only be understood to be harmless rhetoric by those who also thought "Set fire to all the f*cking hotels full of the b@stards for all I care".

That appears to include you.

[BigFatPie]

He is on film/video clearly saying "we need to cut their throats and get rid of them", Starmer said anyone inciting trouble (or something to that effect) should be dealt with severly, that statement is clear incitement IMHO. I ask you if Ricky Jones is not convicted would you say that mean he is right to say that or that the legal system is wrong?

His is still an ongoing legal case so the best thing would be is to not comment at all.

Connolly pleaded guilty to incitement during nationwide race based riots. If she was a brown person there would be a lot less upset about it.