Daft Mackem sues William Hill coz he lost!

No they didn't.

Was it you?

Peodophiles will be getting off scott free soon by blaming the parents for having the kids

I can see it now..........

"Well your honour, As you know I'm a self confessed child pervert, I told you that 3 court cases ago, so I went through the right channels to get help so I'm not to blame, the parents of the victim are 100% to blame for this callus act on a 4 year old girl for giving birth to her on 17th of may, 2004. I know that was her birthday because thats when I started grooming her your honour"

judge..

" After careful concideration, I find the defendant not guilty, and by the power invested in me, I am sentencing the parents to a 7 year jail term, eligible for paroll after half the sentence is served. One last thing! The defendant may think about buying the child a new bike in the way of an appology for destroying her life at an early age"

followed by a round of applause for the smack head judge!

Unlucky


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1308969,00.html

thank fuck sense has prevailed!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Right result, daft fuck!!!

get in!!! fucking stupid cunt for even trying!

maybe he had a huge bet on whether or not he'd win the case.

So they have no social responsibility ffs & there exclusion policy is fooking pointless as addicts can still bet.

Maybe he should not of won his case but guidelines need setting up so when people ask/request to be excluded from using telephone or Internet the account/address/bank details etc are blocked so they cant set up other accounts or bet with existing/known details in the "cooling off period".

it's a piece of piss to set up another account - whether it's with the same bookies OR a different one.

Also, the judge DID say that in his opinion, the bloke would have gotten to this stage no matter what

Agreed, if they had blocked his details he would have just gone to one of the other hundreds of online bookies they wouldve been more than happy to have his custom. If youre an addicted gambler like that you will find a way to gamble just like if youre an alcy you will find a way to get your hands on booze.

No shit Sherlock.

If he had of went to a different bookie & gambled his case wouldnt of even got to court. I would imagine if had of used different details to setup another account with the same bookie it wouldnt of got very far either. Why they let him set up not 1 but 2 new accounts when from what I can gather he was operating on self-exclusion on another account seems wrong to me. Your a computer man it is not very hard to block someone setting up when all or some of the details match a banned or in this case a customer in self-exclusion. The judge did say "the company failed" & I agree with him they did.

With telephone & internet betting the betting companies can very easily spot addicts or people chasing the losses or multiple accounts linked to the same person. I think we as nation need to look beyond this pleb & maybe put some guidelines in place to protect people from themselves & in some extreme cases stop families losing there homes because daddy is whacking another months wages on Egyptian Rug in 3:15 at Kempton.

And if he had of done that or even went into a William Hill shop where they haven't got a clue who the hell he is then fair enough.

As for alcy theory I agree they will get there hands on booze regardless. But there are schemes in Newcastle City Centre that are in place now that make I think 4 (maybe 6) off licences a bit more socially responsible.

That wud have been class