Labour councillor cleared over cutting throats comment at rally
A video showing Jones addressing crowds on Hoe Street in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 last year went viral on social media after the protest, which had been organised in response to plans for a far-right march outside Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau.
The now-suspended councillor, wearing a black polo top and surrounded by cheering supporters, said: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.'
He also drew his finger across his throat as he spoke to the crowd.
Jurors deliberated for just over half an hour and found him not guilty on Friday.
The 58-year-old, who at the time was also employed as a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) union, was arrested on August 8 last year and interviewed at Brixton police station that night.
Jones, who has been a borough councillor in Dartford, Kent, since 2019, was suspended by the Labour Party the day after the incident.
Prosecutor Ben Holt previously told the court Jones, a father of four and grandfather, used 'inflammatory, rabble-rousing language in the throng of a crowd described as a tinderbox'.
He told jurors Jones's speech was amplified through a microphone and speakers and took place 'in a setting where violence could readily have been anticipated'.
Giving evidence in his trial, Jones said his comment did not refer to far-right protesters involved in the riots at the time, but to those who had reportedly left National Front stickers on a train with razor blades hidden behind them.
Before he made the comment, jurors were shown video where he said to crowds: 'You've got women and children using these trains during the summer holidays.
'They don't give a shit about who they hurt.'
He told the court he was 'appalled' by political violence, adding: 'I've always believed the best way to make people realise who you are and what you are is to do it peacefully.'
Jones, who said he was on the left of the Labour Party, previously told jurors the riots had made him feel 'upset' and 'angry' and said he felt it was his 'duty' to attend counter-protests, despite being warned to stay away from such demonstrations by the Labour Party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has carried through one of the worst legacies of Tony Blair: ‘lawyer brain'
The recent spectacle of the Metropolitan police rounding up 500 peaceful protestors, half of them pensioners, for supporting a 'terrorist organisation' whose terrorist activities include spraying some paint on an empty plane does have one saving grace: it makes it clear what the Labour Party thinks about the public's right to dissent. Keir Starmer has been fond of juridical high-handedness for as long as he has been the Prime Minister: following the riots in Southport last year, he supported the police's round-up of over thirty people for their indiscretions on X, arguing that such posts were 'not free speech', and promising that online instigators would feel 'the full force of the law'. Now, the same treatment is being visited on middle-class, middle-aged liberals. Interestingly, though, rather than making any moral arguments in favour of the proscription, Labour partisans have decided that the best tactic is to keep repeating the statutes that enact it. Dan Jarvis argues that 'the UK's definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since'; Lord Hanson of Flint spent most of a recent Lords debate repeating the line 'the terms of the proscription are clear' (as if, say, the Nuremberg Laws weren't pretty clear too). The fact that anyone in the Labour Party finds this kind of thing even remotely satisfying, or even coherent, suggests that the party is in the throes of a very specific pathology: 'lawyer brain'. In its broadest form, 'lawyer brain' is the belief that legislation alone can solve all human problems, and that the law is the law, whether it is ethically sound or not. Anything can be justified, provided it meets arbitrary legal standards of legality. Elderly protestors can be arrested if they meet definitions of 'terrorism'. Online posters can be rounded up if they meet definitions of 'incitement'. It certainly seems to capture something about Keir Starmer – a former lawyer whose former nickname, according to a leaked 2022 Labour memo, was 'Mr. Rules.' In this respect, Starmer is part of a long case-history of 'lawyer brain' in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps the worst offenders came from the Blair government, whose seasoned lawyer-politicians – Tony Blair, Lord Irvine, Jack Straw – passed a frenzied set of statutes and constitutional reforms without much in the way of democratic consensus. Urban crime was to be tackled by the invention of new, quasi-criminal categories like the 'ASBO'; broken families were to be fixed with 'parenting orders'; political violence was to be tackled by an enormous raft of new anti-terror legislation, that conveniently rolled back all those bothersome rights to privacy and fair treatment under the law that prior statutes had codified. Much of this new legislation was nonsensical with loopholes; it caused the day to day running of the country to be beset by legal challenge, and left a lot of citizens – peaceful protestors, for example – with far fewer rights than they had before. In Blair's New Labour, 'lawyer brain' took root for one reason above all else: it was the perfect instrument for justifying the actions of a party which technically had a large mandate, but which was, in real terms, haemorrhaging public support. 'Lawyer brain' was a kind of magic: given that whatever was lawful was, by definition, right, all an incumbent party had to do was write new legislation, invent new legal categories, and it could be justified in any pursuit – abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, invading Iraq. It's no wonder Starmer – who possesses what must be one of the greatest discrepancies between parliamentary majority and public popularity in British history – is so susceptible to it. But government by diktat also has its drawbacks. As convincing as the arguments of 'lawyer brain' are to other lawyers, they remain unimpressive to the public. In Blair's case, the final straw came with Lord Goldsmith's mealy-mouthed declaration of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. In Starmer's, it seems to be working through accretion. Almost every well-touted 'communication failure' of Starmer's can be explained by the same, mad legalism: the man won't talk about gilt markets, or pension funds; he has to keep talking about the OBR and its arcane rules. He seems incapable of assessing the morality of what's going on in migrant hotels, or Gaza; he can only about international law, as though he were still back in the halls of Matrix Chambers. No wonder he has slumped to remarkable depths in the polls, and is facing considerable dissent from within his own party. He is on the verge of discovering what most of us knew already: that lawyers might be pretty good at getting their way, but they're not exactly well-liked.
