Re: Who the fuck cares?
I guess you as you took the time to read the article and post a reply :)
29 posts • joined 21 Jul 2009
There are millions of companies that make money and have to deal with freetards but don't f***k with their customers like EA.
Imagine Tesco employing armed guards at every store and only allowing 10 people in per hour to "stop those pesky freetard shoplifters". No they simply price their goods to account for theft.
I would be interested to see how much EA think they lose from theft as opposed to how much they will lose in sales from people like me who would only get this now if it was pirated.
Yes I agree with what you say but there are counter arguments.
As recidivism rates are quite high, and we rely on underpaid and poorly motivated public employees to "control" said offenders there is quite a high probability that some will reoffend. Based on the laws in the US "Megan's Law" the ability to track offenders in the community can pay dividends.
Of course the most obvious route is to house them in very upper-class areas where such ill educated lynch mobs cannot run riot.
I was told, after about 50+ SO's on my business account over a year that they "could not decline setting up a standing order if one was sent through" .... despite the fact they did not have my signature on and the accounts were all linked to cc topup accounts (I found out not Natwest who were less than interested).
Their attitude to fraud was comical and bordered on the criminal so I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sky was blue.
@ThomH I would not disagree with you but banging up a women for 6 months because she broke what I would regard as an outdated precedent just feels wrong when real nasty people go free.
The argument that she cost the taxpayer lots of money for a retrial is the same when the police or lawyers withhold evidence but very rarely are they even called to account or the judges that fall asleep in the middle of trials (been to two appeals where retrials were ordered) but didn't hear about them doing any hard time. I quite simply don't think the punishment fits the crime - yes fine her or community service but 6 months for me is way over the top.
I'll bite with an LL.B and LL.M
"for starters, juries are not told of previous convictions except in exceptional circumstances. Only once found guilty is this taken into account" ... true and your point ?
"Isn't this the point of obtaining evidence and not basing a case on hearsy and "lawyers" presumptions on what consitutes "scum". If that were the case, many of us would agree that the first people to be banged up should be many of the lawyers themselves." ... if you think most trials are about evidence then please go to your local court and see how they work. Would not disagree with lawyers being banged up. They do their best to get an acquittal despite often knowing that the defendant is guilty.
"Good, I hope we do get the one where a person is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of what rumours someone has heard on the internet." ... no you get an adversarial system where parties try to suggest each other is lying and the truth is often overlooked. This isn't Judge John Deed, real life isn't all roses.
I once got a defendant a non custodial sentence for smashing a brick into his girlfriends face.... not a proud moment.
That's the kind of thing law students learn and not what happens in the real world. Often cases are bartered to a conclusion before a jury ever gets to hear them. And if you think previous character has nothing to do with the likelihood of offending well just go sit in on sentencing for a day or so.
It works both ways, having worked for a charity that looked at high profile appeals before the CRB maybe if all the evidence was initially disclosed we wouldn't need to pay billions to lawyers for appeals.
Positive PR by the legal system has kept the jury system sacrosanct but it is as fallible as any other system and having heard jury members discussing "he looks nice he could not have done it..." in the cafe really does fill you with confidence.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - unless it's deemed unfair or prejudice. Having worked a a defence lawyer in the courts of London for a few years I would think that a huge amount of scum go free because the full facts are never heard.
Of course if you think the jury are so stupid they cannot evaluate things like past convictions then you may just get the criminal justice system you deserve.
At least 2/3 times a month we have to phone the bank to cancel direct debits that they never check. Having traced the numbers they all go back to a Natwest bank up north that supplies topup facilities for prepaid cards. So send in your dodgy DD and if it gets through the money goes straight onto your prepaid card, off you go.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019