11 years jail for this? Really?

[bcfcredandwhite]

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

[Ciderhead433]

Maybe trying to deter it as soon as they were caught and the service was stopped other sites have started. 

Like any illegal produce that makes money always someone will risk it.

 

[RobinTuga]

It also speaks to the ridiculousness that is football pricing in England that these schemes find so much success. Over here in Portugal for example you can get pretty much every Premier League game for just 10 euros a month and you can choose if you want it through your cable provider or online streaming.

 

 

[Bristol Rob]

30 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

I think what this tells us, is that people who hurt children aren't given long enough sentences. 

 

[Bris Red]

Just shows how broken the judicial system is in this country when Child abusers and rapists are getting less sentences then somebody facilitating streaming of football matches.

[Silvio Dante]

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

[cheese]

It's always been the case that the property of the rich is more valued than the lives of the working class.  And it probably always will be.

[Dennis Potter II]

What an awful sentence. Way way too long. What this says about Britain is terrible. The sentence is far far too long for this. This sort of length should be reserved for murder. If for crime, then for robbing poor people or perhaps stealing large sums from the public. But this? This helped poor people - football access is extortionately expensive. What a sickening sentence. 11 years. Where is Britain headed?

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, Bris Red said:

Just shows how broken the judicial system is in this country when Child abusers and rapists are getting less sentences then somebody facilitating streaming of football matches.

Because rapists and child abusers don't hurt rupert murdoch or powerful people in government 

[LondonRobin]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

Edited May 30, 2023 by LondonRobin

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

[Midred]

2 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

It's also somehow seen* that mostly financial crimes don't hurt anyone. That's why they have the open prisons for bankers, pension misappropriation and politicians. 

*seen - that it only affects the poor and lower middle class.

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, LondonRobin said:

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

I thought Murdoch had nothing to do with Sky and that they have been owned by Comcast for the last 4 or 5 years, I must be wrong.

If Murdoch is the 'victim' does that make those who might have been exploited in the laundering of the money 'beneficiaries?'.

To wash that much dirty money is likely to be near impossible to do without moving it through shady means, could be drugs, terrorism, people smuggling or sex workers.

 

[Gimme Shelton]

According to some every evil in the world is Murdoch's fault,he probably owns the judge who gave this sentence.

[robinforlife2]

Whilst sentences for some other sentences are clearly too low, a judge faces little choice.

The ring leader is the only person who has got 11 years here, the remainder got 3 - 5.5 years, although one, got higher than this as he was also found to have child pornography on his computers.

The sentencing guidelines are clear and because it is more than £500,000 it is automatically category one, and because it triggers more than 3 sections on the high culpability chart, it would always be category 1, culpability 1. The unquestionable facts for high Culpability are, 1: A leading role, in a group run fraud, 2: Involvement of others on the basis of influence, 3: Sophisticated nature & planning, 4: Activity over a sustained period of time.

Therefore on 1A, the guidelines are 5-8 years, with a starting point of 7 years, based on £1,000,000. The maximum sentence that can be given is 14 years, so had he not pleased guilty, he would have got 14 years, as £7m is at the top of all the scales, so he was looking at 14 years, before 30% credit for guilty plea, which brings sentence to 11 years.

Because it is a non violent crime, he will automatically be released after 5 and a half years.

The others sentences range from 3 years (would be  out in 13 and a half months on tag) to 5.5 years (will be leased after 2 years 9 months, not eligible for tag).

Another mans sentence was higher because of the sex charges he pleaded guilty on.

11 years may seem harsh, but it's top of the category and top of the culpability. If no one else was involved, and it was just him, he would have got possibly 7-8 years, but he was the ring leader, the planner and I suspect money laundering and tax avoidance comes into it as well, as there is no way this income would have been fully declared.

 

The person outlining the lady who stole 100K of benefits, up to 100K can be a suspended sentence if there is enough mitigating factors. The range is 18 months to 4 years, anything under 2 years can be suspended. She may have had many reasons, why it was deemed in the best interest to give a suspended sentence and it was within the range.

