Ricky Jones

[BLAZE]

Ye true enough I just couldn't believe the urgency it was given

Anyway, I'm off to the forum that shall not be spoken of so I can be with my brethren

Heil

 

[jack123]

But they pleaded guilty. They admitted they did it. It’s the very definition of a safe conviction.

What part of they were poorly represented legally, do you not understand FFS.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

What part of they were poorly represented legally, do you not understand FFS.

How do you know that? They may well have been. Or they may have just thought they were bang to rights.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

In a strange twist, I’ve found Jacob Rees Mogg making sense for possibly the first time ever.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956379270445752482

 

[jack123]

How do you know that? They may well have been. Or they may have just thought they were bang to rights.

Because a few that have been convicted are serving 3-4 years in the clink, and someone who has said similar is serving no time. So yes, you have to think what advice they were given at the time.

Let’s face it, many people did or are still doing time, were there just one solicitor for them throughout the whole of England?

But along comes the solicitor for the Labour MP, plead not guilty, never meant it blah blah.

There are too many cases of people serving time, for similar online offences, yet a verbal rally of shouting slice people’s throats, is just never meant literally.

How can they not be poorly represented, and Ill informed legally, where another person has been caught hook line and sinker, with a very similar offence, yet walks away scot free,.

I will reiterate again, I have no problem with the chap from the article not going to prison, but come on this is ridiculous .

 

[JackSomething]

In a strange twist, I’ve found Jacob Rees Mogg making sense for possibly the first time ever.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956379270445752482

Oh god, are we entering the era where Rees Mogg is one of the more sensible people?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Oh god, are we entering the era where Rees Mogg is one of the more sensible people?

Wouldn’t that be quite a twist.

 

[jack123]

This chap gets my point across entirely, In just a few words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956439128465359010

Edit: only after clicking on his profile, I realised he has something to do with Reform, which I didn’t know, I don’t like them, but it’s still a good point though.

 

[JackSomething]

This chap gets my point across entirely, In just a few words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956439128465359010

Edit: only after clicking on his profile, I realised he has something to do with Reform, which I didn’t know, I don’t like them, but it’s still a good point though.

I'm honestly wondering if I'm missing something here. It's not 'a game where different tactical strategies lead to vastly different outcomes'. You literally have 2 choices when you're charged with a crime, plead guilty or plead not guilty.

If you decide not guilty then obviously your defence will include some kind of strategy and the more money you have to pay for legal representation, the better those strategies will be. It's been this way forever, why is it these two cases are causing people to lose their minds (other than the obvious political reasons that is)?

 

[MajorR]

We’ve seen a lot of claims about two tier justice this week, most of them coming from politicians, influencers and commentators who are pushing the case for their own ends, what is clear if they took time to familiarise themselves with the facts they may have more understanding of what happened and why. It’s also interesting that Jacob Rees Mogg has come out and said there is no two tier justice which undermines the argue nets of Philip et al.

The Secret Barrister has published an article concerning the Ricky Jones trial and what is likely to have taken place. It’s a lengthy read, but it’s interesting (well I thought it was ) and throws light on what has probably happened. The secret barrister looks at the “points to prove” including the specific requirement one of to prove Jones mens rea (state of mind). Specifically, the prosecution had to prove that

The person believed that violent disorder would be committed,
and
The person believed that his act would encourage the commission of violent disorder.

We’ve all seen what happened. If the Prosecution were unable to prove Jones's beliefs and his state of mind about his acts encouraging the commission of violent disorder the case is not proven. It’s that simple.
As it didn’t take the jury long to acquit Jones, the jury must have been pretty unanimous in their thoughts and decision making. There also a useful comparison with the Lucy Connolly case where the Secret Barrister comments on the different legislation - had Jones posted his comments on line he’d have been toast.

In my opinion, Jones has got away with it due to his defence strategy and the prosecutions failure to prove the case. Has Jones committed the offencewith which he was Charged? Clearly not. Is his behaviour irresponsible, ill advised, unacceptable - in my opinion it is and he’s lucky he wasn’t Charged with something else and found guilty. Should he hold public office, my view is that his conduct has shown that he shouldn’t.

There have also been comments about the jury in some places - I think that’s probably down to people watching too much US TV.
Unlike the US where there’s a huge amount of prosecution and defence scrutiny around jury selection, in the UK it’s a random selection.

If I haven’t bored you, read the article. It explains a lot.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025/08/16/why-did-the-jury-acquit-ricky-jones/

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Oh god, are we entering the era where Rees Mogg is one of the more sensible people?

Jacob Rees Mogg, much as I disagree with most of his views, is a proper politician. He believes what he believes and is not swayed by what is currently popular.
Many politicians at the moment, and Chris Philp is a stunning example of this, see also Jenrick, everyone in the parliamentary Reform party and most ridiculously, Rupert Lowe, say what they believe will garner the most online attention and, as a result, will make them money.

