Bernie Ecclestone could pay off court to end bribery trial

[Speckled Hen 10]

Check your own posts for insults.

 

No, you still haven't got it.

 

Of course I'm coming from a layman's view. That doesn't mean I don't understand WHAT is happening, or HOW the system works. My point is that in allowing it to happen in the way it has, the justice system looks to have failed to be impartial. Are there occurrences where poor people are required to pay a similar "fine" to have all charges dropped? Say where a payment of, say, £50 would have a real impact on the person required to pay it - a noticeable part of his disposable income? Or where he has no discernible income? Do these happen in the same way, ie all charges dropped? Do you know if many countries have a system the same as Germany's? I've never heard of it here.

 

 

 

Can you explain one simple thing.

 

As Bernie Ecclestone has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, why has he been required to pay any money.

 

This is not some sort of plea bargain where a reduced charge has been accepted. He has not been found guilty of any crime. he is innocent in the eyes of the law, yet has had to pay.

 

 

It happens all the time. It is known as settling out of court. Ecclestone wasn't forced to pay. He offered to pay. I suppose when you are 83 years of age and have $4.6 billion in the bank spending 2 years on your yacht can seem rather more attractive than spending 2 years going through the court system. The money becomes irrelevant when you have so much of it. You can pay it into a court to get the court case dropped or you can spend it on very expensive lawyers to fight it out for the rest of your life. Which would you choose?

On the flip side the court system can waste millions trying to bring a case against an 83 year old who will either be found not guilty or will have died before a FINAL verdict is reached. $100 million seems like a good deal for the courts rather than wasting $millions trying to prosecute someone whose cash won't run out as quickly as the prosecutors.

[L00b 441]

<...>

 

Can you explain one simple thing.

 

As Bernie Ecclestone has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, why has he been required to pay any money.

 

<...>

I have explained this in my earlier posts, rather comprehensively, and in reasonably simple and clear terms.

 

Is it a case of you not understanding them, or a case of you not accepting them? Genuine query.

 

FWIW, frequently clients do not accept my advice, because it's not "right" (i.e. what they consider as "justice", and consequently expect to hear from me...my job is to advise them with impartiality (that means good and bad news) and act in their best interests, not tell them what they want to hear). It's a very common phenomenon for legal advisers, and goes to the heart of this debate.

 

EDIT: still not seeing any insults in my posts, btw. Enlighten me, if you would care.

Edited August 7, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae 12]

I have explained this in my earlier posts, rather comprehensively, and in reasonably simple and clear terms.

 

Is it a case of you not understanding them, or a case of you not accepting them? Genuine query.

 

FWIW, frequently clients do not accept my advice, because it's not "right" (i.e. what they consider as "justice", and consequently expect to hear from me...my job is to advise them with impartiality (that means good and bad news) and act in their best interests, not tell them what they want to hear). It's a very common phenomenon for legal advisers, and goes to the heart of this debate.

 

EDIT: still not seeing any insults in my posts, btw. Enlighten me, if you would care.

 

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

[truman 10]

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

 

Genuine question..don't people "settle out of court" in the UK? What is the difference between that and what Ecclestone has done?

[Speckled Hen 10]

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

 

If you don't like the way the German legal system works, perhaps you should take it up with your Euro MP. I suspect that you just don't like Bernie Ecclestone because he has been rather more successful in life than you have.

[L00b 441]

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

Eh?

 

How and where have I ignored anyone's views in here?

 

How can any of my posts in this thread conceivably be interpreted as an attack on any poster?

 

How about you read and understand my posts, instead of interpreting them and inferring secondary meanings?

[Eater Sundae 12]

Genuine question..don't people "settle out of court" in the UK? What is the difference between that and what Ecclestone has done?

 

From my viewpoint.

 

An out of court settlement in a civil case in the UK is something that suits both parties and is really nothing to do with anyone else. It is a private matter, other than it took place in a state controlled legal setting. The actual agreement was between two private parties - so nobody else's business.

 

In a criminal case, one of the parties is the state, and so it does affect everyone. We are part of the state. The state and the accused can make a deal (eg a guilty plea to a lesser charge), and I can see the sense in that. there is an acceptance of fault to a degree, and punishment doled out. The greater charge is thrown out. The accused is not being required to pay anything for the charge which is not being pursued, but only for the one he has accepted guilt.

 

The issue in this case that seems perverse, to me, is that BE has not been found guilty of anything, and has not accepted guilt to any charge (not even a lesser one as part of a plea bargain), but he is still being required to pay up. The courts can only decide on the evidence in front of them. If the evidence is inadequate, and they cannot make a decision, then they cannot make a decision, in which case he can be acquitted.

 

I can certainly understand BE accepting this, regardless of guilt, but I do not think it is appropriate for the state to be a party to this, as it sends out the wrong message - ie that criminals can buy they way out of criminal responsibility (something that a plea bargain doesn't do as that includes a degree of guilt), OR that the state is able to hold someone to ransome, at their whim. I'm not saying that either of these has happened, it is just the message that the events give.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 13:28 ----------

 

Eh?

 

How and where have I ignored anyone's views in here?

 

How can any of my posts in this thread conceivably be interpreted as an attack on any poster?

 

How about you read and understand my posts, instead of interpreting them and inferring secondary meanings?

 

Then why do you feel the need to refer to lay people's failure to understand.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 13:37 ----------

 

If you don't like the way the German legal system works, perhaps you should take it up with your Euro MP. I suspect that you just don't like Bernie Ecclestone because he has been rather more successful in life than you have.

