Tories and Reform decry two-tier justice as suspended Labour councillor cleared
He was cleared on Friday.
Nigel Farage and shadow home secretary Chris Philp both pointed to the idea of 'two-tier justice' in relation to the case.
This is another outrageous example of two-tier justice. https://t.co/FmgtJUzpaE
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) August 15, 2025
Mr Philp compared the case to that of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' and 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks last year.
In a post on X, Mr Philp said: 'The development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.'
Ex-Reform chairman Zia Yusuf also referred to Connolly's case, and said that '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 X, which meant she did not face a trial.
In Jones' case, a jury deliberated for just over half an hour before they found him not guilty.
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.
It is astonishing that Labour councillor Ricky Jones, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot free – whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse.
The development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.…
— Chris Philp MP (@CPhilpOfficial) August 15, 2025
The suspended councillor said in the clip: '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 30 minutes before finding him not guilty.
Jones, who wore a navy blue suit with a white shirt and pale pink tie in the dock, was seen mouthing 'thank-you' at the jurors.
Family and supporters hugged each other before Jones, who declined to comment, was driven out of the court grounds in a car.
The 58-year-old, who at the time was also employed as a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association 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 Labour the day after the incident.
It is understood a party investigation continues and its outcome will decide what happens to his membership.
A spokesperson for the party said at the time his behaviour 'was completely unacceptable and it will not be tolerated'.
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.'
Lawyers said the case cannot be compared to that of Connolly, as they faced different charges and she pleaded guilty while Jones did not.
Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, said in Connolly's case, racially aggravated discourse on social media translated into real-life violence across the country, whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause violent disorder.
Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said: 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal.
'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.'
Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said it was 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately.
She said: '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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
23 minutes ago
- Times
Soaking the rich is the left's new magic money tree
H ow can you tell the difference between an opponent and an enemy? In Westminster your opponents are the ones sitting opposite you. Your enemies are the ones sitting behind. OK, it's an old joke. But it's one that will probably raise a chuckle from Rachel Reeves. Or, rather, a pained grimace. Last year Britain endured a miserable summer. We knew taxes would go up, but not which ones. Rumours flew that Reeves would raise this tax, that tax. Confidence duly withered. Now, it's happening again — in large part because of the people sitting behind the chancellor. It turns out that, from means-testing the winter fuel payment to curbing the horrendous rise in incapacity spending, Labour backbenchers are unwilling to sign off any spending decisions that cause their voting base the least amount of pain. And the bond markets have noticed.
Times
23 minutes ago
- Times
The biggest tax heist (that you may not have even noticed)
In 1977 two Labour backbench MPs joined forces to rebel against the chancellor, Denis Healey. He had plotted to keep income tax thresholds frozen at a time of rampant inflation in what would be a subtle but sizeable tax raid. Audrey Wise, the MP for Coventry South West at the time, told parliament: 'It is convenient for governments to allow the tax allowances to be eroded, but not convenient for people … it is a rather dishonest system from which we should escape.' In the end Wise and her colleague Jeffrey Rooker, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, won cross-party support and the Rooker-Wise amendment ruled that income tax thresholds should automatically increase in line with inflation. Nearly 50 years on and politicians desperate to boost Treasury coffers are again guilty of exploiting what is known as fiscal drag to pull off the biggest stealth tax heist yet. Income tax thresholds have been frozen since 2021 and the cost of living has soared more than 20 per cent since then. Millions of workers and pensioners are now paying a higher tax than they would have if the thresholds had kept pace with inflation. The mastermind was Rishi Sunak, who, as chancellor, put tax thresholds into a deep, five-year freeze, which was then extended until 2028 by Jeremy Hunt. It is now feared that the stealth tax raid will be extended in October as Rachel Reeves tries to fill a widening hole in the nation's finances. Sunday Times analysis today lays bare the full impact of the big freeze. It shows that: • Stealth taxes have cost workers the equivalent of a 4p in the pound increase in income tax.• Nurses and primary school teachers will be higher-rate taxpayers by the start of the 2030s.• The full new state pension will trigger an income tax bill by 2027.• A worker earning the average London wage will be a higher-rate taxpayer next year.• A family hit by stamp duty, capital gains tax and inheritance tax could be £100,000 worse off. Iain Duncan Smith, a former leader of the Conservative Party, said: 'Governments have been hammering people by freezing these thresholds. 'It will end up affecting teachers, nurses and those who generally don't earn vast amounts. Loads of people are now paying higher-rate tax who should never pay it. We should ban the freezing of thresholds — all taxation should be debated publicly and the public should be informed. It shouldn't be snuck through.' The personal allowance, the amount you can earn a year before paying income tax, has been £12,570 since 2021. If it had increased with inflation, it would be more than £15,500 today, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a think tank. The higher-rate threshold, the point at which you start paying 40 per cent tax on earnings above the limit, has been £50,270 since 2021. It would be more than £62,000 today if it had been linked to inflation. Scotland, which has different income tax thresholds and rates, has had a similar freeze. Isaac Delestre from the IFS said: 'The freeze is unusually long. Previous governments have frozen the thresholds for two or three years. And it has been over a period of remarkably high inflation. The £40 billion it is going to raise is a huge tax increase.' • How the top tax rate became a middle-class problem The freeze means that an extra 4.2 million people will have to pay income tax by 2029-30 according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. An extra 3.5 million people will become higher or additional-rate taxpayers. The IFS said that by the 2027-2028 tax year the freeze will be raising £40 billion a year for the Treasury — almost the same as if 4p in the pound had been added to all income tax rates. Nimesh Shah from the accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg said: 'If a chancellor had announced a 4p increase to income tax rates, it is highly unlikely they would still be in a job. 