[Football] Police to 'visit 1,000 homes' in MASSIVE crackdown on illegal Premier League streaming

[Triggaaar]

Fixtured

By myself

 

[Lenny Rider]

It is mad this blackout is still in place. Surely it is a matter of time before the Premier League just shows every game live? I understand why they brought the law in in the first place, but so many people just watch streams now, it makes it completely pointless. They might as well cash in on it.

Do you think then if they show every game seat prices at the games will come down?

 

[Lenny Rider]

Indeed. This Worthing vicar got 4 years for crimes that actually included victims

Worthing vicar jailed for possessing more than 22,000 indecent images of children

A Worthing vicar found with more than 22,000 indecent images of children on...

planetradio.co.uk

Bizarrely back in the day he did a wonderful funeral

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Bizarrely back in today he did a wonderful funeral

Is that Yorkshire "in T'day" gone a bit wrong?

Although not as wrong as the vicar, obvs.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

11 years in jail for that? FFS he could have got less for killing someone. 5 years max for domestic abuse/GBH. Clearly the mega money makers need protecting more than vulnerable others.

Thou shalt not take the moneys. Not the moneys from the Big Money. No, sir. Take the moneys from the Big Money and fire will burn you.

That's how standards are maintained, and we all can all appreciate that. Don't f*** with the moneys. No sir.

 

[Weststander]

11 years, the UK legal system can be absurd. Last week the 35 year old multiple rapist of a child got 7.5 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-65675161

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

11 years, the UK legal system can be absurd. Last week the 35 year old multiple rapist of a child got 7.5 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-65675161

I can see why you posted that but I find it difficult to judge how outraged I should feel when I don't have details. My suspicion is this was not an Ian Watkins situation. That may not be sufficient to persuade many, myself included, to fall short of calling for him and others to have their goolies chopped off, but presently we do tend to use a sliding scale for sentencing, with adjustments mainly driven by laws rather than the court of public opinion. On the whole I'm happy with that. Likewise I would be disinclined to demand that the bloke who fixes my car, and the surgeon who will work on my back, do it my way.

 

[Weststander]

I can see why you posted that but I find it difficult to judge how outraged I should feel when I don't have details. My suspicion is this was not an Ian Watkins situation. That may not be sufficient to persuade many, myself included, to fall short of calling for him and others to have their goolies chopped off, but presently we do tend to use a sliding scale for sentencing, with adjustments mainly driven by laws rathe than the court of public opinion. On the whole I'm happy with that. Likewise I would be disinclined to demand that the bloke who fixes my car, and the surgeon who will work on my back, do it my way.

I know what you mean, but my point is that a repeated child rapist will spend far less time inside than an economic/IP rights criminal.

 

[timbha]

I know what you mean, but my point is that a repeated child rapist will spend far less time inside than an economic/IP rights criminal.

I think you are under playing the crime. Child porn and money laundering were also mentioned with their implied links to other types of serious crime. More details are seeping out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I know what you mean, but my point is that a repeated child rapist will spend far less time inside than an economic/IP rights criminal.

Yes, correct. Bank robbers, even when no violence was involved, used to get a standard 25 years. We appear to value money above people.

The wider problem is that in the court of public opinion there is always a clamour to increase sentencing for every crime, and if the court of public opinion had its way, most of us would be on death row. The whole imperative is constantly gamed by the political parties, to the point where the Tories' biggest mantra against labour for decades was 'soft on crime'.

Our legal system is supposed to be independent is it not? Free of political interference. And yet sentencing guidelines come from the Home Office (when it suits). The public likes this because it like the idea it can affect laws via the politicians it elects. Ironically it is the liberal left in the main who lobby for a truly independent judiciary - but that would create an unelected oligarchy making the rules - doh!

Result? Anomalies, and too many people banged up in relation to the amount of money the same feckless electorate is unwilling to squander on catching and imprisoning criminals ("we want lower taxes").

So I think it is generally unhelpful to take two extremes, such as an apparently lenient sentence for a 'nonce' compared with an apparently harsh sentence for the perpetrator of a 'victimless crime'.

I am not sure how the public can tweak the legal system other than by voting for parties who promise to be tough on crime. I guess that is part of the reason so many vote for 'the party of law and order' despite no evidence that it is anything of the sort.

On the whole, therefore it is what it is.

 

[Weststander]

Yes, correct. Bank robbers, even when no violence was involved, used to get a standard 25 years. We appear to value money above people.

The wider problem is that in the court of public opinion there is always a clamour to increase sentencing for every crime, and if the court of public opinion had its way, most of us would be on death row. The whole imperative is constantly gamed by the political parties, to the point where the Tories' biggest mantra against labour for decades was 'soft on crime'.

Our legal system is supposed to be independent is it not? Free of political interference. And yet sentencing guidelines come from the Home Office (when it suits). The public likes this because it like the idea it can affect laws via the politicians it elects. Ironically it is the liberal left in the main who lobby for a truly independent judiciary - but that would create an unelected oligarchy making the rules - doh!

Result? Anomalies, and too many people banged up in relation to the amount of money the same feckless electorate is unwilling to squander on catching and imprisoning criminals ("we want lower taxes").

So I think it is generally unhelpful to take two extremes, such as an apparently lenient sentence for a 'nonce' compared with an apparently harsh sentence for the perpetrator of a 'victimless crime'.

I am not sure how the public can tweak the legal system other than by voting for parties who promise to be tough on crime. I guess that is part of the reason so many vote for 'the party of law and order' despite no evidence that it is anything of the sort.

On the whole, therefore it is what it is.

Was always the way. Throw the book at bank robbers, economic fraudsters such as faux investment scammers, bent solicitors who stole client money, do go to prison these days, but sentencing is modest by comparison.

 

[Springal]

Good job he wasn’t selling fire sticks eh !