posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 09:42 PM
Right, let's set a few things straight here......
1) The judge did say that his age would play a factor in any punishment SHOULD a guilty verdict be returned, and said that Mr Ecclestones importance
in the survival of the business he spent 40 years building should be taken I to account.
2) Most important is the reason why the judge accepted this deal, he stated that the case against Mr Ecclestone was very weak, and a long drawn out
trial may have rested on opinions of a few facts. The deal was acceptable to the court because a guilty verdict WAS NOT a forgone conclusion.
If you have followed the case you will know that this all centres on a middleman, it was his dealings on Ecclestones behalf that raised issues. I feel
that the deal was suggested to prevent a long, personally damaging trial, that would have ended in a verdict of innocent, leaving Formula 1 and it's
management embarrassed by things that really had no bearing on the business deals at the centre of the trial.
Yes, he's filthy rich, but he is that way because of the work he has put in to grow the sport, attract new technologies, take it to new developing
markets. He is a visionary business man, who loves the sport he has helped make famous, there is a distrust of anyone who is rich these days and I
don't think people who work hard at something they have a passion for should be vilified for making money doing it.
You have all compared this to other crimes, we are not talking about a violent criminal, we are talking about a business man who made a bad choice of
business partner, who has now paid what would have been owed if the deal had been done correctly, a prison sentence isn't the only way to show
penance for a bad choice that inadvertently harms another party.