The minute, you are hitting £1m, you are top of the category and that's 6 years minimum. It's not so much the category that determines the sentence, but more the culpability, which is why he got the maximum. 

[Silvio Dante]

43 minutes ago, LondonRobin said:

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

You’re kind of missing the point.

This gang aren’t some kind of Robin Hood group who are saying “Rob the rich and give football to all” and are operating in an altruistic way. They’ve seen a way to make money through fraudulent means and exploited it. They, in all likelihood, don’t even like football. If it wasn’t corporations, it’d be someone else - and next time could easily be a more vulnerable group. As @Bristol Rob puts it very eloquently, that kind of cash from illicit means needs laundering - and this isn’t like with John Palmer now where they go in Barclays Bedminster. It 100% will be going into the dark market as part of that process.

Inherently a crime has been committed - irrespective of how you class the “victim”.  If it wasn’t streams it’d be something else illegal. So, the question is not whether you dislike Murdoch (not involved, and FWIW I dislike him and his entire empire) or think football should be cheaper. It really is as simple as whether you think a £7m fraud warrants 11 years in prison. And conflating it with other crimes, the “beneficiaries” of the fraud, the “victim” or the subject matter is just noise. 
 

It really is that simple.

[Red Skin]

Sadly, money and protection of corporations matters more than people in our society.  

Edited May 30, 2023 by Red Skin

[Red-Robbo]

38 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Whilst sentences for some other sentences are clearly too low, a judge faces little choice.

The ring leader is the only person who has got 11 years here, the remainder got 3 - 5.5 years, although one, got higher than this as he was also found to have child pornography on his computers.

The sentencing guidelines are clear and because it is more than £500,000 it is automatically category one, and because it triggers more than 3 sections on the high culpability chart, it would always be category 1, culpability 1. The unquestionable facts for high Culpability are, 1: A leading role, in a group run fraud, 2: Involvement of others on the basis of influence, 3: Sophisticated nature & planning, 4: Activity over a sustained period of time.

Therefore on 1A, the guidelines are 5-8 years, with a starting point of 7 years, based on £1,000,000. The maximum sentence that can be given is 14 years, so had he not pleased guilty, he would have got 14 years, as £7m is at the top of all the scales, so he was looking at 14 years, before 30% credit for guilty plea, which brings sentence to 11 years.

Because it is a non violent crime, he will automatically be released after 5 and a half years.

The others sentences range from 3 years (would be  out in 13 and a half months on tag) to 5.5 years (will be leased after 2 years 9 months, not eligible for tag).

Another mans sentence was higher because of the sex charges he pleaded guilty on.

11 years may seem harsh, but it's top of the category and top of the culpability. If no one else was involved, and it was just him, he would have got possibly 7-8 years, but he was the ring leader, the planner and I suspect money laundering and tax avoidance comes into it as well, as there is no way this income would have been fully declared.

 

The person outlining the lady who stole 100K of benefits, up to 100K can be a suspended sentence if there is enough mitigating factors. The range is 18 months to 4 years, anything under 2 years can be suspended. She may have had many reasons, why it was deemed in the best interest to give a suspended sentence and it was within the range.

The minute, you are hitting £1m, you are top of the category and that's 6 years minimum. It's not so much the category that determines the sentence, but more the culpability, which is why he got the maximum. 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the sentence broke sentencing guidelines, merely that it is a reflection that our legal system gives higher weighting to property crime against corporations than it does to many crimes against the person. 

[alexukhc]

20 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

Sadly, money and protection of corporations matters more than people in our society.  

Jackpot

[bcfcredandwhite]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

[robinforlife2]

19 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the sentence broke sentencing guidelines, merely that it is a reflection that our legal system gives higher weighting to property crime against corporations than it does to many crimes against the person. 

It's not just corporations though. Every football club in the Premier League is affected by this fraud. It's not a case of someone just having it off, with sky. It's a case of someone creating something which was illegal, knowing it was illegal, and using methods which are illegal, to benefit to the tune of £7m. They also had STORED everyone's payment details and card details on files, again illegal. Now the police have access to all this. If you use Paypal / World Pay etc , the payment details are never given to the seller, so these people literally used a program and payment software so they knew your card details. The fact is, the group running this, were not football fans, it was an OCG, who probably used the mother to fund other matters, and why did they store everyone's payment records ?

