ADK Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Thought someone would post that when I saw it on BBC earlier. It's not really a case of 1 law for the rich, it's just the fact he could afford to pay an out of court settlement.
Buce Posted 14 April 2014 Author Posted 14 April 2014 Thought someone would post that when I saw it on BBC earlier. It's not really a case of 1 law for the rich, it's just the fact he could afford to pay an out of court settlement. Of course it is. It's the fact that he was rich that allowed him to avoid a court case, with the resultant embarrassment and possible effect on his employment status.
MooseBreath Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Of course it is. It's the fact that he was rich that allowed him to avoid a court case, with the resultant embarrassment and possible effect on his employment status. Not a different law though is it. I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean it's against the law for me to buy one
Steven Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Not a different law though is it. I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean it's against the law for me to buy one Disingenuous.
ADK Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 It would only be different if he'd literally been able to buy his way out of a serious offence. The fact he is rich doesn't really change anything. The fact he was rich just makes him a bit more of a cvnt for doing it, as he could afford to have paid his fare in the first place.
Feed The Yak!! Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Not a different law though is it. I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean it's against the law for me to buy one That's a terrible analogy - it's a case of dodging the law because you have money.
ADK Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 He's not dodged the law. If you got caught travelling without paying a rail fare you could also avoid appearing in court by choosing to settle out of court.
MooseBreath Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 That's a terrible analogy - it's a case of dodging the law because you have money. No it isn't.
Feed The Yak!! Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 He's not dodged the law. If you got caught travelling without paying a rail fare you could also avoid appearing in court by choosing to settle out of court. Yes but it's highly unlikely that they're going to accept a proportionate fee from someone who doesn't have as much money as that.
Feed The Yak!! Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 No it isn't. Yes it is. A more appropriate analogy would be someone nicking a Ferrari and then having no charges pressed because they can pay back the money anyway.
Buce Posted 14 April 2014 Author Posted 14 April 2014 He's not dodged the law. If you got caught travelling without paying a rail fare you could also avoid appearing in court by choosing to settle out of court. Who, but the rich, could afford to repay £43,000?
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Yes it is. A more appropriate analogy would be someone nicking a Ferrari and then having no charges pressed because they can pay back the money anyway. I think the Ferrari is irrelevant but it's a fair analogy. Basically in both cases, anyone has a choice Do you want a Ferrari? Yes (pay) / no (don't pay) Do you want to settle a case outside of court? Yes (pay) / no (don't pay)
Jon the Hat Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Not sure they actually have much eveidence he realy owed them that much, so they are probably pretty happy. Can you call it one rule for the rich and another for the poor when anyone can get off paying a penalty fare?
Jon the Hat Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Who, but the rich, could afford to repay £43,000? That is merely the scale of the evasion. The crime is the same as travelling without a ticket. You can usually pay a penalty fare.
Finnaldo Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Not a different law though is it. I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean it's against the law for me to buy one I think the case presented is more the moral side than the settlement. If you committed the crime and couldn't pay the payment owed you'd go to court, and I'd imagine face some kind of further punishment than just having to repay it in instalments, maybe another fine or something similar. However , in this case, they've paid the money owned, and not faced any further punishment. I think the argument is that as he's committed the crime he should face the punishment for it. Not sure where I sit on the issue though.
Jon the Hat Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 I think the case presented is more the moral side than the settlement. If you committed the crime and couldn't pay the payment owed you'd go to court, and I'd imagine face some kind of further punishment than just having to repay it in instalments, maybe another fine or something similar. However , in this case, they've paid the money owned, and not faced any further punishment. I think the argument is that as he's committed the crime he should face the punishment for it. Not sure where I sit on the issue though. They must be some kind of penalty in there as well, I can't believe a season ticket from there is £9k a year.
Parafox Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Mmmmm... He paid what he owed and avoided going to court. Fair enough IMO. Although I wonder if he would have paid up had he not been caught? I don't think fare dodging is a criminal offence but a civil one, although I don't know for sure. In any case he committed an offence and in all probability was threatened with a fine if he didn't pay up. I know somebody who didn't pay their water bill for over a year and was threatened with court action and then repaid the debt (having borrowed the money) and thereby avoided court and any additional penalty. That person is out of work so you can't argue one rule for the rich etc... Strangely, non-payment of a TV licence IS a criminal offence. At least for now.
Charl91 Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Mmmmm... He paid what he owed and avoided going to court. Fair enough IMO. Although I wonder if he would have paid up had he not been caught? I'm guessing not, otherwise he wouldn't have been fare-dodging in the first place.
Webbo Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 If he didn't have the money to pay and it went to court he would probably only got a suspended sentence anyway.
l444ry Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Not really such a shock is it? The thieving MP Maria Miller pockets £60k expenses, gets told to repay £5k and "apologise" but will make £1.4million selling a house the taxpayer paid for. Meanwhile, during the riots a few years back, one lad gets 6 months for stealing a bottle of water and another 10 months for stealing a pair of trainers.
MPH Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 That's a terrible analogy - it's a case of dodging the law because you have money. He hasnt dodged the law as it was all in the hands of the rail company - they didnt want it to go to court as they could possibly incur charges from the case being in the court system. If anyone has taken advantage of him being 'rich' then its the rail company, not him. They could of refused the out of court settlements and taken him to court.
Rincewind Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 Why did he not pay the correct fare in the first place>
MPH Posted 14 April 2014 Posted 14 April 2014 W Or hy did he not pay the correct fare in the first place> No idea. you'll have to ask him? Maybe he couldnt be bothered. Maybe he thought it was too much.... and he was proving a point? Maybe he thought a season ticket he had covered all fairs. Maybe he was known to the rail company and thought his accountant was taking care of it... I just dont know.. Or maybe he had genuinely thought he had worked out a way to get the fair for cheaper and thought it was all legit?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.