naseem in jail was it the correct verdict

[Richardp]

well I happen to agree that the guy is just taking up space and costing us money in prison, hit him were in hurts in his bank account but the thing that gets me is the double standards I mean If he wasn't a sporting hero a couple of you would be calling him a fugee and sending him back to the country of his family origin and bringing back the death penalty and the birch etc

I'm not sure what your aims are with antagonistic posts like this Richard. If you want to start some s***stirring you could just say so.

There was no double standards, nobody mentioned his ethnicity or capital/corporal punishment and he was born in Sheffield.

so who has been antagonised?
issues?

 

[jbonding]

he should of gone to jail for longer, and i think hes been hit were it hurts, right about now the only way he would be hurt financially is by giving all his money away and i mean all. he took the **** and he is paying for it, in some way and im sure going to jail will teach him more and give him a lot more regrets and a lot of time to reflect than taking some pennies of him which he can lose through the business.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

70 mph max ... 60 mph national limit.
The capability of far exceeding this is crazy and must cost as many lives, if not more than diy electrics

So virtually no lives lost, then.....

 

[paulbrown]

You are wrong and furthermore you are argumentative too. I have only voiced my opinion, which differs from yours. The difference being I have respected yours without slagging you off.

'people' is not the same as 'person'

In saying wealthy people I am referring to him in the singular and not wealthy people as a whole. I would of thought it was obvious really.

That's cleared that up then - put a point of view different to yours, and it's argumentative and wrong - you of course are neither!..

I also think that in the context of that statement it was NOT clear whether it was general or specific...

care to post a clarified response to that - in a non-argumentative way of course..

Without slagging off?

YOU WROTE: You have issues which are more to do with wealth than anything else. In a word you are jealous.

Don't normally get involved in pedantic semantics but that is rubbish. It's nearly the same as saying "You nearly had my eye out!" or "Are we nearly there yet?" or " I nearly won the lottery last week." All are permissible as nearly means almost, but not quite so if someone can be almost but not quite dead, then someone else can almost but not quite have killed him.

Exactly!!

But back to the topic..

I would guess his best nine months earnings would be a lot more than a slap on the wrist. It would probably be millions! Do you not see that as a punishment? What is wrong with the victim getting half the fine for his pain and suffering? He will end up arguing with the insurance companies for years and would probably prefer the money than seeing this silly man in jail.

Lets hear from the victims shall we..?

"They hope this sentence will help other people realise the dangers inherent in speeding," their lawyer, Jane Wright, said. "This is not a case about celebrity. It is about extremely powerful motor cars being driven dangerously."

Fines ARE a punishment, but not as bad as losing your freedom - if someone on the dole did this, what would you suggest as a punishment then? If you state that 'wealthy people shouldn't be jailed', then what about 'poor people'?..

If you go to court, and the offence merits a jail term, then income should have NO bearing on the sentence..

It's simple really - the principle of 'everyone equal in the eyes of the law' should be held to as closely as possible!

simple really - it's called the principle of

You haven't cleared anything up really.

Don't normally get involved in pedantic semantics but that is rubbish. It's nearly the same as saying "You nearly had my eye out!" or "Are we nearly there yet?" or " I nearly won the lottery last week." All are permissible as nearly means almost, but not quite so if someone can be almost but not quite dead, then someone else can almost but not quite have killed him.

This is someones opinion thats all. I will repeat what I said you cannot nearly kill anything. Irrespective of common parlance it can't be done.
But back to the topic..

Lets hear from the victims shall we..?

"They hope this sentence will help other people realise the dangers inherent in speeding," their lawyer, Jane Wright, said. "This is not a case about celebrity. It is about extremely powerful motor cars being driven dangerously."

Jane Wright is the solicitor, not the victim.

The real issue here is your aggressive indifference to anothers opinion. Even though other posters have agreed about the pointlessness of jailing this man, you seem to be obsessed with my posts.

You have exaggerated my comments and even stretched the truth in your obsessive zeal. Grow up, we don't all have to agree, but we are supposed to respect each others point of view.

simple really - it's called the principle of

Have we to make our own ending up for you work of fiction?

 

[ellal]

The real issue here is your aggressive indifference to anothers opinion. Even though other posters have agreed about the pointlessness of jailing this man, you seem to be obsessed with my posts.

Maybe if you didn't keep posting such rubbish about others being 'aggressive' or 'argumentative', then people wouldn't feel it neccessary to use their right of reply!!

Others have also agreed that your posts leave a little to be desired in the credibility stakes, so I think that the words pot, kettle & black come to mind..

