Labour councillor Ricky Jones, caught on video calling for anti-migrant protesters’ throats to be cut, has been cleared of encouraging violent disorder. The Mail has the details.
Ricky Jones made the inflammatory comments at a counter-demonstration in North London in response to anti-migrant rallies sparked by the Southport stabbings.
In a video from the event in Walthamstow on August 7th, 2024, Jones is seen telling cheering supporters: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”
The 58 year-old also drew his finger across his throat as he spoke to the crowd.
However, jurors at Snaresbrook Crown Court found him not guilty of encouraging violent disorder this morning after deliberating for just over half an hour.
Former Home Secretary and Tory leadership candidate James Cleverly called the verdict “perverse”.
He wrote on X: “This is unacceptable. Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn’t a dispassionate criminal justice system.”
Meanwhile, Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf has said the decision showed “two tier justice in this country is out of control”.
‘The Labour councillor literally caught on video calling for people to slit the throats of his political opponents has been found not guilty,” he said.
“Meanwhile Lucy Connolly gets 31 months in jail? Two tier justice in this country is out of control.”
Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing “threatening or abusive” written material on social media which meant she did not face a trial.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
38 Comments
Newest
OldestMost Voted
RTSC
1 year ago
I’m not in the least bit surprised this left-wing, black, Labour Party Councillor was let off his blatant incitement to violence.
Just like left-wing, black Bob Vylan ….. who are still not charged despite their blatant incitement to violence. Or the BBC, which broadcast it to the world.
“Justice” in the UK has been shattered by mass immigration and multiculturalism …. just like everything else.
DontPanic
1 year ago
Lucy was advised to plead guilty because if not she could have had the maximum sentence of around a decade. But the two tier system here is the fact that they were both remanded but he got bail and she didn’t
Jackthegripper
1 year ago
Just as the moronic nutters that tossed Colston’s stature into Bristol harbour were found not guilty so to this vile little man has been let of by a jury of his peers.
If this type of behaviour is acceptable to many ‘responsible’ citizens perhaps trial without jury wouldn’t be such a bad think!
Lurker
1 year ago
The likelihood is had Lucy not pleaded guilty she would most likely have been found not guilty.
However it appears that she (and others) were advised to plead guilty and they would get a short/non custodial sentence where as going not guilty was going to be months on remand.
The real “2 tier” issue appears to be that she and others were remanded and therefore pressured to plead guilty while he got bail…
It’s far easier to go not guilty (and get the legal advice to help you) when you’re out on bail rather than on remand…
Wroxetan
1 year ago
The key point is he was given bail whereas Lucy and Peter were immediately imprisoned and coerced to plead guilty and put before corrupt judges. despite inducements of clemency they were given the most savage sentences available by those despicable judges.
The Labour man had the luxury of bail and funded legal representation.
Westfieldmike
1 year ago
It’s right out in the open, and they don’t care.
NeilParkin
1 year ago
My only comment is that considering the grievances are so old, and long established they must have blighted his life many times. Does anyone know if other instances were presented to the court by way of mitigation..?
thechap
1 year ago
Not for a moment do I believe that he should have been prosecuted for what he said. His alleged ‘threat’ wasn’t specific enough for me, or sufficiently directed.
Not for a moment do I think Lucy Connolly or Peter Lynch should have been prosecuted, *especially* Peter Lynch, for the same reasons. In my opinion, I think they were both given criminally shocking poor advice.
I 100% believe that Lucy Connolly should be massively compensated for her incarceration, and the family of Peter Lynch should be compensated. The ‘System’ should issue a grovelling apology, and the Government should fall over the whole affair.
Marque1
1 year ago
So I can call for him to be beaten to a pulp with a pick handle. Sounds like a plan.
pjar
1 year ago
Of course, if he had expressed his indifference to the cutting of throats, by adding “for all I care”, as Connolly did in what we are obliged to refer to as ‘her vile tweet’, the outcome may have been rather different .
NickR
1 year ago
This verdict highlights that the Connolly verdict was the ‘perverse’ one, not the Jones decision.
Juries on the whole get the right answer.
The perverse decision was that of the judge in the J C case, Melbourne Inman, & LCs solicitor who advised her to plead guilty.
Tonka Rigger
1 year ago
A well-picked jury.
stewart
1 year ago
Good. If it wasn’t an incitement to violence.likely to lead to an imminent attack, it should be allowed.
Far-Right (adj): Ordinary people who peacefully object to their towns and villages being swamped with young, single men from countries where women and children are treated as sub-human, and who have been accommodated in nice hotels; enjoying a free and easy life protected by a state hostile to its own citizens and which actively encourages and abets Marxist agitators.
Snaresbrook Crown Court jurors come from Londonistan. But the real lesson here is never admit an offence, never accept a police caution – and don’t plead guilty!
