Ricky Jones: Councillor cleared of encouraging violent behaviour

“Cut Their Throats” vs “Burn the Hotels”: Why Two Hate Speech Cases Had Very Different Outcomes

It’s like dousing an already raging inferno with petrol, the flames leap higher, the heat becomes unbearable, and the public’s trust in the system burns away. The case of Labour councillor Ricky Jones is one of those moments where the verdict may be legally sound, but the optics are politically combustible.

Jones, 58, stood trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after video emerged of him telling a crowd at an anti-racism rally in Walthamstow that the throats of “disgusting Nazi fascists” should be cut. The footage, complete with a finger-across-the-throat gesture, went viral, drawing the predictable chorus of outrage.

Jones insisted his remarks were never meant to be taken literally, explaining that they were aimed at far-right activists accused of leaving razor-blade-laced stickers on trains. The jury took just over half an hour to acquit him of encouraging violent disorder.

Trial By Jury vs. a Judge’s Verdict.

To his supporters, Jones was confronting the ugliest fringes of extremism. To his detractors, he was a public official crossing the line into dangerous rhetoric, a clear case of encouraging violent disorder, and a symbol of what they see as a two-tier justice system when set against the conviction of Lucy Connolly.

Connolly, a Northampton childminder, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for posting a racist tirade online, calling for “mass deportation” and even for asylum seekers’ hotels to be set ablaze. She admitted to stirring up racial hatred. Jones denied wrongdoing and was acquitted by a jury.

That contrast rests on a crucial difference: jury versus judge. Jones faced twelve ordinary citizens and walked free. Connolly, having pleaded guilty, stood before a judge alone, and the outcome was prison.

This is not merely a quirk of process. Juries are one of the last defences ordinary people have against the overreach of political and judicial elites. Yet government-backed proposals now seek to strip that right from many defendants. Take away trial by jury, and we hand the final word on our freedoms to the very establishment most in need of being held to account.

Very Different Outcomes Put to the Public. It won’t matter

This is self-evidently not an example of two-tier justice as this Councillor was cleared by a jury. Lucy Connolly offered a guilty plea so did not have a jury trial, although she probably could have done had she pleaded not guilty. https://t.co/hctpSG6nCB

— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) August 15, 2025

However, even if the law draws a distinction between Jones and Connolly, the court of public opinion sees something different: a system that seems inconsistent, arbitrary, and vulnerable to accusations of political bias. In the end, that erosion of trust is the most dangerous verdict of all.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called it “astonishing” that Jones walked free while Connolly was jailed, hinting at a double standard. But here lies the deeper problem: in a political climate where tempers are raw and polarisation runs deep, the justice system’s decisions don’t just settle cases, they shape public perception, and those perceptions can harden into lasting mistrust.

Philp said: “The development of two-tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.

“It cannot have been a question of uncertain evidence as the man was on video clearly calling for violence.

“The government must come forward with plans to ensure justice is handed out equally, regardless of the background or views of the perpetrator – but as far as I can see this Labour government seems to be quite happy with two-tier justice.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Sentencing decisions are made by the independent judiciary and are not for us to comment on.”

Juries in trials are randomly selected strangers. At the time of the incident, Mr Jones was employed as a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) union.

He has been a borough councillor since 2019 but was suspended by the Labour Party on 8 August last year.

It is understood that a party investigation remains ongoing and its outcome will decide what happens to his membership.

The demonstration attended by Mr Jones took place in response to protests held following the murder of three children in Southport.

Prosecutor Ben Holt previously told the court Mr Jones used “inflammatory, rabble-rousing language in the throng of a crowd described as a tinderbox”.

He told jurors Mr 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, Mr 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 [care] 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.”

The deeper danger here is not about Jones or Connolly, left or right, guilty or acquitted. It’s about the collapse of a shared belief that the law is applied equally, without fear or favour. Once that belief is gone, it’s not only political discourse that suffers; it’s the very idea of justice itself. And when justice is no longer believed in, the only thing left standing is raw power.