This is someones opinion thats all. I will repeat what I said you cannot nearly kill anything. Irrespective of common parlance it can't be done.

seems the word 'nearly' doesn't exist in YOUR strange reality..do tell - does 'almost' suffer the same fate

Jane Wright is the solicitor, not the victim.

Reading their statement! - you really are a pedantic prat aren't you!..still, your posts have already proved that!

You have exaggerated my comments and even stretched the truth in your obsessive zeal. Grow up, we don't all have to agree, but we are supposed to respect each others point of view.

Again, pot, kettle & black...are you getting the message?

Have we to make our own ending up for you work of fiction?

Oh dear - of course 'cut & paste' is always 100% reliable for you..

still it just about sums up the fact that your posts have lacked credibilty, and you are so 'up yourself', that you have failed to realise that you are doing everything you have accused others of...

I think you ought to take your own advice about growing up!!

 

[paulbrown]

The real issue here is your aggressive indifference to anothers opinion. Even though other posters have agreed about the pointlessness of jailing this man, you seem to be obsessed with my posts.

Maybe if you didn't keep posting such rubbish about others being 'aggressive' or 'argumentative', then people wouldn't feel it neccessary to use their right of reply!!

Others have also agreed that your posts leave a little to be desired in the credibility stakes, so I think that the words pot, kettle & black come to mind..

This is someones opinion thats all. I will repeat what I said you cannot nearly kill anything. Irrespective of common parlance it can't be done.

seems the word 'nearly' doesn't exist in YOUR strange reality..do tell - does 'almost' suffer the same fate

Jane Wright is the solicitor, not the victim.

Reading their statement! - you really are a pedantic prat aren't you!..still, your posts have already proved that!

You have exaggerated my comments and even stretched the truth in your obsessive zeal. Grow up, we don't all have to agree, but we are supposed to respect each others point of view.

Again, pot, kettle & black...are you getting the message?

Have we to make our own ending up for you work of fiction?

Oh dear - of course 'cut & paste' is always 100% reliable for you..

still it just about sums up the fact that your posts have lacked credibilty, and you are so 'up yourself', that you have failed to realise that you are doing everything you have accused others of...

I think you ought to take your own advice about growing up!!

I speak for myself I don't rely on what others think(or in your case don't think )

If I cut and paste I check it out before sending.

The fact is you are intolerant of my opinion which is fine, just don't be so offensive. Next time I won't be so lenient and will copy and paste your lies and show you up for what you really are.

Can you get back on topic now, as this thread will get locked with all your tosh.

 

[JulieL/B]

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

Is this really necessary? - can't you get your point across in another way?

 

[ellal]

Next time I won't be so lenient and will copy and paste your lies and show you up for what you really are.

Go for it!!

 

[ellal]

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

Is this really necessary? - can't you get your point across in another way?

I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread, but I think you'll find that those comments were justified given the posts directed at me..and also some of the wild accusations/conclusions in them.

 

[JulieL/B]

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

Is this really necessary? - can't you get your point across in another way?

I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread, but I think you'll find that those comments were justified given the posts directed at me..and also some of the wild accusations/conclusions in them.

I have just read the post through - I can't see that paulbrown has called you any similar names - if he has then I apologise......it's just I haven't seen any

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?

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!

 

[monkeyboy92]

...he made a mistake as we all do...

"Hamed was at the wheel of his £325,000 McLaren-Mercedes when he crashed at 90mph on Ringinglow Road, Sheffield.

Motorist Anthony Burgin spent weeks in hospital after the crash left him with fractures to "every major bone in his body".

The court heard how Hamed was anxious to impress businessman Asif Ayub, 46, who was a passenger in the McLaren-Mercedes at the time of the crash.

Hamed was showing what his car could do when he crossed a solid white line at a speed of at least 90mph and crashed head-on into a Volkswagen Golf"

What on eartd do you get for #325,000 in a car, that you couldnt' get for #100,000, anyway ? Never bought one for more than #300 myself

ANyone causing an accident just through showing off should be instantly put away, and any fine should be proportionate to how much money you have, so that rich and poor are punished proportionatel equally.

 

[keyplayer]

What on earth do you get for #325,000 in a car,

Fleeced.

 

[ellal]

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..!

 

[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

 

[ellal]

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

Like Finland?..

A director of the Finnish telecommunications giant, Nokia, has received what is believed to be the most expensive speeding ticket ever.
Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros (£80,000) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.

Police say he was driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone.

In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.