JXB
1 year ago
I’m shocked.
I wonder what the ethnic make-up of the jury was.
Snaresbrook in the 2011 census was 57% White – I doubt it’s that high now.
mickie
1 year ago
Does anyone really think he was going to be found guilty? Really??
Connolly, O’Rourke and the rest of them that were wrongfully jailed for tweets have surely got grounds to sue their solicitor for giving them duff advice. Naively they assumed these professionals were advising them whilst acting in their best interests. Understandable when you never ever foresaw yourself getting into trouble with the law just for posting comments, let alone possibly sent down. I don’t know if anybodys had success doing this ever but I’d be livid if that were my family member and I’m seeing the likes of this Labour guy let off because he received completely different advice. It just reeks of a set up and a rigged system. These people now have criminal records for life. Poor Peter Lynch would still be with us too.
It’s messed up on every level.
This predictable verdict appears calculated to increase the suffering of those still incarcerated for impulsively expressing equally furious hyperbole.
The other possibility is that the barrister was effective in his case. After all, Conolly pleaded guilty.
soundofreason
1 year ago
Just over half an hour? They could not have even summarised the evidence in that little time.
hogsbreath
1 year ago
When you control the levers of power and justice, you can spit in your opponents eyes and tell him/her to cry some more. The law only applies to the opposition political party and their supporters or those ideologically aligned.
Mogwai
1 year ago
Shame on that jury. Is it because he’s not white? He was really milking the ”I was traumatized in childhood due to being racially abused” card, by all accounts. I’m not sure ordinary members of the public can be trusted any more. However, he did plead ‘not guilty’, which I think makes all the difference. Peter Lynch died because he was wrongly advised to plead guilty;
”The jury reached a not guilty verdict in less than an hour for Labour councillor Ricky Jones, despite Jones being filmed calling counter-protestors “disgusting Nazi fascists”, and told a mob of fellow socialists to “cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”
Peter Lynch died in prison. Lucy Connolly remains incarcerated for 31 months, for a deleted tweet. Neither imminently incited violence like Jones.
Jones invented a sob story of having ADHD, dyslexia, and experiencing racial abuse four decades ago.
I doubt this jury would have afforded a white Englishman, protesting against illegal migrants, the same leniency.
Britain no longer has a blind justice system: it punishes the state’s political enemies, while letting its ideological footsoldiers walk free.
According to ‘the word on the street’, many of those jailed were told to plead guilty, or risk having months on remand. A guilty plea would see them home in a day or two. So, if you’ve never been in that situation, have limited advice, and no experience of courts, what do you do.?
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m not in the least bit surprised this left-wing, black, Labour Party Councillor was let off his blatant incitement to violence.
Just like left-wing, black Bob Vylan ….. who are still not charged despite their blatant incitement to violence. Or the BBC, which broadcast it to the world.
“Justice” in the UK has been shattered by mass immigration and multiculturalism …. just like everything else.
Lucy was advised to plead guilty because if not she could have had the maximum sentence of around a decade. But the two tier system here is the fact that they were both remanded but he got bail and she didn’t
Just as the moronic nutters that tossed Colston’s stature into Bristol harbour were found not guilty so to this vile little man has been let of by a jury of his peers.
If this type of behaviour is acceptable to many ‘responsible’ citizens perhaps trial without jury wouldn’t be such a bad think!
The likelihood is had Lucy not pleaded guilty she would most likely have been found not guilty.
However it appears that she (and others) were advised to plead guilty and they would get a short/non custodial sentence where as going not guilty was going to be months on remand.
The real “2 tier” issue appears to be that she and others were remanded and therefore pressured to plead guilty while he got bail…
It’s far easier to go not guilty (and get the legal advice to help you) when you’re out on bail rather than on remand…
The key point is he was given bail whereas Lucy and Peter were immediately imprisoned and coerced to plead guilty and put before corrupt judges. despite inducements of clemency they were given the most savage sentences available by those despicable judges.
The Labour man had the luxury of bail and funded legal representation.
It’s right out in the open, and they don’t care.
My only comment is that considering the grievances are so old, and long established they must have blighted his life many times. Does anyone know if other instances were presented to the court by way of mitigation..?
Not for a moment do I believe that he should have been prosecuted for what he said. His alleged ‘threat’ wasn’t specific enough for me, or sufficiently directed.
Not for a moment do I think Lucy Connolly or Peter Lynch should have been prosecuted, *especially* Peter Lynch, for the same reasons. In my opinion, I think they were both given criminally shocking poor advice.
I 100% believe that Lucy Connolly should be massively compensated for her incarceration, and the family of Peter Lynch should be compensated. The ‘System’ should issue a grovelling apology, and the Government should fall over the whole affair.