Forget that it's someone selling football streams, this is a £7m fraud, and the likely hood is, those who paid, could and would have ended up targets of frauds in the future.

[IAmNick]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

I don't think that's a fact at all. Sky just pocketed less cash than they would have - they will push their prices up as much as they possibly can get away with regardless. They're not keeping them low because they're thinking "Oh we've made loads of dosh this year let's give Joe Bloggs a break on his bill next year and not raise it". If sky get 5x the subscribers next year I am SURE they will not be dropping their price by 20% or whatever as a result, they'll be Scrooge McDuck diving into an even bigger vat of gold coins.

[robinforlife2]

8 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

[Bristol Rob]

19 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

Okay, a few challenges.

Firstly, I would wager that in the laundering of the money they received, many many people have been hurt.

Secondly, the news this evening said how they were big on selling the idea of the 3pm kick offs, so clubs up and down the country have - probably not to a great extent, but some - seen potential supporters out off from going to a game, would a usual armchair fan spent £25 quid on a League One game, if they could spend £2.50 on a Premier League game.

When Sky bid, they bid with a blended cost, knowing that they will have affiliated broadcasting companies who will pay them for their content, the more accessible that content is, the less it is worth. So despite the fraudsters making millions, the knock on to others, including Sky and BT is likely to be even greater.

Does the 3pm blackout need a review? Yes.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not.

Is televised sport too expensive, maybe. But if clubs are going to pay players upwards of half a million quid a week, some of that money has to come from somewhere.

[Silvio Dante]

28 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I don't think that's a fact at all. Sky just pocketed less cash than they would have - they will push their prices up as much as they possibly can get away with regardless. They're not keeping them low because they're thinking "Oh we've made loads of dosh this year let's give Joe Bloggs a break on his bill next year and not raise it". If sky get 5x the subscribers next year I am SURE they will not be dropping their price by 20% or whatever as a result, they'll be Scrooge McDuck diving into an even bigger vat of gold coins.

FWIW I did say that Sky wouldn’t have dropped their prices had they received £7m, I was more talking a generic. Any business you price in losses from fraud/theft to bottom line and factor that into your top line. So, the base point is if there was no theft/fraud in anything, businesses wouldn’t need to factor that and therefore the top line wouldn’t need adjustment before prices were set. I totally agree they ain’t dropping prices by 20% if they get 5x subscribers though!

 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, robinforlife2 said:

It's not just corporations though. Every football club in the Premier League is affected by this fraud. It's not a case of someone just having it off, with sky. It's a case of someone creating something which was illegal, knowing it was illegal, and using methods which are illegal, to benefit to the tune of £7m. They also had STORED everyone's payment details and card details on files, again illegal. Now the police have access to all this. If you use Paypal / World Pay etc , the payment details are never given to the seller, so these people literally used a program and payment software so they knew your card details. The fact is, the group running this, were not football fans, it was an OCG, who probably used the mother to fund other matters, and why did they store everyone's payment records ?

Forget that it's someone selling football streams, this is a £7m fraud, and the likely hood is, those who paid, could and would have ended up targets of frauds in the future.

 

Tough to feel sorry for the PL or its multimillionaire participants either,  however that isn't the point.

I feel in the UK we punish crimes against property too stringently and crimes against the person too lenientlly. 

 

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

 

Tough to feel sorry for the PL or its multimillionaire participants either,  however that isn't the point.

I feel in the UK we punish crimes against property too stringently and crimes against the person too lenientlly. 

 

Difficult to argue against that. If the perceived punishment needs to act as a deterrent, then you are better off robbing a Rolex off a wrist than robbing a Post Office.

[weepywall]

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

[Bristol Rob]

6 minutes ago, weepywall said:

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

Apples and Oranges, unfortunately.

Should have got life, meaning life.

[cheese]

4 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

I'll raise you Michelle Mone - not even been prosecuted yet