Premier League Spurs - Arry's gone but we still dislike them...

[MMFy]

It's not bullshit, you are missing the point. The fact he hasn't paid the tax isn't being contested. It's whether it's plausible it could have been down to negligence. Therefore the percentage is important as it shows the insignificant difference it makes.

It isn't important though. There's forgetting to declare a car you bought on your annual tax return, and there's squireling money away in an undeclared offshore account.

It would be a percentage if it was inaccuracies on a tax return, but this is nothing to do with inaccuracies. This is to do with a concealment - a concealment that HMRC consider fraud.

Don't quote me on it though, research UK law on fraud. TrentVilla has already posted the detail in this thread in the last few days, as quoted by a copper working closely with this case.

You couldn't argue that you drove off without paying for the fuel, but it could be argued you did it by accident. In your defence you'd come up with numeorus reasons for your absent mindness and give reasons why there is no logic or motive behind you stealing the fuel. But if it was demonstrated that you'd stolen fuel from a few petrol stations and were found to be flogging cheap fuel, you'd be screwed. In one case you might get off or be given a fine, in the other you are likely to get jail time.

You're not getting it though, are you. Redknapp is not even denying opening an offshore account with a pseudonym (which you don't do unless you are hiding something), he is coming out with the most ridiculous excuses possible. Can't read, can't write, can't fax, don't know what an email is; absolute bollocks.

This is also not a scenario that refers to multiple instances of theft (fraud). It is a scenario of isolated theft. It's still theft and would be treated as a crime as a result.

I'm not saying he'll escape prosecution, but trying to point out why this case isn't quite what it is made out to be, what the battle ground really is and why those hoping for a harsh outcome are going to be disappointed.

I'm not saying he is guilty, I'm saying it looks like he is guilty. There are a number of things listed in this case that you wouldn't do if you were innocent. I don't like Redknapp, but I do believe justice will take it's course.

FWIW, I reckon he is and has done an excellent job at Spuds. Still only won one cup in 30 years though, which is not the stuff of legends...

[MMFy]

It was only yesterday you posted:

"This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane..."

Indicating tax dodging is always all that bad, so you'll forgive me for just assuming your sudden high morality is just faux outrage in order to justify an insult.

That was in relation to, and on the same page as this:

Prison would be ridiculous unless a lot more gets unearthed.

Prison is for rapists, paedos, murderers & maverick Bankers. Not for some bloke who has juggled some finances about but on the whole is a law abiding, hard working tax paying citizen. Quite frankly, the game needs more Harry Redknapps and fewer Tony Pullis's / Sam Allardyces.

You do the crime, you do the time. I don't give a flying **** if it is Redknapp, Allardyce, or some toaster-punting barrow boy down Brick Lane.

And it's not faux-outrage, if you are prepared to cheat HMRC you deserve all the abuse that can possibly be thrown at you. And that goes for anyone here.

Don't take it personal though...

It probably is faux outrage though, as otherwise you be the sort of person who thinks someone who goes over the speeding limit, like in your exmaple above, is a word removed or someone who takes money that isn't theirs when the opportunity arises is and this kind of stuff happens all the time. You'd have to be outraged at a lot of people.

You probably wouldn't believe how outraged I get at 95% of the population then...

[joey55]

It's not bullshit, you are missing the point. The fact he hasn't paid the tax isn't being contested. It's whether it's plausible it could have been down to negligence. Therefore the percentage is important as it shows the insignificant difference it makes.

It isn't important though. There's forgetting to declare a car you bought on your annual tax return, and there's squireling money away in an undeclared offshore account.

It would be a percentage if it was inaccuracies on a tax return, but this is nothing to do with inaccuracies. This is to do with a concealment - a concealment that HMRC consider fraud.

Don't quote me on it though, research UK law on fraud. TrentVilla has already posted the detail in this thread in the last few days, as quoted by a copper working closely with this case.

You couldn't argue that you drove off without paying for the fuel, but it could be argued you did it by accident. In your defence you'd come up with numeorus reasons for your absent mindness and give reasons why there is no logic or motive behind you stealing the fuel. But if it was demonstrated that you'd stolen fuel from a few petrol stations and were found to be flogging cheap fuel, you'd be screwed. In one case you might get off or be given a fine, in the other you are likely to get jail time.

