On August 15, 2025, a London jury found Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor for Dartford, not guilty of encouraging violent disorder, closing a controversial chapter that has spurred fierce debate over the integrity of the UK’s justice system. The case centered on remarks Jones made at an anti-racism rally in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7, 2024, where he called far-right activists “disgusting Nazi fascists” and declared, “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all,” punctuating his words with a throat-cutting gesture. The rally, charged with emotion, had been organized in response to plans for a far-right march outside the Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau and followed a wave of unrest after the Southport murders.
Jones, 58, a father of four and grandfather, was arrested the day after the rally and suspended from the Labour Party immediately. At the time, he was also employed as a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) union. The Labour Party, distancing itself from his actions, stated, “This behaviour is completely unacceptable and it will not be tolerated.” An internal investigation into his conduct remains ongoing, meaning Jones will not sit as a Labour councillor until its conclusion, according to The Independent.
The evidence against Jones included a video that quickly went viral on social media, showing him addressing a crowd on Hoe Street, Walthamstow, wearing a black polo top and surrounded by supporters. In the clip, Jones said, “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all,” while drawing his finger across his throat. He also referenced women and children using the trains during the summer holidays, saying of the far-right activists, “They don’t give a shit about who they hurt.”
Despite the inflammatory language, Jones maintained throughout the trial that his comments were not meant to be taken literally. Giving evidence at Snaresbrook Crown Court, he explained that his remarks specifically referred to far-right activists who had reportedly left National Front stickers on a train with razor blades hidden behind them—a claim that had shocked and angered him. “You’ve got women and children using these trains during the summer holidays. They don’t care who they hurt,” Jones told the court, according to BBC News. He insisted that he was “appalled” by political violence and said, “I’ve always believed the best way to make people realise who you are and what you are is to do it peacefully.”
Prosecutor Ben Holt painted a different picture for the jury, describing Jones’s speech as “inflammatory, rabble-rousing language in the throng of a crowd described as a tinderbox.” Holt emphasized that Jones’s words were amplified through a microphone and speakers, delivered in a setting “where violence could readily have been anticipated.”
The jury, however, was not convinced that Jones’s words amounted to a criminal offense. After just over half an hour of deliberation, they returned a not guilty verdict. Jones, dressed in a navy blue suit with a white shirt and pale pink tie, was seen mouthing “thank you” to the jurors as the verdict was read. Family and supporters hugged each other in relief, and Jones declined to comment as he left the court grounds, The Independent reported.
The verdict has not gone unnoticed in political circles, igniting a firestorm of accusations about the existence of “two-tier justice” in the UK. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp was among the first to react, stating, “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 prison for posting something no worse.”
Lucy Connolly, a childminder from Northampton, had pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred after posting online in the aftermath of the Southport attacks, calling for “mass deportation now” and urging people to “set fire to all the...hotels [housing asylum seekers]...for all I care.” She was sentenced to 31 months in prison after admitting she intended to stir up racial hatred. Unlike Jones, Connolly did not face a jury trial, having pleaded guilty to the charge.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed Philp’s concerns, calling the decision “another outrageous example of two-tier justice.” Former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf added, “Two-tier justice in this country is out of control.” The comparison between the two cases has become a rallying point for critics who argue that the justice system treats individuals differently based on their political affiliations or the nature of their speech.
Defenders of the judicial process, however, point to important distinctions. Jones pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury of randomly selected members of the public, while Connolly admitted her guilt and was sentenced by a judge. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice emphasized, “Sentencing decisions are made by the independent judiciary and are not for us to comment on.”
The controversy has highlighted broader concerns about the boundaries of free speech, the role of intent, and the standards applied to public figures. Jones himself told the court that the riots and far-right activity had left him “upset” and “angry,” and that he felt it was his “duty” to attend counter-protests, even after being warned by the Labour Party to stay away from such demonstrations. “I’ve always believed the best way to make people realise who you are and what you are is to do it peacefully,” he reiterated, stressing that his words were not a call to violence but an expression of outrage at the reported actions of the far-right group.
While Jones’s acquittal has been welcomed by his supporters, the Labour Party’s internal investigation into his conduct remains unresolved. The outcome will determine whether he is reinstated or permanently excluded from the party. For now, Jones remains suspended and the debate over “two-tier justice” continues to simmer, with politicians and commentators from across the spectrum weighing in.
As the dust settles, the case of Ricky Jones serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and passions that surround issues of hate speech, political protest, and the administration of justice in modern Britain. The questions it raises—about fairness, intent, and the limits of acceptable discourse—are likely to echo far beyond the courtroom for some time to come.
