Takeover (Covid-19/20)

No.

 

Of failing to stop it. But no links to state sponsored piracy.

 

Lebanese is one of my favourite cuisines. So many great recipes (not all with cheese!) to try!

 

Argentinian is nice. Had that in Amsterdam a few years back. Lovely.

 

is that not enough

 

No. They are addressing it. They took positive action to close down beoutQ.

 

mine had no cheese whatsoever... was very nice... lots of different things

 

I get that but they still did it

 

never had that... didn't know it existed

 

So my two cents.

Clearly the Saudi state have not acted in a way that would see them adhere to international trade law. However, as far as I read in the text, there are no direct connections between the piracy issue (I.e the 'Saudi Nationals') and the state. The WTO report doesn't make any rulings that, to my understanding, connect the state directly to the piracy.

However, there is probably further context to this and the PL will need to ensure they have followed every legal step when assessing this takeover. If there is any threat of a Saudi state direct connection to the piracy then the PL opens itself up to severe legal issues.

Finally, PIF must have known this was coming and prepared accordingly. There'll be maneuveres behind the scenes. Ultimately PIF will have likely expected to gave to make a further set of commitments on this. What they are, I'm not sure

 

Steak is unreal.

 

They did. But Saudi nationals, not the state itself.

 

what's the difference? isn't it the same thing

 

No. You and the UK government are different entities. You are a UK national

 

salmans not though

 

Used it earlier. Paul from Portsmouth illegally broadcasts Bundesliga games via a box. The UK Government knows and doesn't stop. The CPS fail to prosecute due to lack of evidence making a conviction unrealistic.

That is a crime under WTO rules. But the UK Government is not facilitating piracy. The evidence was not strong enough for conviction.

The Saudis have argued this. The WTO found otherwise. The state did not facilitate piracy. They simply failed to stop.

 

Look the problem is that this report isn’t the PLs main issue. It’s irrelevant. Hence why Masters was giving some bland, banal interview and hasn’t said a ducking word since.

 

That’s not an accurate analogy though I’m afraid. As the Saudi state actively stopped organisations (including the PL) from bringing legal action against BeoutQ in Saudi, as the channel was hosted on the Arabsat platform.

So they therefore didn’t only allow Paul from Portsmouth to broadcast illegally, they also protected from him prosecution for that piracy.

 

No. It is real. I had it last week.

 

Actively yes. Again though, the criminal prosecutions related to Saudi nationals. Their failure was not prosecuting under their own criminal law.

The WTO has accepted the Saudi defence of national security in relation to denying access to BEin to the Saudi legal system to enforce IP rights.

All other Qatari claims rejected.