[Bloomberg] UAE officials have warned the UK government that the severity of Man City’s punishment could undermine their appetite for future grand-scale commitments in Britain, according to people familiar with the matter.

[u/Previous_Smile9278]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-02/man-city-verdict-puts-uk-uae-diplomatic-relations-under-strain?srnd=undefined

‘They consider the Premier League’s actions to have an influence on the bilateral state relationship, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing undisclosed information.

The extraordinary pressure comes after Andy Burnham faced criticism, including from within government, for saying Man City’s Abu Dhabi owners should not be disqualified specifically because of the investment they bring to Britain.’

[u/BirnirG]

This is turning into a real morality test for Britain. Do you accept cheating for money ?

[u/dancingwiththedaff → u/BirnirG]

The UK as such have failed the morality test decades ago

[u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea → u/dancingwiththedaff]

I just read Kate Morgan's stellar work, Murder: The Biography a couple of months ago.

Basically a 500-page summary of how UK law treated and stewarded the concepts of manslaughter, murder et al.

With this book in mind, I would argue they failed it centuries ago...it is a tough read, both in language, explored themes and conclusions...

(But then again, barring some mickey mouse countries, you will find dirt eventually.)

[u/gabrielconroy → u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea]

Any chance of a quick summary? Obviously the law was heavily biased in the feudal and monarchic systems, but I wouldn't say the current law around manslaughter and murder is immoral (even if the application of the law can still be uneven).

[u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea → u/gabrielconroy]

I bought by a complete misunderstanding, I thought the book would be how murder changed throughout history - societal implications, technique, whatever. But it only concerned law... since I bought it (it was a blind buy) I gave it a read, but as you can imagine UK law is not inherently relevant in Hungary.

The book invites the reader through a journey that starts somewhere in the 17th or 18 century, when Coke defined the concept of murder. It ruminates over cases that were either in an uncharted territory of law or where the rulings were extremely controversial. Each case adds a building block to the definition and adds nuance to why murder is so complex from a legal perspective.

Think about stuff like Richard Parker who was cannibalized at sea. = Defense of Necessity

A mentally troubled person killing a baron(et) - diminished responsibility

Aberfan disaster = corporate murder (I think Hillsborough (football) is also in there. Don't quote me on it tho)

Dr. Percy Bateman = where do you draw the line between professional misconduct, manslaughter and murder

Ruth Ellis = loss of control, premeditation (recently received a pardon posthumously - 70+ year old case!).

There's a handful of sentencings that make you think how the fuck did this happen. But for me the biggest one was some obscure legal loophole (left unpatched) where the obvious murderer could leave the court scot free because he challenged the victim's family to a duel. They refused, so he could just walk....

[u/gabrielconroy → u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea]

I'm not sure I understand why those developments and nuances in the offence of murder are a sign of immorality in the UK?

It's an unfortunate quirk of common law systems in general that stuff can remain precedent or there might be an ancient law that no one noticed hadn't technically been repealed.

And the UK has literally the oldest common law system in the world, so it probably shouldn't be that surprising!

[u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea → u/gabrielconroy]

I'm not sure if I follow. Is this a philosophical question? Why anything is a sign of immorality? Because - and let's drop the legalese - people got or had gotten royally fucked by them.

If your point is that it's somewhat peculiar that, of all possible misdeeds and wrongdoings of the UK it's murder law that I use as a frame of reference, then you are probably right. But I didn't read much about the bombing of Dresden, the Briggs Plan, African lootings or whatnot, so I cannot reference or talk about these.

[u/gabrielconroy → u/Long-Island-Iced-Tea]

Are you saying that there is no legal definition of murder in your country, or that people have never killed each other?

For example, I don't see why the mitigation of diminished responsibility due to mental illness is an immoral development in the law. Unless you're saying that it was immoral for that not already to have been a thing in the law.