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

[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!

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.

Didn't say cheating HRMC was ok.Didn't dimiss the words of an expert, but pointed out things he ignored. I've said there is every chance he could be found guilty. I don't think he will, but there is a strong possibility, hence why i say he might be fined.

[TrentVilla]

Didn't say cheating HRMC was ok.Didn't dimiss the words of an expert, but pointed out things he ignored. I've said there is every chance he could be found guilty. I don't think he will, but there is a strong possibility, hence why i say he might be fined.

You certainly implied that it was ok or at least that you would be happy to do it.

You did dismiss the words of an expert simply because his stance wasn't the same as your own. You claim because he missed important facts which is basically saying you know better than him, as an expert I think he is perfectly capable of deciding which elements of the case to focus upon, you clearly don't and as such dismissed it.

If you think there is a strong possibility he will be found guilty and fined then on that we agree. I look forward to hearing your views should that happen.

It isn't all that long ago we had Spurs fans on here defending him when his house got raided saying it was out of order, then we had Spurs fans saying he would never be charged and now we defending him.

Personally I'm just going to wait and see what the outcome is rather try and second guess it. Either way I will still think Redknapp is a prick.

[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.

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.

Where?

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.

Jesus child-molesting Christ, you are Inspector Clouseau and I claim my (taxable) five pounds.

Can you please demonstrate how you could take something more out of context than this reference?

[joey55]

Trent, I don't want to go through all this agains as I've just had 2 days of it with MMFy. However, given that it seems you also think he'll just get a fine, then I'm seriously very interested to know why? I know it's not for the reasons I've given as you've made it clear you don't think I'm being objective (though i don't knwo why). You seem seem to have concluded there isn't enough evidence for him to get a custodial sentance, which surely he would if it was clear he stole such a sum of money. So what are the reasons you think that will lead to him just being fined? It's obviously not for the reasons I've pointed out yet I can't think of any other reasons. Thare area a couple of other reaons that I'm aware of such as Mandaric claimed it was a loan, all Harry's other payments from Pompey had the tax paid on them and that Harry and his accountant made no attempt to hide the account once Harry remembered it. But those few points alone wont be the reason you think he wont go down, as they are all tied to the points I made which you don't seem to credit. So why is it you think he'll avoid prison anh thus where have I lacked objectivity.

[kidlewis]

the thing is regardless of whether debating whether he will go to jail or not.

IF he is found guilty of trying to dodge the tax and has a big fine to pay, spurs keeping him in the job is extremely stupid from a PR point of view. Yes they need him but in pretty much every other profession you would be sacked.

Plenty of MPs have gotten the sack or stepped down as a result of their scandal and that was them playing within the rather loose set of rules they had.

[TrentVilla]

Trent, I don't want to go through all this agains as I've just had 2 days of it with MMFy. However, given that it seems you also think he'll just get a fine, then I'm seriously very interested to know why? I know it's not for the reasons I've given as you've made it clear you don't think I'm being objective (though i don't knwo why). You seem seem to have concluded there isn't enough evidence for him to get a custodial sentance, which surely he would if it was clear he stole such a sum of money. So what are the reasons you think that will lead to him just being fined? It's obviously not for the reasons I've pointed out yet I can't think of any other reasons. Thare area a couple of other reaons that I'm aware of such as Mandaric claimed it was a loan, all Harry's other payments from Pompey had the tax paid on them and that Harry and his accountant made no attempt to hide the account once Harry remembered it. But those few points alone wont be the reason you think he wont go down, as they are all tied to the points I made which you don't seem to credit. So why is it you think he'll avoid prison anh thus where have I lacked objectivity.

First, let me introduce you to these they might be new to you but hopefully you will get the hang of them soon.

As for the above post, honestly I can't be bothered to answer faux questions (see anyone can use this word and I've noticed you are rather fond of it).

As it happens though I don't recall dismissing the points you made and your above post has no relevance to what I previously posted.

I will await with interest the trial resuming on Monday, your new word of the day and if you've made use of the link I provided.

[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.

Where?

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.

Jesus child-molesting Christ, you are Inspector Clouseau and I claim my (taxable) five pounds.

Can you please demonstrate how you could take something more out of context than this reference?

