Does anybody else think this is a bit wrong in principle?

You can get away with murder if you're loaded.

But the law is no friend of morality in many cases.

There was a thing today about Judge's taking into account the "impact on the victim" when sentencing. 
So does that mean a crime varies in severity depending on who the victim is?
Surely all victims have equal rights?

Except in UK law.

The moral highground is fine for the holier-than-thou idealists, but idealism is not the real world - it's the pragmatists who recognise reality and do more good.

Breadman wrote:Well.....given that I'd already mentioned the key distinctions between their system and ours in three previous comments and explained why I thought their system was dangerously flawed, only to have you come back and tell me that it was me who was being naive, I thought I'd better spell it out for you......in simpler terms.

Clearly I didn't read through your comments before posting, why should I? I gave my opinion on the story which I'd already seen elsewhere. 

No matter how much time you spend on here you don't run this site, you're getting too big for your boots.

Christ, I hope you never get selected for jury service, 1874.........  

Yeah, why bother reading what people have actually written on a subject before you tell them they're wrong......

Fuck me.....!

Iv only commented my own opinion and on your reply to me, why you think you deserve some sort of special attention is beyond me.

It's not about anybody deserving "special attention", it's about not making yourself look like a dick in public......

I'm not telling you how to enjoy your forum-browsing experience, but if it was me, I'd make sure I'd read exactly what somebody had said on a subject before I told them they were wrong.

You know.....to avoid looking stupid.

It just makes sense to me, but I may be wrong.......

Trust me you acting like a condescending twat doesn't make me feel like a dick. All I've done is give my own opinion on the thread topic and replied to your posts. I don't have to read through your earlier comments to other posters to make sure Im up to date with all of your points.

As you always do, you've taken a small segment of a post out of context and started banging on about that. 

Clearly Im not saying every single crime should be solved in this way as you decided to imply. I'm saying that on balance and in this case I think a £100 million fine is more useful than sending him to prison.

What makes this unfair too is the guy who accepted the bribe is serving about 8 years in prison...

Good result .