 

I don't know whether BE is guilty or not, and don't particularly care. If anything, my posts come down in his favour, insofar as if the German state didn't have a case that would result in a conviction, then they should have just dropped the case and freed him, IMO. My view is about the way the system works in that they drop all charges (so, no case to answer) yet he is still required to pay.

 

I'd love to know what my Euro MP could do about the German Justice system - well I wouldn't really as I know what the answer is. The German justice system is the responsibility of Germany, as it should be.

 

I am posting on a public discussion forum, giving my views about a recent news item. That is all.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Eater Sundae

[L00b 441]

<...>I can certainly understand BE accepting this, regardless of guilt, but I do not think it is appropriate for the state to be a party to this, as it sends out the wrong message - ie that criminals can buy they way out of criminal responsibility (something that a plea bargain doesn't do as that includes a degree of guilt), OR that the state is able to hold someone to ransome, at their whim. I'm not saying that either of these has happened, it is just the message that the events give.

That 'message' is just your understanding and opinion, which do not reflect the facts and procedural aspects of this case (which I have belaboured - apparently in vain, still).

Then why do you feel the need to refer to lay people's failure to understand.

Precisely because of the above, which you (continue to-) illustrate quite aptly. That's not an insult, just an objective statement of fact (as you continually refer to BE as being "obliged" or "ransomed" into buying his way out of the case by the German system - he absolutely was not).

 

You are disputing the morality of this German procedural option, I am (trying to-) explaining why debating its morality is utterly pointless.

Edited August 7, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae 12]

That 'message' is just your understanding, which does not reflect the facts and procedural aspects of this case (which I have belaboured - apparently in vain, still).

Precisely because of the above, which you (continue to-) illustrate quite aptly. That's not an insult, just an objective statement of fact (as you continually refer to BE as being "obliged" or "ransomed" into buying his way out of the case by the German system - he absolutely was not).

 

You are disputing the morality of this German procedural option, I am (trying to-) explaining why debating its morality is pointless.

 

Of course it's pointless, in the sense that it will have no impact on the German legal system. I wouldn't expect for one moment to have any impact on anything that matters. As I posted above, I'm on a public discussion forum commenting on a recent news event. Nothing else.

 

My comment has been on what I see to be a clear difference between a plea bargain scenario, and this one. In the case of a plea bargain, the punishment can be weighed against an agreed crime, and the other alleged crimes (which are not pursued) incur no punishment.

 

In this case, there is still a price to pay even though all charges have been dropped. Can you not see a basic difference?

 

You again seem to be hiding behind "this is the way it is done, you do not understand". But I do understand that it is the way this is done. I just think that it sends out a signal that is very different from a plea bargain situation.

[truman 10]

Of course it's pointless, in the sense that it will have no impact on the German legal system. I wouldn't expect for one moment to have any impact on anything that matters. As I posted above, I'm on a public discussion forum commenting on a recent news event. Nothing else.

 

My comment has been on what I see to be a clear difference between a plea bargain scenario, and this one. In the case of a plea bargain, the punishment can be weighed against an agreed crime, and the other alleged crimes (which are not pursued) incur no punishment.

 

In this case, there is still a price to pay even though all charges have been dropped. Can you not see a basic difference?

 

You again seem to be hiding behind "this is the way it is done, you do not understand". But I do understand that it is the way this is done. I just think that it sends out a signal that is very different from a plea bargain situation.

 

How about people who have done something wrong but don't get charged because they "dob in" others?

[Eater Sundae 12]

How about people who have done something wrong but don't get charged because they "dob in" others?

 

I'm not keen in principle, but if it means that bigger fish are caught and punished, then I think that the overall benefit justifies it.

 

Depending on the circumstances, there could be the risk that the accuser is not trustworthy - so the justice system has to satisfy itself that the charge is proven.

 

This was an added complication in the BE case, as I see it.

[L00b 441]

My comment has been on what I see to be a clear difference between a plea bargain scenario, and this one. In the case of a plea bargain, the punishment can be weighed against an agreed crime, and the other alleged crimes (which are not pursued) incur no punishment.

The German BE outcome is absolutely not comparable to a plea bargain, because a plea bargain requires proven or admitted guilt, whether before or during trial.

 

This comparison falls down at the first hurdle here (because BE has not admitted guilt at any time prior to the settlement, and his guilt has not been proven by the German prosecution prior to the settlement - in fact the case was going the other way), so is just not worth discussing.

 

That's just base logic: compare apples to apples, not to kitchen towels.

In this case, there is still a price to pay even though all charges have been dropped. Can you not see a basic difference?

For the love of...

 

That's the deal under German law and procedure: the charges and the trial have been dropped because (i) BE asked for it against payment and (ii) the judge and the prosecution agreed with his request.

 

If the Judge was still intimately convicted that BE was guilty, then notwithstanding where the case was at and whatever the prosecution may have said, the Judge still had the choice of denying BE's request for settlement and hearing the trial until the end.

 

There is no ransom, there is no coercion of one party or the other, there is no perversion of justice. It's just reasonable parties reaching a reasonable decision in light of the case ins and outs and progress/established merit.

You again seem to be hiding behind "this is the way it is done, you do not understand". But I do understand that it is the way this is done. I just think that it sends out a signal that is very different from a plea bargain situation.

Could that be because they are not comparable to begin with?