Man given suspended sentence for sending racist death threats to Rishi Sunak

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Leader Live

32 minutes ago

Leader Live

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: '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.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'

William F Buckley, gentleman revolutionary and word-drunk dandy

Times

4 hours ago

Times

William F Buckley, gentleman revolutionary and word-drunk dandy

The myriad of bien pensant western liberals reeling before the seemingly unstoppable Trumpist juggernaut would do well to read this book. One of the things they will learn from it is that the present US government, if it can be called that, is fulfilling a mission that is more than a century old. As Sam Tanenhaus writes at the start of his masterly biography of William F Buckley Jr, his subject, a public intellectual and highly influential journalist, 'rightly saw himself less as founder than heir' of the conservative movement in America. Buckley's father, William F Sr, a south Texas lawyer of Irish Catholic descent, made a considerable fortune in the oil business, and married a much sought-after beauty, with whom he had ten children. Most of the Buckley brood were bright, some were brilliant, and all were, like their father, arch-conservatives who believed their country was going to hell in a handcart being vigorously propelled by liberals, Jews and opponents of black segregation. They grew up in two great and beautiful houses, one in rural New York state, the other in Camden, South Carolina. They were a fun-loving lot, although deeply religious, and were seriously determined to refound America as one nation under God and the Wasps. They would have deplored Donald Trump as a vulgar arriviste, but by jingo they would have voted for him. In fact, they would support anyone, any scoundrel, crook or tyrant, who they felt could be depended on to further the conservative cause and fight communism wherever it reared its collective head. Buckley Jr cultivated the Red-baiting senator Joseph McCarthy, the egregious lawyer and future Trump enabler Roy Cohn, the diehard segregationist senator George Wallace, although he found him personally repulsive, and General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean despot and mass murderer. Pinochet was judged to have been responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of his opponents, but Buckley would have none of it; the general 'told me otherwise', he said, and as his biographer observes, 'for Bill Buckley that was good enough'. Although Buckley, born in 1925, was a 'radical conservative' from his earliest days, he did not show any particular early promise as a political mover and shaker. In his high school years, Tanenhaus writes, 'apart from music, which he worked at with discipline and zeal, his enthusiasms — horses and … sailing — seemed those not of the future leader of an intellectual movement but of a country squire's pampered younger son'. However, at Millbrook private school, in Dutchess County, New York, the 'Young Mahster', as one of Buckley's sisters dubbed him, came under the considerable influence of Edward Pulling, an inspirational teacher for whom 'community service was nearly a fetish', Tanenhaus writes. 'Responsibility,' Pulling told his pupils, 'cannot be learnt only by hearing about it; one must actually experience it.' And indeed throughout his life Buckley fulfilled diligently his various obligations, as he saw them, to his family, to his religious faith and to his country, right or wrong. He had not the slightest doubt that America was the world's greatest nation, and that its greatest task was the defeat of international communism. If some moral corners had to be cut in carrying out that task, so be it. At 14, in 1940, he became 'an ardent member' of the America First Committee, part of the isolationist movement 'remembered today', Tanenhaus notes, 'for its antisemitic and pro-Nazi associations'. The committee's specific aim was to fight Roosevelt's Lend-Lease scheme, under which the US sent warships to join in the British fight against Nazi Germany. • The 9 best politics books of the past year to read next At Millbrook, under Pulling's tutelage, Buckley proved a brilliant public speaker — throughout his life his greatest and most persuasive gift was for intellectual debate, even if at times he reduced his contests to the level of slanging matches. This was the case most famously in a TV prizefight during the 1968 presidential elections in which he was matched against the redoubtable Gore Vidal. At one point Buckley flew into a rage and snarled at Vidal, 'Now, listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered.' Vidal, of course, was delighted to hear his despised rival losing it in such a coarse fashion on national television. As for Buckley, the incident haunted him to the end of his days. Oddly, perhaps, it also provoked speculation as to Buckley's own sexual orientation. His wife, Pat, the socialite empress of Manhattan, asked by a journalist how she was holding up in the aftermath of the televised debacle, said ruefully: 'I'll tell you how I am. Two hundred million Americans think William F Buckley is a screaming homosexual.' Tanenhaus quotes A Scott Berg, the biographer of the America First leader and aviator Charles Lindbergh, saying of Buckley: 'He's so gay.' That televised display of fury was an aberration. Buckley, unlike his thuggish hero McCarthy, for instance, was usually the epitome of New England suavity and southern charm. He had a gift for friendship, and not just among fellow conservatives; some of his allegiances were highly improbable. He was close to the economist and liberal intellectual John Kenneth Galbraith, and he had the highest regard for the novelist Norman Mailer, whose pugnaciousness he prized and whose prose style he revered — 'He makes the most beautiful metaphors in the business.' His own literary style was elegant, indeed dandyish, elaborate and word-drunk. His first language was Spanish — he grew up in Mexico, where the family lived for some years, and Spanish was the language of parents and children alike — which may be part of the reason why throughout his life he gloried in the riches of the English tongue. He was a logophile, and loved obscure and little-used words, such as logophile. • Searching for the roots of Trumpism? Go back to 1992 At Yale in the late 1940s he wrote for and eventually took over the Yale Daily News. He proved himself an excellent journalist, and used his position on the student newspaper to excoriate the university itself for its liberal outlook and its tolerance, as he saw it, of left-wing academics. It was good training for the project that would be his lifelong love, and the pulpit from which he could preach the doctrine of radical conservatism: the magazine National Review, which he founded in 1955 and edited until 1990. He used his widely read column in the Review to back the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater in his disastrous presidential campaign in 1964, and helped his old pal Ronald Reagan to win the White House in 1980, a victory that ushered in the conservative remake of America that Buckley had been advocating for so long. He and his staff at the Review were euphoric, to the point of delusional grandeur. When the winning result came in, the magazine warned its readers that from now on there would be no more levity in its pages: 'We have a nation to run.' Was Buckley the political and social force in American life that Tanenhaus takes him to have been? Certainly in the National Review, and in his popular weekly TV talk show Firing Line, he promoted the conservative cause relentlessly, using wit and a polished style to charm, flatter and, he hoped, win over his readers and viewers. He was surely not the only begetter of, as Tanenhaus's subtitle has it, 'the revolution that changed America', but certainly he was as politically influential as anyone could be who did not hold political office. Buckley is a magnificent work of history as well as of biography, and is as relevant to these parlous times as it is revelatory of Buckley and his times. Tanenhaus, a former editor of The New York Times Book Review, and Buckley's choice as his biographer, has an encyclopaedic grasp of his subject, his prose is clear-running, unassertive and elegant, and his judgments are sound throughout. Not the least of Buckley's attractions is that not only is it beautifully written and scrupulously edited, it is also that rare thing nowadays, a model of the book-maker's craft — and it is printed on acid-free paper, so it will last for generations. Well done, Random House. Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America by Sam Tanenhaus (Random House £33 pp1040). To order a copy go to Free UK standard P&P on orders over £25. Special discount available for Times+ members

Rhyl Journal

7 hours ago

Rhyl Journal

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: '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.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'

Man given suspended sentence for sending racist death threats to Rishi Sunak

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

William F Buckley, gentleman revolutionary and word-drunk dandy

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Man given suspended sentence for sending racist death threats to Rishi Sunak

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

William F Buckley, gentleman revolutionary and word-drunk dandy

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Get Started Now: Download the App