You're not getting it though, are you. Redknapp is not even denying opening an offshore account with a pseudonym (which you don't do unless you are hiding something), he is coming out with the most ridiculous excuses possible. Can't read, can't write, can't fax, don't know what an email is; absolute bollocks.

This is also not a scenario that refers to multiple instances of theft (fraud). It is a scenario of isolated theft. It's still theft and would be treated as a crime as a result.

I'm not saying he'll escape prosecution, but trying to point out why this case isn't quite what it is made out to be, what the battle ground really is and why those hoping for a harsh outcome are going to be disappointed.

I'm not saying he is guilty, I'm saying it looks like he is guilty. There are a number of things listed in this case that you wouldn't do if you were innocent. I don't like Redknapp, but I do believe justice will take it's course.

FWIW, I reckon he is and has done an excellent job at Spuds. Still only won one cup in 30 years though, which is not the stuff of legends...

Be honest, have you really followed the case?

No one is denying he hasn't paid the tax. But a key part of his defence is that it's almost beyond belief he'd go to such efforts to steal such a small amount given the amount he earns and the amount of tax he pays. So the fact it's such a small percentage is important to his defence, no matter what you say. I understand that theft is theft, but that isn't the point being made. The point is that he's effectively claiming negligence and therefore the sum expressed as a percentage is significant. You may choose not to belive it, but you can't dimiss it's significance in Redkanpps defence and I find it difficult to believe that if it was some unknown guy making the calimj, you'd be more willing to recognise the abusrdity of such a rich guy who pays so much, going to such efforts to avoid paying a small amount more.

Reading your responses make me think you are unaware of a few key points. Redknapp's claim is that he thought Mandraric had paid the tax as the money was a bonus from his job. He claims he checked with Mandaric numerous times. He seems to have taken Mandaric's word for it and not checked himself and thus has been negligent. The reason the account was set up in Monaco was at Mandaric's request as he was going to invest the money for Harry. It isn't a case of of Harry setting up an off shore account in his dogs name without reason, which seems to be what you think. But even in your most anti Redknapp moment you'd have to admit that going to all that trouble to avoid paying £30,000 in tax does stretch he imagination, given he was paid a £1million bonus the year the account was set up!

So when you say things like:

"he is coming out with the most ridiculous excuses possible. Can't read, can't write, can't fax, don't know what an email is; absolute bollocks."

you have it slightly wrong. He's not using these things as excuses as you think. He's used those examples to show he is disorganised, which was part of a fairly irrelevant point he was making. He wasn't saying "I didn't pay my tax because I can't write" etc. But people have read the odd soundbite and assumed that Harry was using these things as an excuse for fraud, but he wasn't. Those are just the points that grabbed the headlines, as they made him sound stupid.

Earlier you mentiond him blaming his accountant, but again he wasn't doing that either. He was saying he employs an acountant to deal with his financial affairs, as he's so useless himself. He didn't even point the finger at his accountant for a second. He takes the blame for not telling his accountant about the account for 4 years.

So whilst you say he looks guilty, he so far doesn't. I'm not saying he looks innocent per se either. But it's not a clear cut thing at all and there is no way he'll get sent down as some are hoping. At the end of the day, not matter how you spin it, it just doesn't seem plausible that he'd intentionally go to such lengths for such small amounts of money. He actually went to Monaco himself to set the account up. Is he really going to do that to save £70,000 over 5 years? Or is he more likley to be doing it to set up an investment account? The jury will be even more convinced of that following the examples he's given of how he uses his money. The other issue is it is plausible that he could have just left he account for so long and virtually forgotten about it. Again his financial affairs show that is more than likely. Basically he's going to get off, or at the very most fined and get a bit of a lecture from the judge.

I don't say that out of bias, as there is no point. There is nothing I can do to influence matters even if I am pro Harry. I'm just saying it so you can prepare yourselves for outrage when it happens. Unless some other major evidence comes to light, then based on what's been presented so far, Redkanpp isn't going down. In fact he's more likely to get off scot free, though I wouldn't rule out a fine.

By the way you wont find a single post of mine claiming Spurs are going to finish in the top 4 or anything like that. I never cliam we are going to beat you before we play or the like. But this time the case is week, that I'm not at all worried. Yet I'm still very concerned about Liverpool and Arsenal.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

**** Spurs.

That is all.