It's not really out of context though is it? Given some of your comments it's perfectly it context.

However, I want to apologize for being so petty as to search through your old posts. To be honest i couldn't believe my luck with that one! As I said I dont' think your comments make you dishonest. It was just a retort to your claim of my lack of credibility. I only went to the effort as sometimes I did sense a bit of unecessary needle, which I thought was supported by disingenuous outrage. For example, my comment that people would like to avoid tax was a bit over played wasn't it and not just by you? But these things often get haated so no hard feelings. We'll just have to see what happens when the verdict is announced.

[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.

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.

Where?

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.

Jesus child-molesting Christ, you are Inspector Clouseau and I claim my (taxable) five pounds.

Can you please demonstrate how you could take something more out of context than this reference?

It's not really out of context though is it? Given some of your comments it's perfectly it context.

However, I want to apologize for being so petty as to search through your old posts. To be honest i couldn't believe my luck with that one! As I said I dont' think your comments make you dishonest. It was just a retort to your claim of my lack of credibility. I only went to the effort as sometimes I did sense a bit of unecessary needle, which I thought was supported by disingenuous outrage. For example, my comment that people would like to avoid tax was a bit over played wasn't it and not just by you? But these things often get haated so no hard feelings. We'll just have to see what happens when the verdict is announced.

Your responses to my posts often contradict your responses to Trent's posts. The last two are a perfect example...

[joey55]

Trent, I don't want to go through all this agains as I've just had 2 days of it with MMFy. However, given that it seems you also think he'll just get a fine, then I'm seriously very interested to know why? I know it's not for the reasons I've given as you've made it clear you don't think I'm being objective (though i don't knwo why). You seem seem to have concluded there isn't enough evidence for him to get a custodial sentance, which surely he would if it was clear he stole such a sum of money. So what are the reasons you think that will lead to him just being fined? It's obviously not for the reasons I've pointed out yet I can't think of any other reasons. Thare area a couple of other reaons that I'm aware of such as Mandaric claimed it was a loan, all Harry's other payments from Pompey had the tax paid on them and that Harry and his accountant made no attempt to hide the account once Harry remembered it. But those few points alone wont be the reason you think he wont go down, as they are all tied to the points I made which you don't seem to credit. So why is it you think he'll avoid prison anh thus where have I lacked objectivity.

First, let me introduce you to these they might be new to you but hopefully you will get the hang of them soon.

As for the above post, honestly I can't be bothered to answer faux questions (see anyone can use this word and I've noticed you are rather fond of it).

As it happens though I don't recall dismissing the points you made and your above post has no relevance to what I previously posted.

I will await with interest the trial resuming on Monday, your new word of the day and if you've made use of the link I provided.

Okay, fair enough, though it wasn't a faux question, I was genuinely interested in your opinion. But why so often do you seem so hostile? I'm never rude or antagonsitic towards you or other posters? I'm not really even that bad when it comes to the banter between the 2 clubs.

[TrentVilla]

I'm really not hostile, in fact I actually agree with quite a lot you've posted in this thread both on this topic and previous ones. You are actually a good poster however you let yourself down dismissing opinions of experts because they don't match your own.

If you are genuinely interested in my opinion then I've posted it previously in this thread especially in relation to the question of him doing time. I don't though believe it/they were genuine questions.

As for the link, it was mean but intended to be in jest sorry if it didn't come across that way but I do genuinely find your posts hard to read due to you seemingly think spacing comes at extra charge.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

There's one thing about Tottenham fans that I have a lot of respect for - even if they're dead wrong they'll still defend their club and players even to the point of being ridiculous. That's exactly the opposite of what us Villa fans usually do, we're the first to belittle our own. Props, I guess...

[villanmike]

There's one thing about Tottenham fans that I have a lot of respect for - even if they're dead wrong they'll still defend their club and players even to the point of being ridiculous. That's exactly the opposite of what us Villa fans usually do, we're the first to belittle our own. Props, I guess...

I wonder if they would defend him if they were in a relegation battle...

[TrentVilla]

I find any partizan support of any team/individual really annoying to be honest, I have a general sense of what I think is right and wrong and it applies to those I support as much as it does those I don't. If Suarez played for us I wouldn't defend him or the club if they took the stance Liverpool have done, while with Redknapp I wouldn't defend him because on what I've seen of the case I don't think he is innocent. If he was Villa manager I would say the same.

The problem is that with football fans often excuse or defend things done by those they support which they would happily condemn if they were carried out by others.

Its double standards, its opinion coloured by colours and it winds me right up because those guilty of it usually deny it and worse assume those who disagree with them either would do the same or are taking false offence because its a rival.

It seems to me that on the Redknapp situation many Spurs fans are very similar to their Liverpool counterparts although nowhere near as bad or as lacking in independant thought.

[LondonLax]

There's one thing about Tottenham fans that I have a lot of respect for - even if they're dead wrong they'll still defend their club and players even to the point of being ridiculous. That's exactly the opposite of what us Villa fans usually do, we're the first to belittle our own. Props, I guess...

I wonder if they would defend him if they were in a relegation battle...

Yes, they turned on Ramos pretty quickly.

Football fans are pretty similar anywhere.

[RichardCanning]

From the evidence it seems Mandaric paid Redknapp a sum of money into a Monaco bank account. He is claiming to have done this as a friend either as a loan or a gift and outside of his employment of Redknapp. Unfortunately the sum of money involved is not inconsequential and as it was from an employer needs to be taxed. Redknapp will get a hefty fine and community service IMO.

Unlike some people who seem to know the people involved's exact thoughts, I haven't a clue whether this was done on purpose and nor can the jury so would expect them to go with the verdict that there is a wrongdoing but it cannot be deemed deliberate and sentence accordingly.

[blandy]

Given that no one denies the account was in his name, or that he set it up, it seems bang to rights that tax wasn't paid as it should have been.

The interesting part is mitigation and reasoning.

It's claimed Mandaric set up a (false) trail some time later for it to be clear it was a loan if anyone came a looking'.

Redknapp says Mandaric told him tax had been paid on the money put in his account. There seems to be no proof this is true.

Radknapp says he don't know naffing about money or writing or that and apparently gave examples of how that's true, innit.

I think it's going to come down to what the court believes is credible, as it appears crystal that tax wasn't paid.

A false trail doesn't look good for Mandaric, if it is a false trail. If it isn't then Redknapp would lose any credibility. If it is false, then Redknapp's credibility, while looking iffy, would maybe get the benefit of the doubt, and he'd get fined or even get off. Except there seems to be no evidence that tax which would be due to be paid by him was paid. How could his accountant sort it out, if it was a hidden account?

I'd guess suspended sentence for Redknapp and a short time in jug for Mandaric.

[jon_c]

IF found guilty, he has to get jail time. Not a fine or community service. It is too high profile a case, and if he gets off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, it is just a green light for others to fiddle their taxes. This is exactly why, traditionally, tax fraud carries custodial sentences.

[LondonLax]

IF found guilty, he has to get jail time. Not a fine or community service. It is too high profile a case, and if he gets off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, it is just a green light for others to fiddle their taxes. This is exactly why, traditionally, tax fraud carries custodial sentences.

You think he should go to jail because he is famous? The law doesn't discriminate like that. He will get the same punishment as everyone else.

I'd say he will be found guilty and get a severe fine.

[jon_c]

IF found guilty, he has to get jail time. Not a fine or community service. It is too high profile a case, and if he gets off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, it is just a green light for others to fiddle their taxes. This is exactly why, traditionally, tax fraud carries custodial sentences.

You think he should go to jail because he is famous? The law doesn't discriminate like that. He will get the same punishment as everyone else.

I'd say he will be found guilty and get a severe fine.

Ok, I should of said 'he will', not 'he should'. But a custodial sentence would only be, from what I can see, what would normally be dished out in these circumstances. Especially so for Mandaric.

Also found this information on sentencing. Worth a read

I more meant, he shouldn't be let off because he is famous.

[bickster]

IF found guilty, he has to get jail time. Not a fine or community service. It is too high profile a case, and if he gets off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, it is just a green light for others to fiddle their taxes. This is exactly why, traditionally, tax fraud carries custodial sentences.

You think he should go to jail because he is famous? The law doesn't discriminate like that. He will get the same punishment as everyone else.

I'd say he will be found guilty and get a severe fine.

Two words

Lester Piggot

Very similar situation.