I thoroughly dislike many of Rees Mogg’s views, not least on abortion, but he never descends into the populist gutter that so many occupy.

We have witnessed this week something that is almost unthinkable. Conservative politicians claiming some sort of miscarriage of justice (for that is what claims of two tier justice are) because they disagree with the verdict of a properly constituted jury.

This country is going to hell.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

We’ve seen a lot of claims about two tier justice this week, most of them coming from politicians, influencers and commentators who are pushing the case for their own ends, what is clear if they took time to familiarise themselves with the facts they may have more understanding of what happened and why. It’s also interesting that Jacob Rees Mogg has come out and said there is no two tier justice which undermines the argue nets of Philip et al.

The Secret Barrister has published an article concerning the Ricky Jones trial and what is likely to have taken place. It’s a lengthy read, but it’s interesting (well I thought it was ) and throws light on what has probably happened. The secret barrister looks at the “points to prove” including the specific requirement one of to prove Jones mens rea (state of mind). Specifically, the prosecution had to prove that

The person believed that violent disorder would be committed,
and
The person believed that his act would encourage the commission of violent disorder.

We’ve all seen what happened. If the Prosecution were unable to prove Jones's beliefs and his state of mind about his acts encouraging the commission of violent disorder the case is not proven. It’s that simple.
As it didn’t take the jury long to acquit Jones, the jury must have been pretty unanimous in their thoughts and decision making. There also a useful comparison with the Lucy Connolly case where the Secret Barrister comments on the different legislation - had Jones posted his comments on line he’d have been toast.

In my opinion, Jones has got away with it due to his defence strategy and the prosecutions failure to prove the case. Has Jones committed the offencewith which he was Charged? Clearly not. Is his behaviour irresponsible, ill advised, unacceptable - in my opinion it is and he’s lucky he wasn’t Charged with something else and found guilty. Should he hold public office, my view is that his conduct has shown that he shouldn’t.

There have also been comments about the jury in some places - I think that’s probably down to people watching too much US TV.
Unlike the US where there’s a huge amount of prosecution and defence scrutiny around jury selection, in the UK it’s a random selection.

If I haven’t bored you, read the article. It explains a lot.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025/08/16/why-did-the-jury-acquit-ricky-jones/

I read that earlier.

She is very good.

 

[Darran]

Jacob Rees Mogg, much as I disagree with most of his views, is a proper politician. He believes what he believes and is not swayed by what is currently popular.
Many politicians at the moment, and Chris Philp is a stunning example of this, see also Jenrick, everyone in the parliamentary Reform party and most ridiculously, Rupert Lowe, say what they believe will garner the most online attention and, as a result, will make them money.

I thoroughly dislike many of Rees Mogg’s views, not least on abortion, but he never descends into the populist gutter that so many occupy.

We have witnessed this week something that is almost unthinkable. Conservative politicians claiming some sort of miscarriage of justice (for that is what claims of two tier justice are) because they disagree with the verdict of a properly constituted jury.

This country is going to hell.

Yeah you can’t beat a proper politician that believes a woman who gets pregnant after being brutally raped shouldn’t have an abortion.
Top man is Jakey.

 

[Professor]

Jacob Rees Mogg, much as I disagree with most of his views, is a proper politician. He believes what he believes and is not swayed by what is currently popular.
Many politicians at the moment, and Chris Philp is a stunning example of this, see also Jenrick, everyone in the parliamentary Reform party and most ridiculously, Rupert Lowe, say what they believe will garner the most online attention and, as a result, will make them money.

I thoroughly dislike many of Rees Mogg’s views, not least on abortion, but he never descends into the populist gutter that so many occupy.

We have witnessed this week something that is almost unthinkable. Conservative politicians claiming some sort of miscarriage of justice (for that is what claims of two tier justice are) because they disagree with the verdict of a properly constituted jury.

This country is going to hell.

I'm concerned that opposition front benchers are undermining the rule of law and the right to jury trial. There was enough fuss last year when moves were made to reduce the backlog in courts through reducing the number of trials going to Crown Court. Unfortunately memories are short and intellect lacking in too many. Easier to blame migrants than accept austerity, Brexit, ineptitude and corruption are the cause of the mess. Whoever won last years election was getting the biggest hospital pass of all time. Reform are clearly the answer is you want a complete descent into dystopia. Handmaid's Tale, Hunger Games and Maze Runner have all been popular of late. We may get chance to live them.

 

[Darran]

I was thinking about the wheelchair racist at the Liverpool game on Friday.
Have they actually got a recording or footage of what he said.
Going by the current evidence on the surface so for this incident it seems easier to get off it by pleading not guilty than the Ricky Jones case.

He’ll Never Walk Alone.