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Sir Keir Starmer accused of 'Houdini-like contortions' to avoid rebuking Peter Mandelson over 'flagrant breach' of diplomatic rules
Sir Keir Starmer was accused last night of 'Houdini-like contortions' to avoid rebuking Peter Mandelson over a 'flagrant breach' of diplomatic service rules. The Prime Minister faced pressure to explain how Lord Mandelson, now UK ambassador to the US, had not flouted clear political impartiality rules by speaking at a Labour party fundraiser. The accusations came after the Mail on Sunday revealed that the ex-Labour Cabinet Minister had spoken at an event earlier this summer to raise money for Labour MPs' Gregor Poynton and Imogen Walker, wife of Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Labour responded at the time by insisting that Lord Mandelson, chosen over career diplomats by Sir Keir to be his man to deal with Donald Trump, had attended the event 'in a personal capacity' and did not play 'any formal role in it'. But the row dramatically escalated yesterday after the Government appeared to suggest that the manner of Lord Mandelson's appointment would affect how strict diplomatic service rules were applied. Sir Oliver Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, insisted that the code – which requires diplomats to observe 'political impartiality' – would be applied against the 'backdrop' that Lord Mandelson was directly appointed by Ministers. In a letter sent to Tory frontbencher Richard Holden last month, Sir Oliver insisted that Lord Mandelson – who is currently 'on leave of absence' from the House of Lords - was 'aware of his obligations under the Code'. He then added: 'Lord Mandelson was directly appointed to the role by Ministers to take advantage of his political experience and skill, and he and I will continue to apply the Code against that backdrop.' The Prime Minister faced pressure to explain how Lord Mandelson (pictured), now UK ambassador to the US, had not flouted clear political impartiality rules by speaking at a Labour party fundraiser Sir Oliver Robbins (pictured), the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, insisted that the code – which requires diplomats to observe 'political impartiality' – would be applied against the 'backdrop' that Lord Mandelson was directly appointed by Ministers However, the Tories reacted in fury last night, with sources suggesting the Labour peer had only escaped punishment because of his party-political links. They filed formal complaints against both Lord Mandelson and Sir Oliver. Alex Burghart, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: 'This is a flagrant breach of the Diplomatic Code from Peter Mandelson. 'Whatever his party-political allegiances, he is now the UK's ambassador to Washington and the rules still apply to him.' Mr Burghart added: 'Keir Starmer is guilty of Houdini-like contortions to make it appear that everything is above board. 'It is not. 'As with so many of the PM's promises, his pledge in Opposition to clean up politics was worthless.' Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday asked Foreign Office officials to point to the relevant part of the code which would exempt Lord Mandelson's appearance at the fundraiser. A Government spokesperson replied: 'It is for the Department to oversee and manage the implementation of this code for its staff, exactly as it would be for other government departments with the Civil Service Code. 'The Permanent Secretary has exercised his role in relation to the matter and set this out in his letter.'
Telegraph
17 hours ago
- Telegraph
Now we have proof free speech is a joke in two-tier Britain
After Labour councillor Ricky Jones stood at a demonstration in Walthamstow decrying 'disgusting Nazi fascists' and telling a crowd through a microphone that 'we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all', a jury of Mr Jones's peers cleared him of any offence. When Lucy Connolly – married to a Tory councillor – posted on social media 'set fire to all the f-----g hotels full of all the b------s for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it', she chose to plead guilty under apparent pressure from the state. Ms Connolly is currently serving a 31-month prison sentence, at times on a 23-hour lockdown confined to her cell with no privileges, for her ill-tempered words. Others, who stood their ground, walked free. The results were still unpleasant – the process is in part the punishment – but better than they might otherwise have been. It is hard not to feel that the difference between the two cases is less a matter of law than politics. Lucy Connolly was denied bail as Sir Keir Starmer and the judiciary worked on their 'shared understanding' that anyone expressing sentiments that could have encouraged last year's riots needed to be made an example of. Sir Keir himself told the nation that individuals would be held on remand. The Home Office openly risked prejudicing trials by labelling those arrested, charged but not yet convicted as 'criminals'. If there's a lesson here, it may well be that people can say stupid things without the world collapsing around them. And that the public – which did not visibly respond to either exhortation – can be trusted, for the most part, to recognise the distinction between genuinely threatening language and idiocy, both on the streets and in jury deliberations. Unlike our American cousins, British people have only a very qualified right to free speech. While the human rights system appears to go out of its way to undermine attempts to control borders or crack down on crime, protection of speech is heavily caveated. And the British state makes full use of these carve-outs in its attempt to maintain its fragile grip on the country it has built. Its most important aim is to prevent tensions between groups. Speech that might inflame them is subject to stringent oversight and exacting scrutiny by officials terrified of what might spiral out from a frank examination of the country as it is. People on the Left, however, can speak with relative security. The result, in the words of Reform's Zia Yusuf, appears to be 'a country in which those who have the correct 'regime' political views can openly call for their political opponents to be brutally murdered, be filmed doing so, and face no criminal consequences'.