[snowychap]

Basically he's going to get off, or at the very most fined and get a bit of a lecture from the judge.

You're possibly right and, if he is guilty, that'll show how shockingly shite the whole system is.

Then again, you've said that tax evasion is all fine and dandy, haven't you?

[joey55]

Basically he's going to get off, or at the very most fined and get a bit of a lecture from the judge.

You're possibly right and, if he is guilty, that'll show how shockingly shite the whole system is.

Then again, you've said that tax evasion is all fine and dandy, haven't you?

No I haven't said it's fine and dandy. I've said we'd all like to dodge a bit of tax. I'm not saying if Harry's found guilty he shouldn't be severely punished. I'm just saying that in this particular case I think he's likely to get off and given the reasons why. The case just isn't all it's being made out to be and the accusations made against him aren't as clear cut as many think and his defence is far more credible than is being made out. So when he gets off or is given a fine, there is no need for you all to be outraged and feel like it's a great miscarriage of justice. Harry could be dodgy as hell. It wouldn't suprise me in the least bit if in the past he's taken bungs etc. But this case just isn't the one for you to get your satisfaction from. Something ight well come along in the future. I'm not claiming Harry is squeeky clean, but this time it looks that he probably is largelly innocent. If he's guilty of anything it's being negligent and he'll get fined for it.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Yeah, that's right, I said **** Spurs. What you gonna do about it eh? EH?

[snowychap]

Then again, you've said that tax evasion is all fine and dandy, haven't you?

No I haven't said it's fine and dandy. I've said we'd all like to dodge a bit of tax.

Well, apologies for reading something in to what you've said.

You have claimed (incorrectly) that 'we'd all like to dodge a bit of tax' - the inference that we have to draw from that is that you think it is acceptable to do so, surely?

[MMFy]

Earlier you mentiond him blaming his accountant, but again he wasn't doing that either. He was saying he employs an acountant to deal with his financial affairs, as he's so useless himself. He didn't even point the finger at his accountant for a second. He takes the blame for not telling his accountant about the account for 4 years.

And this is where your argument falls over. If he is so incompetent with writing, spelling, email, fax, and employs an accountant to do his money-stuff as he is so **** stupid he can't do it himself, WHY did he set up a dodgy offshore account under a pseudonym and fail to declare it to his accountant until it had been uncovered by a HMRC investigation?

Jesus arse raping Christ, Just read that last sentence and ask yourself how it can ever make sense. The only thing he fails to declare is the one thing he doesn't want found out. If he was disorganised, it wouldn't take a **** HMRC investigation to pinpoint one instance of aloofness.

I'm not attacking you on this, you just have to look at it from the point of view of someone who does not have Spuds PR at the top of the agenda.

HMRC have found the key stone and are disassembling the archway of deceit from there. This is not a letter saying "you owe this amount in tax", this is now in court. Do you really think this case would be three weeks in court if it was as open-and-closed as you continue to describe?

Have a read of the Belfast Telegraph. It was the first result on a google search for HMRC (not a carefully selected article to suit anyone's argument) but seems to agree with pretty much all of what I have written on this issue.

And don't keep up with this bullshit about how 'we'd all like to dodge a bit of tax'. You completely isolate yourself from common sense with statements like that; but more critically, you lose your argument by failing to grasp the fundamental of the criminal investigation we are discussing.

Try harder.

[islingtonclaret]

Yeah, that's right, I said **** Spurs. What you gonna do about it eh? EH?

I concour, but *shhhhhhh!*! Don't interrupt joey and mmfry's barney!

[bannedfromHandV]

Football players and staff are basically contractors. They don't get paid PAYE like the rest of us mugs (and therefore have tax and NI contributions deducted as auto) and instead employ craft accountants to work out the best way of paying the minimal amount of tax possible.

This is no new thing. I work in IT recruitment (for my sins) and half the people I deal with fiddle contracts and 3rd party Limited Company arrangements to dodge certain taxes, i would hazard a guess that all the players, yes even those at Citeh on £200k p/w do exactly the same, this and previous governments have failed to address the problem properly when in reality if they were to collect all owed taxes (moreso and as alluded to earlier in the thread the likes of Vodafone et al) we would probably come out of the impending recession.

