The_Steve Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He was always going to be found innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2012 I'm detecting a modicum of cynicism in people's belief in the justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Meh, If he's been found innocent, then he's been found innocent by a group of people who know faaaar more about the case than I do. That's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosenthal Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Innocent as expected, shame about the £8m cost of the investigation and court case. Not like the government could use it elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He's been cleared of all charges. Laughable. I wouldn't say it is laughable. Although his story sounds implausable there is no smoking gun evidence to say that the money was a work payment and not a loan between mates. Without any actual evidence it was hard for HMRC to actually make a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Even less chance that I'll get my £106 rebate from HMRC now. Thank Harry :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I going to work for free and get my employer to give me an annual 'gift' equivilent to my wages. F#ck you, taxman. Apparently you can't touch me for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Redknapp always has been a dodgy character. He always will be, i don't like him and i don't like HMRC either so i don't know how i feel about this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I going to work for free and get my employer to give me an annual 'gift' equivilent to my wages. F#ck you, taxman. Apparently you can't touch me for it. He payed tax on his wages. This was a one off payment with no paperwork showing it was work related. It is hard to make a case without evidence that it was anything to do with work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancharlie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I going to work for free and get my employer to give me an annual 'gift' equivilent to my wages. F#ck you, taxman. Apparently you can't touch me for it. He payed tax on his wages. This was a one off payment with no paperwork showing it was work related. It is hard to make a case without evidence that it was anything to do with work. agreed i work in this line of tax and i have not read any detailed excerpts yet from the case but will be important to understant if it was a personal payment form mandaric or from Portsmouth FC his employer - likely to be personal payment from mandaric otherwise HMRC would have won. his wages would have been paid by the employer, Portsmouth FC. Mandaric did not "employ" Arry personally. thats the crux of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Called it this morning. So a few issues then. Was the payment to Harry a loan? - No Is Harry guilty of tax evasion - IMO Yes. Could HMRC prove it? - No. Hence the not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancharlie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Harry Redknapp - next England Manager - prob be announced tomorrow now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, he's innocent. He's also still a candle faced fat mouthed temperamental wheeler dealer spastic though. I'm not going to question the judgement, this isn't the OJ trial and I want on the jury. Neither was anyone else on this board, before the gloating begins from the Spuds PR. I'm deeply concerned for the direction HMRC are heading in though. You wouldn't bet £80 for the chance to win 40p, yet recent stories in the news suggest they are going to great lengths to challenge people for relatively minor amounts, at far greater costs than any fee involved. Anyway, **** Spurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I did say some time ago that that would be the case. How disappointing to be proven right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2012 I'm detecting a modicum of cynicism in people's belief in the justice system. Not at all, full faith in the system built on the foundation of innocent until proven guilty. Redknapp is innocent until proven guilty. As for Harry's defence on the other hand you might have got a different response. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, he's innocent. He's also still a candle faced fat mouthed temperamental wheeler dealer spastic though. I'm not going to question the judgement, this isn't the OJ trial and I want on the jury. Neither was anyone else on this board, before the gloating begins from the Spuds PR. I'm deeply concerned for the direction HMRC are heading in though. You wouldn't bet £80 for the chance to win 40p, yet recent stories in the news suggest they are going to great lengths to challenge people for relatively minor amounts, at far greater costs than any fee involved. Anyway, **** Spurs. But they have to. If you don't enfore tax evasion more people will avoid it and revenue goes down. There needs to be an assessment of risk/reward but they absolutely have to pursue tax dodgers where they find them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Any idea how the jury voted? Was it an unanimous decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancharlie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, he's innocent. He's also still a candle faced fat mouthed temperamental wheeler dealer spastic though. I'm not going to question the judgement, this isn't the OJ trial and I want on the jury. Neither was anyone else on this board, before the gloating begins from the Spuds PR. I'm deeply concerned for the direction HMRC are heading in though. You wouldn't bet £80 for the chance to win 40p, yet recent stories in the news suggest they are going to great lengths to challenge people for relatively minor amounts, at far greater costs than any fee involved. Anyway, **** Spurs. But they have to. If you don't enfore tax evasion more people will avoid it and revenue goes down. There needs to be an assessment of risk/reward but they absolutely have to pursue tax dodgers where they find them. agreed. evasion is illegal. in other tax news... Reed Recruitment might be facing a £158m tax bill for putting in a salary sacrifice arrangement incorrectly. eek. expect this to go through more higher courts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 What fecking idiots the HMRC are !! Chasing a guy for who he is rather than the money - £30k odd of possibly non paid tax Probably an arsenal fan who wanted him taken down. rocket polishers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 What a waste of tax payers money - about £8 Million it's estimated. When HMRC have been caught coming up with multi million pound cut price deals with larger corporations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts