Nigel Farage has expressed outrage after a former Labour councillor was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder, despite being caught on video calling for protesters’ throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally.
Ricky Jones, 58, was cleared by a jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court after just 30 minutes of deliberation, despite video evidence showing him making throat-slitting gestures and telling a crowd “we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all” at a counter-protest in Walthamstow last August.
The verdict has sparked immediate controversy, with Reform UK leader Farage declaring it “another outrageous example of two-tier justice” and former Home Secretary James Cleverly calling the decision “unacceptable” and warning it would amplify public anger about the criminal justice system.
The Walthamstow Rally Incident
The case centred on events at an anti-racism demonstration in Hoe Street, Walthamstow, on 7 August last year, organised in response to planned anti-immigration protests outside Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau. The counter-protest came during a period of heightened tensions following the Southport murders, when three young girls were killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
Jones, a Dartford borough councillor since 2019 and full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) union, addressed the crowd through a microphone and speakers system. In footage that subsequently went viral on social media, Jones could be seen wearing a black polo shirt as he made his inflammatory remarks.
“They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all,” Jones said, while drawing his finger across his throat in a cutting motion.
The prosecution argued that Jones had used “inflammatory, rabble-rousing language in the throng of a crowd described as a tinderbox” and that his speech took place “in a setting where violence could readily have been anticipated.”
Jones’s Defence
During the trial, Jones claimed his comments referred specifically to a group who had allegedly left National Front stickers on trains with razor blades hidden behind them, rather than those attending anti-immigration protests more broadly. He told the court he felt it was his “duty” to attend the counter-protest, despite Labour Party warnings to stay away from such demonstrations.
Jones’s defence barrister, Hossein Zahir KC, argued that whilst his client accepted the words had been spoken, he denied knowing that the offence of violent disorder would be committed as a result.
When arrested the following day and interviewed at Brixton police station, Jones told officers he was “sorry” for making the comments “in the heat of the moment” and had not intended them to be “taken literally. He described his remarks as “ill-advised” but maintained they were not intended to incite or encourage violence.
Jones, who identified himself as being on the left of the Labour Party, told jurors the riots had made him feel “upset” and “angry”. He said 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.”
Political Reaction and ‘Two-Tier Justice’ Claims
The acquittal has reignited fierce debate about perceived double standards in the justice system, particularly when compared to sentences handed down to others during the post-Southport disorder period.
Nigel Farage immediately took to social media platform X to condemn the verdict, writing: “This is another outrageous example of two-tier justice.
Former Home Secretary James Cleverly echoed these concerns, stating: “This is unacceptable. 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.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp expressed astonishment at the verdict, noting: “It is astonishing that this Labour councillor who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit is let off scot free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months in prison for posting something no worse.”
He added: “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 Lucy Connolly Comparison
Much of the controversy surrounding Jones’s acquittal centres on comparisons with Lucy Connolly, 41, a childminder and wife of a former Conservative councillor who received a 31-month prison sentence for a social media post made on the same day as the Southport attacks.
Connolly had posted on X: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” Despite deleting the post within four hours, it had been viewed 310,000 times.
Unlike Jones, Connolly pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred, meaning she did not face trial. She was sentenced in October 2024 and has since lost an appeal against her sentence. The Court of Appeal ruled there was “no arguable basis” to suggest her sentence was excessive.
Zia Yusuf, Chair of Reform UK’s DOGE Unit, highlighted this disparity, writing: “The UK is now a country in which those who have the correct ‘regime’ political views can openly call for their political opponents’ throats to be cut. Meanwhile Lucy Connolly gets 31 months in jail? Two tier justice in this country is out of control.”
Labour Party Response
The Labour Party had moved swiftly to suspend Jones following the incident. A party spokesperson said at the time: “This behaviour is completely unacceptable and it will not be tolerated. The councillor has been suspended from the party.”
Jones was suspended the day after the protest, with the party distancing itself from his actions. Despite warnings from Labour officials to avoid such demonstrations, Jones had attended what he described as his “duty” to counter far-right protesters.
The Legal Framework
The charge of encouraging violent disorder is serious, carrying significant potential penalties. The Crown Prosecution Service had authorised the charge against Jones on the basis that his words, combined with the volatile atmosphere at the protest, could have incited violence.
Prosecutor Ben Holt had told the jury that the context was crucial – Jones’s speech was amplified through audio equipment to a large crowd in circumstances where tensions were already high following the Southport murders and subsequent unrest across the country.
However, the jury ultimately accepted Jones’s defence that he had not intended to encourage violent disorder, despite the inflammatory nature of his words.
Wider Implications
The verdict has implications beyond the immediate case, feeding into broader debates about free speech, public order, and equality before the law. Critics argue the acquittal demonstrates inconsistency in how the justice system treats similar offences depending on the political affiliations of those involved.
The case comes at a time of heightened sensitivity around public disorder following the Southport attacks. Numerous individuals were prosecuted and jailed for their roles in riots and for inciting violence on social media, with the government taking a hard line on those deemed to have contributed to the unrest.
Jones’s acquittal, despite clear video evidence of his inflammatory remarks, has led to accusations that different standards are being applied based on political viewpoints. The rapid jury deliberation – just over 30 minutes – has added to concerns about how such cases are being adjudicated.
Looking Forward
The controversy surrounding this case seems unlikely to subside quickly. With high-profile political figures weighing in and comparisons being drawn to other cases from the same period, the verdict has become a flashpoint in debates about justice and political bias.
Jones, who was seen mouthing “thank you” to jurors after the verdict, declined to comment as he was driven from court. His family and supporters embraced following the acquittal, but the political ramifications of the case continue to reverberate.
The stark contrast between Jones’s acquittal and the sentences handed down to others during the post-Southport period has provided ammunition to those who claim the justice system operates different standards for different groups. As the debate continues, this case is likely to be cited as evidence by those concerned about the principle of equality before the law.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