But, as I say, it's us mugs who work hard in mediocre salaried roles who pay via PAYE who prop up the govt, the rich avoid tax and capitalism continues to win over.

[joey55]

Earlier you mentiond him blaming his accountant, but again he wasn't doing that either. He was saying he employs an acountant to deal with his financial affairs, as he's so useless himself. He didn't even point the finger at his accountant for a second. He takes the blame for not telling his accountant about the account for 4 years.

And this is where your argument falls over. If he is so incompetent with writing, spelling, email, fax, and employs an accountant to do his money-stuff as he is so **** stupid he can't do it himself, WHY did he set up a dodgy offshore account under a pseudonym and fail to declare it to his accountant until it had been uncovered by a HMRC investigation?

Jesus arse raping Christ, Just read that last sentence and ask yourself how it can ever make sense. The only thing he fails to declare is the one thing he doesn't want found out. If he was disorganised, it wouldn't take a **** HMRC investigation to pinpoint one instance of aloofness.

I'm not attacking you on this, you just have to look at it from the point of view of someone who does not have Spuds PR at the top of the agenda.

HMRC have found the key stone and are disassembling the archway of deceit from there. This is not a letter saying "you owe this amount in tax", this is now in court. Do you really think this case would be three weeks in court if it was as open-and-closed as you continue to describe?

Have a read of the Belfast Telegraph. It was the first result on a google search for HMRC (not a carefully selected article to suit anyone's argument) but seems to agree with pretty much all of what I have written on this issue.

And don't keep up with this bullshit about how 'we'd all like to dodge a bit of tax'. You completely isolate yourself from common sense with statements like that; but more critically, you lose your argument by failing to grasp the fundamental of the criminal investigation we are discussing.

Try harder.

Firstly I don't need to try harder. I'm not arguing on Harry's behalf here. Nothing is going to come of our debate. This isn't the court case and what is written here wont influence anything. I'm just trying to explain to you why when he gets off either totally, or with a punishment that wont satisfy most here, why that is. There is no point arguing with me over it, I can't change what the verdict will be or the evidence presented. Honestly, I'm literaly just tyring to preempt your dissapointment and explain things in a way so that when it happens you feel angry or let down by the justice system.

Harry's explained why he set up the off shore account. He hasn't claimed he can't open an account. You keep going on about his comments regarding his inability to write and send emails etc and that his accountant runs things for him, but he wasn't using those things as an explanation of why he didn't pay the tax. You need to understand that otherwise you will keep going back to it aand suggest what I've been saying is flawed. He's just saying that if left to him he doesn't deal with things. The point is that account was set up by him and had nothing to do with his accountant, hence he was responsible and why it was just left for years, as if it had been forgotten about. So now do you understand why Harry was keen to tell people how disorganised he is and why he has an accountant to deal with things? The Monaco account is simply a perfect example!

I haven't said the case is open and closed. I've said on several occassions it isn't clear cut, but even if Harry gets off or is given a fine, it's still worth pursuing. Even so it would have come as a real disappointment to those behind the investigation to have only found what they did. Even in your poor Belfast Telegraph article, the guy said tax cheats set up "accounts." Harry had ten years of tax looked into and was found to have failed to have paid about £70,000 on just one account. This was found as Harry made no effort to hide the money trail. Is that normal practice for people cheating tax? The account he didn't pay the tax on was there for 5 years and there were only 2 payments made into it. Is that normal for people cheating tax? That means he saved about £14,000 per year. This for a guy who in the same week the second payment was made, gave away £200,000 to Pompey youth football.

The journalist keeps saying his actions were normal for poeple cheating tax, but I'd love to know how many tax that journalist has come across he go to such efforts to his such tiny amounts (less than 2% of his tax bill in the time investigated) and often given away considerably more and also made no effort to hide the money trail? I think even you can answer that for him - zero. This is something the anit Harry lobby have to acknowldge. Yes there are things that look dodgy, but equally or in fact even more so, there are many points that make intentional tax cheating seem totally ilogical or close to pointless. You can't just look at it from one angle, as othersiwe when the verdict come out, you'll be fuming.

The journalist even claims Harry changes his mind about how the money gets there, but infact the journalist simply mixes a few facts up. Harry said what the money was from a bonus due, from profit on players. He said it was put in that account on the bequest of Mandaric who was going to invest it for him. He then says in the end nothing happened and he just forgot about the account. Hence he tells the court of his disorganisation etc. But further to that he demonstrates that this isn't unsual in his life. On face value it seems dodgy that someone would be so laissez faire with such amounts of money, but Harry has shown the court that this isn't an exception for him, but the norm! Again people such as yourself and the journalist have to ackowledge that by Harry's standards there wasn't anything out of the ordinary by just leaving the money untouched as if it didn't exist. He's shown evidence that he's done that sort of thing pletny of time before. But there is no evidence he's ever tried to cheat tax before or no evidence of a wider conspiracy. So prepare for disappointment.

In summary, no one is denying the tax hasn't been paid. No one is denying that an off shore account looks dodgy. You have recognised that. The journalist has recognised that, so have HMRC and anyone esle following the case. However, what many are intentionally ignoring is that there are also alot of things that don't fit at all with intentional tax avoidence. The court recognise that, objective people recognise that, but people such as yourself and the journalist wont seem to acknowledge it and possibly intentionally as they just don't like Harry.

Harry has given plausible reasons for his actions. However, it's easy easy to make up such reasons or excuses and he can't get off on that alone! Hence it's upto the jury to listen to both defence and prosecution and come to a conclusion. To do this they will listen to argumetns that suggest it was more likely he was simply trying to avoid tax or that his version of events is more likely to be true. And based on that it's unlikely he'll get the type of prosecution his enemies are hoping for. There just isn't the evidence. Every point that makes him look like an intentional tax cheat is devoured by counter points that show this is highly unlikely. Hence if he gets anything at all it will be a ticking off, a fine and told to be far more careful in the future. This is no Ken Dodd or Lestor Piggot case.

[MMFy]

Completely missed the point.

[MMFy]

Even in your poor Belfast Telegraph article, the guy said tax cheats set up "accounts." Harry had ten years of tax looked into and was found to have failed to have paid about £70,000 on just one account. This was found as Harry made no effort to hide the money trail. Is that normal practice for people cheating tax? The account he didn't pay the tax on was there for 5 years and there were only 2 payments made into it. Is that normal for people cheating tax? That means he saved about £14,000 per year.

The article was written by Adrian Huston, a former Tax Inspector investigating suspected tax fraud. He is far more qualified than you and I to comment on this case. And he has commented on this case. Your response draws me to two conclusions.

1. You didn't read the article, or my post.

2. You are lobbying. There is no point trying to communicate with you when you are completely ignoring everything written by anyone other than yourself.

You are posting like GlastonSpur.

[joey55]

He has hardly commented on the case itself and I've pointed out to you that he's not shown the other side of the argument. His qualifications are irrelevant if he's ignoring key points in the defence. I've suggested that to view this case objectively you've got to look at both sides. I've asked you to acknowledge that and you wont. You then say it's me who is lobbying!

We'll see who is posting like Glastonspur when the verdict comes out. Will you accept it if you don't like it or go off on some Glastonspur style rant trying to exlain why this was a misscarraige of justice and Redkapp should have gone to prison?

Also can you stop the puritanical attitude, acting as if you'd never intentionally break a law or take money that wasn't yours.

[MMFy]

He has hardly commented on the case itself and I've pointed out to you that he's not shown the other side of the argument. His qualifications are irrelevant if he's ignoring key points in the defence. I've suggested that to view this case objectively you've got to look at both sides. I've asked you to acknowledge that and you wont. You then say it's me who is lobbying!

When Redknapp flew to Monaco to open the account, that account was apparently called ‘Rosie 47’ – named after his dog plus the year of his (not his dog’s) birth. As the trial continues we are yet to hear from Mr Redknapp about the money lodged to this account, but it seems that when quizzed he kept changing his story about how the money ended up there. It was an investment?a gift?a loan?employment income?none of these?

Is the hack lying? If he is lying, there are laws about that. Something about broadcasting slander and lies. You better let Harry know people are making stuff up about him so he can sue them. An unblemished character like Harry surely doesn't deserve such poor treatment.

Also can you stop the puritanical attitude, acting as if you'd never intentionally break a law or take money that wasn't yours.

Are you still claiming you believe it is fine and dandy to cheat HMRC? If you believe it is OK to steal or commit fraud, you are digging yourself into a hole. You've already lost anything near a sensible argument with your failure to acknowledge the evidence as presented, and you've proven you do not have the correct morals or ethics to pass judgement on a case of this nature.

