Harry Redknapp

As Robert lovell has pulled the plug on his article, because our banter might prejudice the case somewhat, I thought I'd carry it on here as long as the powers that be think it's ok. Robert we weren't determining whether he is guitly or not just summising whether he would be found guilty or not. That is a big difference. Long gone are the days of football managers meeting in transport cafes with carrier bags.

Comments
Paul Scholes's picture

Yes, long gone are the days...    1 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

they can do it over the internet now, far healthier.

John Stokdyk's picture

Need to exercise some caution - it's the law

John Stokdyk | | Permalink

John - Robert has not "pulled the plug" on the Redknapp article, we have merely disabled comments while the trial is proceeding. Unfortunately, comments that speculate about whether he's guilty or not - without reference to all the evidence that is being presented - could be interpreted as contempt of court. Apart from being an unwise habit to get into, one of the comments did cross that line in my view.

As chance would have it, Journalism.co.uk published an article today explaining how attorney general Dominic Grieve was cracking down much more firmly on contempt than his predecessors. We'd far rather exercise voluntary restraint in this instance than have to deal with more serious consequences.

We'll leave this thread live, but could I please ask any participants to refrain from speculating about the case for and against Redknapp and Mandaric - once the verdict is decided, we can go into a lot more detail!

John Stokdyk's picture

But I've got to pass this one on...    1 thanks

John Stokdyk | | Permalink

A great tweet from Stuart Jones - which doesn't run the risk of contempt!

"Harry Redknapp has made tax fun and has allowed me to talk to football supporters for the first time in my life and be knowledgeable too!"

johnjenkins's picture

John, whilst I appreciate

johnjenkins | | Permalink

and respect what you are saying, we have not speculated whether he is guilty or not, merely speculated whether he will be found guilty or not. There is a big difference. My reference to Piggot and Doddy was meant, and I'm sure 99.9% of us would agree, to be the start of light hearted banter. As we are not interfering with the case in any way we could not be held "in contempt".

 

BKD's picture

JJ

BKD | | Permalink

Probably best not to open up that particular line again. There have been a number of very heated discussions here on the subject of 'guilt'. If an innocent person is found guilty in a court of law - through a miscarriage of justice or otherwise - is he guilty, even though in actual fact he never committed the offence? Likewise, if the perpetrator of an offence is acquitted on a technicality, does that suddenly make him innocent? (In view of my opening line in this comment, neither of those questions needs an answer.)

As for contempt of court, I'll defer to the legal experts, but I understand that any public discussion of an ongoing case can lead to trouble.

Old Greying Accountant's picture

Personally ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... I have better things to worry about!

johnjenkins's picture

@OGA

johnjenkins | | Permalink

you wouldn't if he was your client. I mean that in the context that his Accountant said he didn't know anything about the offshore account.

@BKD Tax can be exactly the same. How many tax payers have been made bankrupt by HMRC when they haven't, in reality, earned the money that the tax is "legally" due on. I believe TV has broadcast a few of these cases. So what if a jury find you guilty and a court of appeal find you not guilty (assuming no new evidence). In this country guilt has to be proven. Yes of course some guilty will walk, better that than many innocents get jailed.

I happen to believe in free speech and free discussion as long as you are not plotting the downfall of this country. As information comes out of the court on a daily basis there cannot be any "contempt". If the court didn't want us to know then they should have reporting restrictions in place.

It is only by discussion that problems get solved. That's why HMRC will never improve. They listen then do what they want to.

 

Old Greying Accountant's picture

I agree with your sentiments ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... what I meant was in the last week of January I have more pressing concerns!

But, we only have snippets of information on which to speculate: as others have said, better to wait for the outcome from those who have seen and heard all the available evidence and information and then pick the bones out of the decision, and better to let that evidence be examined and considered with an open mind rather than one swayed by partially informed premise on public forums.

Discuss with your peers down the pub or at networking events by all means, but a public forum is not the place for such things whilst a trial is in progress, IMHO!

carnmores's picture

as the trial has started we can say what we like within reason

carnmores | | Permalink

jurors are not allowed to look on the web so they cant see likewise we cant hear what they hear only edited highlights - however the situation would be different if we had pontificated after charging but before trial - hence jury questioning - what ever differnce that may make that is a bit of a non sequitor 

BKD's picture

Missed the point - slightly

BKD | | Permalink

johnjenkins wrote:

"Yes of course some guilty will walk, better that than many innocents get jailed."

The simple question is/was - if a guilty person walks, does that make him innocent? And if an innocent is jailed, does that make him guilty? In the eyes of the law, the answer to both questions is undoubtedly "yes". But as a question of fact, it is probably "no". Which takes us back to your original point - speculating on whether someone will be found guilty is indeed quite a different matter to speculating whether someone actually is guilty. As I said, there have been those in the past that were unable to make the distinction.

BKD's picture

Within reason

BKD | | Permalink

But who decides what is "within reason" - you or the Court?

carnmores's picture

me of course

carnmores | | Permalink

unless the judge catches up with me again!

johnjenkins's picture

Again - sounds like

johnjenkins | | Permalink

you need to get down the gym more often.

carnmores's picture

DUCKING AND DIVING

carnmores | | Permalink

IS BETTER

thisistibi's picture

Slightly different angle...

thisistibi | | Permalink

...but why is it that HMRC took this case to court?  I've seen tax evasion before when I worked at a Big 4, and my experience is that it's standard practice for HMRC to adopt their COP 9 procedures - basically, if you disclose everything and pay us then we won't prosecute.

Is it the case here that the amount of tax is small (so HMRC don't care so much) and would rather set an example?

As I understand it thisistibi

Chris Wise | | Permalink

As I understand it thisistibi, this enquiry came off the back of another one, HMRC do prosecute if they think you've not come clean on a statement of assets and liabilities, and of course it is open to the individual to not agree to a settlement. So if Mr X insists he;s done no wrong the only other avenue open to HMRC is prosecution.

anyway I saw this over the weekend http://www.wsc.co.uk/ 

about half way down the front page. Wonder if the CPS have a copy?

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
Group: Time out
A place to have all unrelated accounting discussions