'This brings home the underhand way the government is increasing the tax burden on lower and middle earners by the back door.' Our analysis shows that since the threshold freeze the average salary of vets, police officers and secondary school teachers has passed the higher-rate threshold, meaning these workers now pay 40p of any extra pound they earn in income tax. If the threshold remains frozen, electricians, nurses, fire service officers and primary school teachers will be paying higher rate tax by 2031. Before the general election last year, Labour promised not to increase taxes for 'working people'. However, the economist Julian Jessop, formerly of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank, said: 'It is almost certain that Rachel Reeves will extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds in the autumn budget, which would hurt working people by taking more money out of their payslips and be a clear breach of the promises made in Labour's manifesto. 'We need much more honest conversations about tax. The constant scrambling to find more revenues in ways that are neither fair nor transparent is damaging for the economy and for confidence in the political system.' Pensioners have also been hit because the state pension is increased every year by the triple lock. This means that it rises by the highest of 2.5 per cent, average wage growth or inflation each year. • Is Britain a high-tax nation compared with other countries? While a welcome boost for pensioners' incomes, the frozen thresholds mean that, even with the smallest possible rise of 2.5 per cent a year, from April 2027 pensioners who get the full new state pension will have to return a portion of it in tax. It also means that they will pay more tax on any income from private or workplace pensions. The tactic of freezing thresholds rather than raising tax rates to boost the Treasury coffers is not limited to income tax. Some thresholds have been held at the same level for years, and one has even been stuck since 1981. Six have stayed the same since at least 2021 when the income tax freeze began. A seventh, the additional-rate income tax threshold, has been frozen since 2023, when it was made less generous by Jeremy Hunt. The gifting allowance, the amount you can give each year that will immediately fall out of your estate for inheritance tax purposes, has been fixed at £3,000 since 1981. If it had been adjusted by inflation, it would be worth more than £11,500 today. The inheritance tax nil-rate band, the amount you can pass on tax-free when you die, has been £325,000 since 2009 and the residence nil-rate band, the extra allowance you can get if you pass on your main home to a direct descendant, has been £175,000 since 2020. If they had gone up with inflation, your total inheritance tax-free allowance would be about £740,000. Other thresholds, such as the dividend tax and capital gains tax allowances, have been reduced. The accountancy firm Moore Kingston Smith found that a sample family could have paid nearly two and a half times as much tax than they would if thresholds had kept up with prices. • Why Rachel Reeves's state pension headache is about to get worse Say a couple in 2020 earn £45,000 and £90,000. Their wages go up 3 per cent a year. In 2023 they inherit an estate including a property worth £750,000. They buy a new main home in 2024 worth £500,000, then in April 2025 they sell the inherited property, which had grown £50,000 in value. They also get interest of £2,000 a year from a savings account and dividend payments of £1,500 a year, both from assets held outside a tax-free Isa wrapper. They would have paid about £289,300 in tax since 2020. If income tax rates, inheritance tax thresholds and savings allowances had gone up with inflation since then, stamp duty limits had been linked to house prices and capital gains and dividend allowances hadn't been cut, the couple would have paid just under £190,000, according to Moore Kingston Smith. Guy Sterling from Moore Kingston Smith said: 'Cunningly, like a frog being brought slowly to the boil and not noticing, the decision to not increase personal tax allowances and other tax thresholds has increased the taxes people pay — but without the difficult-to-ignore increase in the headline rates of tax. 'Pay rises are being more than eaten up by these stealth taxes and cost of living increases, leaving workers and their families worse off in real terms.' The Treasury said: 'This government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds. At the budget and the spring statement the chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze. We are also protecting working people by keeping our promise to not raise basic, higher or additional rates of tax, employee national insurance or VAT.'
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Neil Kinnock calls for government to scrap two-child cap on benefits
Labour must scrap the two-child cap on benefits to lift children out of poverty, the party's former leader Neil Kinnock has urged. Rising levels of poverty 'would make Charles Dickens furious', Lord Kinnock said in an interview with the Sunday Mirror, in which he also called on ministers to introduce a wealth tax. The peer, who led Labour in opposition between 1983 and 1992, is the latest senior party figure to pressure the government to end the two-child limit on benefits, which was introduced by the Conservatives in 2017. The former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown recently said ending the two-child limit, as well as the benefit cap, would be among the most effective ways of reducing child poverty. Lord Kinnock acknowledged the government may not be able to scrap the two-child cap 'all at once'. He added: 'But I really want them to move in that direction because the figures are that if that did occur it would mean that about 600,000 kids fewer are in poverty.' Lord Kinnock suggested such a move could be funded by a wealth tax on the 'top 1%', adding: 'I know it's the economics of Robin Hood, but I don't think there is anything terribly bad about that.' He warned that over the decade and a half the Conservatives were in power, child poverty gradually rose. The Labour peer continued: 'In 15 years, starting from a position where beneficial change was taking place, we've got to the place that would make Charles Dickens furious. 'It's been allowed to happen because the kids are voiceless and their parents feel powerless. I defy anybody to see a child in need and not want to help.' Last month, government data showed a further 37,000 children were affected by the two-child benefit limit in the year to April, with nearly 1.7 million now living in households affected by the policy. A government spokesperson said at the time: 'Through our plan for change, we are reforming the broken social security system to help those who can work into good, well-paid jobs, which is the best way to improve living standards for families … The child poverty taskforce will publish an ambitious strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
