This Weekend's Fixtures & Stoke v Man City (10/11/12 March).

[Cripps]

The isse was Carragher spitting. As usual the outrage brigade quickly switched attention to the dad using his phone. He should be thrown in jail one said

[Letters]

Using a phone while driving is illegal

[Niall_Quinn]

The isse was Carragher spitting. As usual the outrage brigade quickly switched attention to the dad using his phone. He should be thrown in jail one said

Come off it.

The whole thing was a stitch up. He chases down Carragher, starts having a go, has a camera out (there's your major clue) and then seems positively delighted when he gets the reaction. Then uses his daughter to get the sympathy vote.

Total scumbag.

He's dumb enough to break the law on camera and if we have to have poxy governments and coppers and bullshit laws then everyone should be victimised equally. Of course he should be done. Why wouldn't he be done? When Carragher spit was the law rescinded? So what possible reason could there be for not prosecuting him?

[Letters]

He was goading him hoping for a reaction, but Carragher knew he was being filmed and was an idiot.
In brief, two idiots.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think everyone agrees by default Carragher is an idiot - we knew that before this incident anyway.

But the scumbag fake father is getting off pretty easily and he'll end up quids in. Smart I suppose, in a weasel kind of way.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nths-jail.html

(Im)possible jail sentence for spitting?

Nah, he has too much cash to go to jail. Courts are always after cash and they'll probably do well out of this.

But is anyone going to try to claim this Hughes bloke isn't a complete fucking arsehole?

Look at the cunt lapping it all up. Probably the best thing that has ever happened to him.



And tbf to Jamie-lad, it would be hard to miss the daughter. Chuck something up in the air from 40 miles away and you're likely to nick her with it on the way down.

But, get this, they're Welsh!

Yes? See that?

Welsh FFS! And nobody seem to be complaining about that.

[Niall_Quinn]

BBC presenter Jeremy Vine said in a tweet that the person filming Carragher should be jailed for using a mobile at the wheel.


The Radio 2 host hit out at Carragher, branding his actions 'disgusting' and 'certainly sackable' but implied that using a phone on the motorway was worse as the man should go 'straight to jail'.


He wrote: 'Spitting: disgusting, possibly criminal, certainly sackable.


'Filming on a mobile while driving a car with a child in the back, on a motorway, paying no attention whatsoever to the road: straight to jail.'

Nasty little fascist.

Who was harmed, you stupid cunt? Where's the harmed party?

These stuck-up tools who think jail is the answer for anyone who might inconvenience their dinner party existence make my skin crawl.

Somebody cuts him up with their trolley in the Waitrose fine wines section?

JAIL!

Somebody parks 1 inch over the kerb outside his drive when everybody fucking knows he's having Sir Fuckwit the local MP around for cocktails (because he sent out a leaflet announcing it to the street)?

Fucking JAIL! Throw away the key.

Now if the idiot driving and using his phone had crashed the car and injured somebody, fair enough. His negligence would have resulted in actual harm and so there ought to be consequences. But nobody was harmed so shut the fuck up.

And shop at Tesco you cunt. Find out how the real middle middle and lower middle classes live!

[Letters]

Now if the idiot driving and using his phone had crashed the car and injured somebody, fair enough. His negligence would have resulted in actual harm and so there ought to be consequences. But nobody was harmed so shut the fuck up.

Interesting. So you think that the punishment should be determined by the consequences, not the action?
So if someone tries to shoot you but misses then it's fine, no-one was harmed so no harm done?

Obviously neither of them should go to jail, but he should be fined and have points on his licence.

[Niall_Quinn]

Interesting. So you think that the punishment should be determined by the consequences, not the action?
So if someone tries to shoot you but misses then it's fine, no-one was harmed so no harm done?

Obviously neither of them should go to jail, but he should be fined and have points on his licence.

Silly argument.

If somebody deliberately shoots a gun at you they must be trying to kill you. That's attempted murder. There intent and there's an intended victim. And the harm doesn't need to be physical.

For your analogy to be useful the guy would have to jump in his car and grab a phone with the intent of harming somebody. He didn't. No crime. So the stupid cunt Vine wants him to be charged with a pre-crime.

Politicians and judges should go to jail for raping children, don't you think? Rather than think up new pre-crime laws for the rest of us.

[Mac76]

Now if the idiot driving and using his phone had crashed the car and injured somebody, fair enough.

the whole point is if you fine someone for potentially causing an accident that is a much greater deterrent than waiting until they actually cause the accident

It's about preventing the crime and harm to others, rather than being just about punishing people after they've already caused the harm