VillaAlex Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Here's another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 That's clearly a blatant forgery VillaAlex because old 'Arry said he's never written a letter in his life! Course if he does do Porridge then at least they might offer to teach him English. AND THIS was the man being touted for the England Managers Job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Has anyone heard from Glaston lately?.... Some corkers to be found on twitter tonight - "Fair play to Harry Redknapp, I can't even get our dog to sit and beg let alone go and open an off shore bank account." MikelArteta08 - "Harry Redknapp says he writes like a two year old and can't spell. Makes you wonder what the other Sun columnists' qualifications are!!!" And my particular favourite:- To the tune of Only Fools & Horses - "No Income Tax, No V.A.T, No points last week off Man City...The futures bleak, he's looking pale...Harry Redknapp's off to jail..." So funny if the Watford fans get hold of this for Friday night and give it some.... He's gonna be in the dug out apparently for Spuds game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 26, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2012 I don't know for certain but I'm guessing that jail is unlikely for anyone in these circumstances. Really? I think his defence that I heard on the radio on the way home of something along the lines of "I'm really disorganised, let my accountants run my affairs for me and have the hand writing of a 2 year old" will get jumped on. If found guilty the judge can only conclude that he's taking the piss surely. It's the modified Ken Dodd defence, except he used a monaco bank account for a mattress and is about as funny as herpes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 To the tune of Only Fools & Horses - "No Income Tax, No V.A.T, No points last week off Man City...The futures bleak, he's looking pale...Harry Redknapp's off to jail... Long live Fratton Park God Bless Fratton Park I said magnifique Fratton Park" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I don't know for certain but I'm guessing that jail is unlikely for anyone in these circumstances. A custodial sentence is technically possible - but lets face it - won't happen. He has the means to clear the tax owed and a large fine...(100% of the tax owed) plus costs. My guess.... this is going to cost Mr Redknapp about £750k all in. I'm not so sure he is going to escape prison after the MPs expenses scandal. HMRC are trying to regulate football wages at the moment, as most players wages are paid to a two-tiered company to avoid income tax - then they pay themselves a much lower salary from that company. HMRC want the players to pay their share of tax on the wagers they get paid by the club. Unfortunately all this will achieve is the same as the bankers. The players will take their business abroad where they can pay less tax and earn more. Unless of course in the current climate where people hiding money and not paying tax, the bankers, the rich etc are all over the papers, They may want to set a precedent See above. The bankers wages is a quandary. Bankers do not need to be based in the UK to do their jobs,so they can live anywhere they like where they can maximise their earning potential. A lot live in Hong Kong and Singapore for this reason. The government really are pissing in the wind if they think they are going to generate billions in lost revenue from chasing bankers. And if they try it on with Premier League players/managers, they are eventually going to devalue the league. I can see them making an example of Redknapp. A couple of months in a low security Cat D prison... But all of that "contextual" information regarding bankers is irrelevant. HMRC have no say in the sentencing process and there are clear guidelines from the Sentencing Council about what he can and cannot get. The Judge has to look at the facts of the case and then make a decision using the guidelines. Shoving 'Arry in prison when he has the means to not only pay the tax owed but a heavy fine is simply not in the public interest and will not happen. If found guilty (and it a'int looking good) it will cost 'Arry a few quid but no more. Spurs won't sack him, and he WILL still get the England job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 27, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 27, 2012 Shouldn't the thread title be changed now? 23rd Jan has finished looming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why is jailing him not in the public interest? It's a high profile case. He's a public figure. Football is rife with such tax dodgers. Jailing him would send a clear message. I don't see the ability to pay a huge fine has any relevance and doesn't that come under a later trial under the proceeds of crime act? Sentencing has nothing to do with the ability to pay until it comes to the proceeds of crime bit. This is about guilt pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Calling for him to be jailed is Churlish Let the anger go man !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Who's angry? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why is jailing him not in the public interest? Well if he goes to jail it ends up costing the state money for a start, plus we are hardly struggling to fill the cells. In a case like this the public interest generally is in financial terms and is best served by him paying the tax, the fine and the costs. As much as it would amuse me to see him in jail I don't expect it to happen. It's a high profile case. He's a public figure. Football is rife with such tax dodgers. Jailing him would send a clear message. I don't see the ability to pay a huge fine has any relevance and doesn't that come under a later trial under the proceeds of crime act? The law is the law and all should be equal under it. Redknapp should get the same punishment you or I would get (lets hope HMRC never discover our Monaco accounts) the fact he is high profile shouldn't really come into it, if it does that is wrong in my view and I dislike Redknapp more than most. Sentencing has nothing to do with the ability to pay until it comes to the proceeds of crime bit. This is about guilt pure and simple. Agreed but sentencing doesn't have anything to do with the name or fame of the person, its about the crime. I'm not convinved that this crime would see people serve time but I'd happily be wrong in the case. On a slight tangent, I can't help but wonder if he is found guilty then there will be a deluge of stories about him. That sort of thing often happens in these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleBromVilla Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 and, we need him as the next England manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 @ Bicks.... what Trent says.... and its not often I'd say that. A Benefit Fraudster who had lied to get a similar amount of cash £150k would be looking at jail because that process involves making dishonest statements to obtain benefit. 'Arry's crime is one of failure to disclose information which in law is less serious - dispite the amounts involved being the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 27, 2012 A little Google search turned up the following, A CPS spokesman told the BBC that, as a common law offence, there is technically no maximum sentence for the charge - meaning that an unlimited fine or prison sentence could be decided at a judge's discretion. So jail time is possible but I'd say unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 No way will they lock him up. Why burden the tax payer at £40k a week for a financial crime when the court could recover the tax not paid, hit him with a huge fine for his troubles and whack him for costs? It makes no sense other than comedy value to lock him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why burden the tax payer at £40k a week Where did that figure come from? If that was the true cost of keeping people in prison the bill fro the UK prison population would be £181bn annually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I thinks there's more chance of Arry's dog going to prison than him, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 27, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 27, 2012 A CPS spokesman told the BBC that, as a common law offence, there is technically no maximum sentence for the charge - meaning that an unlimited fine or prison sentence could be decided at a judge's discretion. I like the idea of an "unlimited fine". He could be a long time paying off an infinite amount of money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why burden the tax payer at £40k a week Where did that figure come from? If that was the true cost of keeping people in prison the bill fro the UK prison population would be £181bn annually! Yeah ok, I meant year.... google reveals the costs estimated at 50k a year so wrong on both counts but the point stands. Why burden the public purse for a crime that is not a danger to society. Why not smash him for a several hundred k and have the public humiliation to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why burden the tax payer at £40k a week Where did that figure come from? If that was the true cost of keeping people in prison the bill fro the UK prison population would be £181bn annually! Yeah ok, I meant year.... google reveals the costs estimated at 50k a year so wrong on both counts but the point stands. Why burden the public purse for a crime that is not a danger to society. Why not smash him for a several hundred k and have the public humiliation to deal with. A low risk male in an open prison (Cat D) cost £29,804 a year on 2010/11. Six months at that rate, paid for by a small fraction of the massive fine they should give him should be OK. I just want him to go to prison, even if it's only until the end of the summer! Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts