Getting A Better Wifi/Ethernet Signal.
Technology1 min ago
Mcgregor
93 Answers
I thought the Irish blood was all about honour?
Seems he has none.
A UFC fighter worth 85 million punched a man in the face in a bar, who was in his fifties, simply because he refused a drink from the professional UFC fighter.
He's been ordered to pay £860 and has avoided jail, even though his punches could be fatal to the average Joe.
https:/
Seems he has none.
A UFC fighter worth 85 million punched a man in the face in a bar, who was in his fifties, simply because he refused a drink from the professional UFC fighter.
He's been ordered to pay £860 and has avoided jail, even though his punches could be fatal to the average Joe.
https:/
Answers
Since the incident at Bellator 187 in 2017 he has lurched from one outburst to another and if he doesn't get this in check now he will lose everything he has worked for - worse than that, someone could die.
15:56 Fri 01st Nov 2019
spath - // It seems connor paid an undisclosed sum of money to the man he punched. I wonder if this had an affect on his punishment? //
I can be pretty sure it had no effect - for exactly the reasons I have pointed out - criminals don't get a swerve for dipping into deep pockets and paying people off, that's not how the law operates.
I can be pretty sure it had no effect - for exactly the reasons I have pointed out - criminals don't get a swerve for dipping into deep pockets and paying people off, that's not how the law operates.
spath - // "criminals don't get a swerve for dipping into deep pockets and paying people off, that's not how the law operates."
No but showing remorse and saying sorry to the victim can as far as i understand. Surely compensation is a form of this? //
If it was offered as evidence on court as evidence of contrition, it may be included in the sentencing decision, but it is by no means assured - if it was, anyone with money would be paying off people left right and centre and enjoying a life of utter immorality.
The law is equal and fair to prevent exactly that sort of scenario, and I have pointed out previously.
No but showing remorse and saying sorry to the victim can as far as i understand. Surely compensation is a form of this? //
If it was offered as evidence on court as evidence of contrition, it may be included in the sentencing decision, but it is by no means assured - if it was, anyone with money would be paying off people left right and centre and enjoying a life of utter immorality.
The law is equal and fair to prevent exactly that sort of scenario, and I have pointed out previously.
calmck - // Not casting aspersions but sounds like he could be suffering from “road rage” //
In an ideal world, people with the mentality that enjoys hurting people for money as part of their personality, could be controlled only to show that side of their personality in a professional setting.
Unfortunately, as in this case, it's often not a side of the personality, it IS the personality, and as such, it is ready to evidence itself at the least, or even without, provocation.
That's how situations like this arise.
In an ideal world, people with the mentality that enjoys hurting people for money as part of their personality, could be controlled only to show that side of their personality in a professional setting.
Unfortunately, as in this case, it's often not a side of the personality, it IS the personality, and as such, it is ready to evidence itself at the least, or even without, provocation.
That's how situations like this arise.
//Talking about this, NJ
http://
Alas, zacs, that article (along with many others at that time) was totally, totally misleading. I’ll explain why.
First of all, there were no new laws. All that happened was that the sentencing guidelines for the most serious speeding offences were amended. There are three bands of “seriousness” for speeding fines. Using the 70mph limit to illustrate (similar bands exist for lower limits) they are 71-90, 91-100 and 101 and above. Prior to that change, the recommended fines were half a week’s income for the first band and a week’s income for the other two. The change increased the recommended fine to one and a half weeks’ income for the most serious band. That’s all it did. There were no new laws, just a minor change to the recommended fine for the most serious cases.
It should also be borne in mind that these guidelines are applicable only to cases that are dealt with in court. The overwhelming majority of speeding offences are dealt with by either the offer of a course (for speeds up to Limit+10%+9mph, costing the driver around £90 and half a day of their time) or a fixed penalty (£100 and three points, offered for speeds up to 95mph in a 70 limit, with appropriate levels for lower limits).
So whilst the headline (”New laws mean bigger fines for drivers who earn more”) is by and large correct (apart from the fact that there were no new laws, only new sentencing guidelines) there was nothing new about it. Those convicted of speeding in court have always been subject to means-related fines. The biggest misleading phrase in the article was this:
“Having fines means tested is the biggest change here.”
It was not a change at all, let alone the biggest one. The vast majority of fines levied in a court are means related. A glance at the sentencing guidelines will see references to “Band A”, “Band B” and Band C” fines. These are the three levels I mentioned above. There are other higher bands but they are rarely used, and certainly not for speeding offences.
I don’t know why the media chose to sensationalise that minor change in the way that it did.
On a more general note, there certainly are mechanisms for courts to treat different offenders committing similar offences differently. There is a multitude of factors (apart from means) that can be taken into account when sentencing.
http://
Alas, zacs, that article (along with many others at that time) was totally, totally misleading. I’ll explain why.
First of all, there were no new laws. All that happened was that the sentencing guidelines for the most serious speeding offences were amended. There are three bands of “seriousness” for speeding fines. Using the 70mph limit to illustrate (similar bands exist for lower limits) they are 71-90, 91-100 and 101 and above. Prior to that change, the recommended fines were half a week’s income for the first band and a week’s income for the other two. The change increased the recommended fine to one and a half weeks’ income for the most serious band. That’s all it did. There were no new laws, just a minor change to the recommended fine for the most serious cases.
It should also be borne in mind that these guidelines are applicable only to cases that are dealt with in court. The overwhelming majority of speeding offences are dealt with by either the offer of a course (for speeds up to Limit+10%+9mph, costing the driver around £90 and half a day of their time) or a fixed penalty (£100 and three points, offered for speeds up to 95mph in a 70 limit, with appropriate levels for lower limits).
So whilst the headline (”New laws mean bigger fines for drivers who earn more”) is by and large correct (apart from the fact that there were no new laws, only new sentencing guidelines) there was nothing new about it. Those convicted of speeding in court have always been subject to means-related fines. The biggest misleading phrase in the article was this:
“Having fines means tested is the biggest change here.”
It was not a change at all, let alone the biggest one. The vast majority of fines levied in a court are means related. A glance at the sentencing guidelines will see references to “Band A”, “Band B” and Band C” fines. These are the three levels I mentioned above. There are other higher bands but they are rarely used, and certainly not for speeding offences.
I don’t know why the media chose to sensationalise that minor change in the way that it did.
On a more general note, there certainly are mechanisms for courts to treat different offenders committing similar offences differently. There is a multitude of factors (apart from means) that can be taken into account when sentencing.