[Stevo985]

"tl;dr" applies to the vast majority of joey's posts

[TrentVilla]

He has hardly commented on the case itself and I've pointed out to you that he's not shown the other side of the argument. His qualifications are irrelevant if he's ignoring key points in the defence. I've suggested that to view this case objectively you've got to look at both sides. I've asked you to acknowledge that and you wont. You then say it's me who is lobbying!

I think you have a nerve talking about objectivity.

You have little credibility on the subject as it is after basically stating you think cheating HMRC is okay and presuming everyone thinks the same.

You dismiss the words of an expert on taxation in favour of your own conclusions which given a) the team you support and your pre stated position on tax fraud and then talk about objectivity? I'm sorry that is utterly laughable.

Will you accept it if you don't like it or go off on some Glastonspur style rant trying to exlain why this was a misscarraige of justice and Redkapp should have gone to prison?

I will accept whatever decision the legal process comes to, will you do the same if he is found guilty?

He won't go to prison but there is every chance he will be found guilty.

Also can you stop the puritanical attitude, acting as if you'd never intentionally break a law or take money that wasn't yours.

Listen, you don't have the first clue about the morality or otherwise of posters on this site so please don't attempt to second guess them.

You've made your position quite clear in relation to your stance on tax fraud, just because others don't share you view it doesn't give you the right to call into question their honest.

[Stevo985]

I'm not very familiar with Redknapp's history but why is it that people dislike him so much?

It's because he's a total prick

I used to think it was because he has a habit of talking about other teams players, but surely that isn't enough to want to see him go to jail?

See above

[joey55]

He has hardly commented on the case itself and I've pointed out to you that he's not shown the other side of the argument. His qualifications are irrelevant if he's ignoring key points in the defence. I've suggested that to view this case objectively you've got to look at both sides. I've asked you to acknowledge that and you wont. You then say it's me who is lobbying!

When Redknapp flew to Monaco to open the account, that account was apparently called ‘Rosie 47’ – named after his dog plus the year of his (not his dog’s) birth. As the trial continues we are yet to hear from Mr Redknapp about the money lodged to this account, but it seems that when quizzed he kept changing his story about how the money ended up there. It was an investment?a gift?a loan?employment income?none of these?

Is the hack lying? If he is lying, there are laws about that. Something about broadcasting slander and lies. You better let Harry know people are making stuff up about him so he can sue them. An unblemished character like Harry surely doesn't deserve such poor treatment.

Also can you stop the puritanical attitude, acting as if you'd never intentionally break a law or take money that wasn't yours.

Are you still claiming you believe it is fine and dandy to cheat HMRC? If you believe it is OK to steal or commit fraud, you are digging yourself into a hole. You've already lost anything near a sensible argument with your failure to acknowledge the evidence as presented, and you've proven you do not have the correct morals or ethics to pass judgement on a case of this nature.

I've not said the hack is lying have I. I've pointed out he hasn't shown both sides of the argument.

Also I haven't said it's fine and dandy to cheat HRMC. I've said we'd all like to dodge tax. I'm used to the partisan nature of this site, but when you all try and claim outrage about that, I find it difficult to take seriously. You yourself seem to have distinguished between what Harry has done and other examples of tax dodging. This in itself is ridiculous as in your example the intent was clear, whilst in Harry's case it isn't. Effectively you argued a bit of intentional tax dodging is not comparable with posiibly unintentional tax dodging. Yet at other times you argue that theft is theft and it's all the same.

I don't think you are in a postition to question the morals or ethics to pass judgement on a case like this. You have admitted that if the chances arose you'd simply take money you knew wasn't your own. In a thread discussing a faulty cash machine you wrote the following:

"Obviously I was not there, but I doubt there would be any trace of the lost money. A straight denial of receipt of extra money would most likely be incontestable.

Would I have taken advantage? I would have gone for broke. **** the banks. And I'm a Nationwide customer."

http://www.villatalk.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=1529754&highlight=#1529754

I'm not going to bother pretending that I suddenly think you are a dishonest fellow, as I don't. But as I said to start with, you are just displaying faux outrage and aren't quite the puritan you make out to be when it comes to your opinion on obtaining money by dishonest means. I think we'll leave it there.