So I can call for him to be beaten to a pulp with a pick handle. Sounds like a plan.
Of course, if he had expressed his indifference to the cutting of throats, by adding “for all I care”, as Connolly did in what we are obliged to refer to as ‘her vile tweet’, the outcome may have been rather different .
This verdict highlights that the Connolly verdict was the ‘perverse’ one, not the Jones decision.
Juries on the whole get the right answer.
The perverse decision was that of the judge in the J C case, Melbourne Inman, & LCs solicitor who advised her to plead guilty.
A well-picked jury.
Good. If it wasn’t an incitement to violence.likely to lead to an imminent attack, it should be allowed.
Two wrongs don’t.make a right.
I tend to agree
It’s also good because it vindicates Connolly- not that she needed to be
“Far right protesters”. Sorry but can whoever wrote that headline please define exactly what they mean by that phrase?
Far-Right (adj): Ordinary people who peacefully object to their towns and villages being swamped with young, single men from countries where women and children are treated as sub-human, and who have been accommodated in nice hotels; enjoying a free and easy life protected by a state hostile to its own citizens and which actively encourages and abets Marxist agitators.
Tell me where I’m wrong, downticker. Please.
Snaresbrook Crown Court jurors come from Londonistan. But the real lesson here is never admit an offence, never accept a police caution – and don’t plead guilty!
I’m shocked.
I wonder what the ethnic make-up of the jury was.
Snaresbrook in the 2011 census was 57% White – I doubt it’s that high now.
Does anyone really think he was going to be found guilty? Really??
It does make me wonder whether Lucy Connoly and Peter Lynch were well advised. Will their solicitors be found to have been negligent? Probably not.
They were most certainly not well advised – they were railroaded into pleading guilty.
Makes an interesting comparison with surgeons. Who wants the surgeon with the crap success/survival numbers?
Bullied by 2TKs promise of spending a long time on remand.
Connolly, O’Rourke and the rest of them that were wrongfully jailed for tweets have surely got grounds to sue their solicitor for giving them duff advice. Naively they assumed these professionals were advising them whilst acting in their best interests. Understandable when you never ever foresaw yourself getting into trouble with the law just for posting comments, let alone possibly sent down. I don’t know if anybodys had success doing this ever but I’d be livid if that were my family member and I’m seeing the likes of this Labour guy let off because he received completely different advice. It just reeks of a set up and a rigged system. These people now have criminal records for life. Poor Peter Lynch would still be with us too.
It’s messed up on every level.
Can the solicitors involved be named and shamed?
This predictable verdict appears calculated to increase the suffering of those still incarcerated for impulsively expressing equally furious hyperbole.
There are only two possibilities here:
1) The jury decided to support free speech.
2) The government packed the jury.
Which is it?
A guinea to a gooseberry says it’s 2).
The other possibility is that the barrister was effective in his case. After all, Conolly pleaded guilty.
Just over half an hour? They could not have even summarised the evidence in that little time.
When you control the levers of power and justice, you can spit in your opponents eyes and tell him/her to cry some more. The law only applies to the opposition political party and their supporters or those ideologically aligned.
Shame on that jury. Is it because he’s not white? He was really milking the ”I was traumatized in childhood due to being racially abused” card, by all accounts. I’m not sure ordinary members of the public can be trusted any more. However, he did plead ‘not guilty’, which I think makes all the difference. Peter Lynch died because he was wrongly advised to plead guilty;
”The jury reached a not guilty verdict in less than an hour for Labour councillor Ricky Jones, despite Jones being filmed calling counter-protestors “disgusting Nazi fascists”, and told a mob of fellow socialists to “cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”
Peter Lynch died in prison. Lucy Connolly remains incarcerated for 31 months, for a deleted tweet. Neither imminently incited violence like Jones.
Jones invented a sob story of having ADHD, dyslexia, and experiencing racial abuse four decades ago.
I doubt this jury would have afforded a white Englishman, protesting against illegal migrants, the same leniency.
Britain no longer has a blind justice system: it punishes the state’s political enemies, while letting its ideological footsoldiers walk free.
This cannot go on.”
https://x.com/Con_Tomlinson/status/1956348206893125843
Half an hours deliberation? Not hard to imagine the sort of scum on the jury.Two tier everything now.
No, the point is that Lucy Connolly had pleaded not guilty & got herself infant of a jury, she too would have walked free.
According to ‘the word on the street’, many of those jailed were told to plead guilty, or risk having months on remand. A guilty plea would see them home in a day or two. So, if you’ve never been in that situation, have limited advice, and no experience of courts, what do you do.?
Who was the duty solicitor that day? Starmer?
The main difference was the bail situation. Jones got bail, Connolly didn’t.
I do think Connoly’s solicitor has some questions to answer.