Grealish

[Millenniumram]

Grealish is just one of those blokes that comes across as a massive twit. Just his whole general aura. Never liked him and his diving antics.

[Brammie Steve]

9 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Grealish is just one of those blokes that comes across as a massive twit. Just his whole general aura. Never liked him and his diving antics.

I haven't asked him but he may not be over fond of you either!

[Millenniumram]

6 minutes ago, Brummie Steve said:

I haven't asked him but he may not be over fond of you either!

Not many are, so I wouldn’t be surprised ?

[Brammie Steve]

8 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Not many are, so I wouldn’t be surprised ?

Join  t'club me owd mucker!?

[Patrick Rams]

On 15/12/2020 at 18:35, AndyinLiverpool said:

It was careless driving not drink driving

You're joking...have you seen the footage! Absolutely wrecked!

[Patrick Rams]

On 15/12/2020 at 18:58, Spanish said:

The other end of the argument is do those on the dole not get fined?  I do get the argument that a set fine for an offences is more damaging to some but my sense of justice is that we are all equal in the face of the law.  
 

Each one of us can make stupid mistakes and sometimes they have far greater impact just down to bad luck; the consequences have to be dealt with.  Repeat offences should receive extreme penalties.

Well if everyone was fined a months wages for a similar offence then that would be equal punishment wouldn't it? 

[Patrick Rams]

18 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Grealish is just one of those blokes that comes across as a massive twit. Just his whole general aura. Never liked him and his diving antics.

Agree 100%! Didn't you just know that this is the sort of behaviour he would be capable of? Just by looking at him.

[LE_Ram]

On 15/12/2020 at 15:46, Spanish said:

out of interest why?

not sure he should be punished more for a crime than someone who isn't as rich or famous.  Is it a lenient sentence when compared with you or me (I'm not famous or rich but you maybe though)?

I think the ultimate aim of any punishment should function as a deterrent - either to the offender in the future or others. Sentences ought to be handed out with more consistency. It is a lenient sentence when you view it in context - if Grealish can get off with a week or so's wages fine, does that seem like a good deterrent to you?

 

FWIW, I would like to see much tougher punishments handed down from the courts r.e. driving related offences. Grealish drove drunk, fled the scene of an accident, and clearly didn't learn from it by subsequently driving dangerously on the M42. The judge needs to show the magnitude of the offence and so IMO that requires a much tougher sentence. The way he hit those parked cars, only blind luck kept it from being manslaughter - hence drink driving ought to be prosecuted as such.

[Spanish]

44 minutes ago, Patrick Rams said:

Well if everyone was fined a months wages for a similar offence then that would be equal punishment wouldn't it? 

So if you don’t earn anything, multi rich and very poor, then you don’t pay anything?

[Spanish]

25 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

I think the ultimate aim of any punishment should function as a deterrent - either to the offender in the future or others. Sentences ought to be handed out with more consistency. It is a lenient sentence when you view it in context - if Grealish can get off with a week or so's wages fine, does that seem like a good deterrent to you?

 

FWIW, I would like to see much tougher punishments handed down from the courts r.e. driving related offences. Grealish drove drunk, fled the scene of an accident, and clearly didn't learn from it by subsequently driving dangerously on the M42. The judge needs to show the magnitude of the offence and so IMO that requires a much tougher sentence. The way he hit those parked cars, only blind luck kept it from being manslaughter - hence drink driving ought to be prosecuted as such.

So the successful should be fined more for the same offence?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

58 minutes ago, Spanish said:

So the successful should be fined more for the same offence?

Do you disagree with progressive taxation?

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Do you disagree with progressive taxation?

Good point.  

Do you think those that don’t earn anything should not be fined?

 I don’t mind paying more tax but I would object to being discriminated against for an offence just because I earn more.  Perhaps there should be a premium payable on goods and food people buy if they have a greater income?

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Do you disagree with progressive taxation?

I think taxation is different.  You have to work, or at least most do, you don't have to commit offences.

I don't know if I support fining people more or not, I can see both sides of the argument. 

For me it concerns me more that people like footballers get away with lesser punishments just because they can throw money at it.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

24 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Good point.  

Do you think those that don’t earn anything should not be fined?

 I don’t mind paying more tax but I would object to being discriminated against for an offence just because I earn more.  Perhaps there should be a premium payable on goods and food people buy if they have a greater income?

Maybe anyone with an inability to pay a minimum fine should be made to do community service, or some other equivalent, instead?

You technically are being discriminated against if your fine is bigger because your income is bigger, but only in the same way as any progressive tax system. You're paying more, but the idea is the effect you'll feel on your wallet is the same no matter what your income.

For example, if the fine was a flat £100, that's going to hurt someone on £25,000 far more than it will hurt Jack Grealish. In terms of proportions, it would make up 20% of the former's weekly wage, and only 0.07% of the latter's. In my view, that's not fair, as it's effectively insulating the wealthy against the effect of the law.

You could, of course, argue that those with less money should take their financial situation into account before committing an offence punishable by fine, but I don't think that's a particularly convincing argument.  

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Maybe anyone with an inability to pay a minimum fine should be made to do community service, or some other equivalent, instead?

You technically are being discriminated against if your fine is bigger because your income is bigger, but only in the same way as any progressive tax system. You're paying more, but the idea is the effect you'll feel on your wallet is the same no matter what your income.

For example, if the flat fine was £100, that's going to hurt someone on £25,000 far more than it will hurt Jack Grealish. In terms of proportions, it would make up 20% of the former's weekly wage, and only 0.07% of the latter's. In my view, that's not fair, as it's effectively insulating the wealthy against the effect of the law.

You could, of course, argue that those with less money should take their financial situation into account before committing an offence punishable by fine, but I don't think that's a particularly convincing argument.  

But the fine is only part of the punishment.  As for fairness, that’s life really.  The wealthy can access the best of everything including legal advice.  To change that would take a revolution I would guess and even then privileges exist in Russia and Cuba.  This is far off the debate and I still maintain the punishment should be appropriate to the crime not the criminal.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Just now, Spanish said:

But the fine is only part of the punishment.  As for fairness, that’s life really.  The wealthy can access the best of everything including legal advice.  To change that would take a revolution I would guess and even then privileges exist in Russia and Cuba.  This is far off the debate and I still maintain the punishment should be appropriate to the crime not the criminal.

While you're probably right about never getting a truly 'equitable' society without some sort of revolution (which would inevitably end up going horribly wrong anyway, if history is anything to go by), an equitable fine system (which, judging by Grealish's case, is the current system) is one small victory, in my opinion.

As for the rest, I think it's a case of agree to disagree.

[Mostyn6]

Replace all fines with unpaid labour. That’s a leveller. 

[Sith Happens]

28 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Replace all fines with unpaid labour. That’s a leveller. 

Wont be though,  if you or I do  it it will be litter picking at 6am on a December morning, if Jack Grealish does it it will be showing his face at a children's hospital and posing for a few selfies. 

[Mostyn6]

37 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Wont be though,  if you or I do  it it will be litter picking at 6am on a December morning, if Jack Grealish does it it will be showing his face at a children's hospital and posing for a few selfies. 

You’re confusing “community service” with “unpaid labour”. By unpaid labour, I mean tidying up fly tipping, scrubbing graffiti off walls, tidying up railway sidings (hate arriving into dirty stations!), gutting and cleaning abandoned buildings, trimming/gardening alongside busy roads etc. A real deterrent.