naseem in jail was it the correct verdict

[ban-all-sheds]

you really are a pedantic prat aren't you!..still, you are so 'up yourself'

Is this really necessary?

Of course it's not - there was absolutely no need for ellal to have written that.

 

[Brightness]

I think the fines should be base on a percentage of your earning, the richer you are, the more you pay. Now that gotta hurt

I think that would hurt the average man in the street more than it would hurt someone who is loaded though, masona.

You take it, 50% off the earnings of a bloke on £300 a week would probably financially cripple him but 50% off a footballer on 150K a week would just mean a few nights in front of the tv!

 

[ellal]

you really are a pedantic prat aren't you!..still, you are so 'up yourself'

Is this really necessary?

Of course it's not - there was absolutely no need for ellal to have written that.

By that yardstick, was it also incorrect to post accusations of 'jealousy of wealth'?.. and comments such as - 'accusations of s*** stirring'?..'aggression'?..'obsessive zeal'?..'grow-up'?..'lies'?..'slagging off'?..

or were these just 'nearly' insults, which apparently can't possibly be insults at all according to some people's semantics.. after all, if you can't 'nearly' kill someone....

 

[masona]

I think the fines should be base on a percentage of your earning, the richer you are, the more you pay. Now that gotta hurt

I think that would hurt the average man in the street more than it would hurt someone who is loaded though, masona.

You take it, 50% off the earnings of a bloke on £300 a week would probably financially ****** him but 50% off a footballer on 150K a week would just mean a few nights in front of the tv!

Hmmm you may have a point, maybe the higher you earn, the higher percentage

 

[keyplayer]

And there's absolutely no need to write this - The constant ruining of threads with this repetetive argumentative nonsense is REALLY BORING - because it doesn't tell us anything new either.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the fines should be base on a percentage of your earning, the richer you are, the more you pay. Now that gotta hurt

I think that would hurt the average man in the street more than it would hurt someone who is loaded though, masona.

You take it, 50% off the earnings of a bloke on £300 a week would probably financially ****** him but 50% off a footballer on 150K a week would just mean a few nights in front of the tv!

Hmmm you may have a point, maybe the higher you earn, the higher percentage

But a percentage of how much over how long?

Not only would the % take from a footballer on £150K/week need to be higher, it would need to be over a longer time.

If, say, you took 25% off the £300pw guy, for a month, it would put a huge strain on him.

But you could take 100% for a month off the £150K guy, and he still wouldn't notice....

 

[williams89]

He got off lightly! . Imagine if it was one of your family he nearly killed whilst trying to impress - what sentence would you call for then?

Well said. The court should have doubled the time inside. There would be little point giving him a fine. He would not miss the money.

 

[masona]

Yep, I can see your point but there must be a way round it to penalised them. How about a year salary taken away? I suppose that is happening while you're inside because you're not earning.

 

[paulbrown]

Personally (and not meaning to cause another arguement) whilst it is right to put him in prison for what he's done - he should also have been made to pay the victim from his own bank account (rather than insurance).......say £2000 for each break (fracture) in each bone which would have hurt him far more probably than the prison sentence...........IMHO!

I think a lot of people (the majority?) believe he should be in jail for what he did..

The 'argument' was over whether a fine/compensation would constitute a substitute for jail dependant on someone's wealth , as opposed to the same rules for everyone, regardless of their financial status..

I believe that a financial element should be a different matter from the 'punishment'.. the fact that the current 'claims' system has it's problems is immaterial to this topic.

My interpretation of this is that you both appear to have strong characters and have opposing views on this particular subject which have ended up going a bit too far with comments becoming too personal - could a compromise be that maybe you are both have valid points to make and in what you say?

That, IMO, was started by a bizarre reaction to a ' ' emoticon..!

We do not have majority rule on here.

There was no argument, I only gave MY OPINION. I never mentioned poor people and only said I don't see the point in him going down and thats all I have said really.

I have not insulted or abused you.

This my last comment on this thread, I will not lower myself to your level.

I have also requested the MOD'S remove your offensive language which is a clear breach of the rules.

 

[noodlz]

The pedant's revolting

 

[ellal]

I don't think there's a problem with calculating a fine according to a person's income within limits - that's what happens already. But to impose a fine when a custodial sentence is justified just because of wealth, makes the justice system look even more silly than it often is..

There are those who advocate that prison solves nothing, right or wrong, but it is the worst punishment we have, so for the individual, a spell inside has to be worse than 'buying yourself out'..after all, if it weren't, why would offenders such as drug dealers surrender some of their profits under threat of further time inside.

 

[Softus]

If you are committing an offence when you write off your £320k car, does the insurance still pay out ?

Of course it does - why would it not?

 

[noodlz]

I don't think there's a problem with calculating a fine according to a person's income within limits - that's what happens already. But to impose a fine when a custodial sentence is justified just because of wealth, makes the justice system look even more silly than it often is..

There are those who advocate that prison solves nothing, right or wrong, but it is the worst punishment we have, so for the individual, a spell inside has to be worse than 'buying yourself out'..after all, if it weren't, why would offenders such as drug dealers surrender some of their profits under threat of further time inside.

Am I seeing things (or not, as the case may be!), but hasn't an innocuous part of your post just been edited, Ellal?

 

[ellal]

Am I seeing things (or not, as the case may be!), but hasn't an innocuous part of your post just been edited, Ellal?

Seems that way..innocuous was certainly the word!!

Unfortunately some don't have the strength of their convictions when threatening others with what they will post next, and ask for censorship as their defence!

 

[johnny_t]

If you are committing an offence when you write off your £320k car, does the insurance still pay out ?

Of course it does - why would it not?

I mean would it pay out for the damage to your own car, or does it only pay out for your out-of-pocket stuff if you've been acting lawfully ?