Because he was arrested and prosecuted and found guilty in Dubai he can't ever be tried over here, double jeopardy applies both here and there. He defrauded a Dubai company so it's right that he was tried over there. Have you any actual evidence he didn't do it? You don't need to change your opinion. No matter how wrong it is it's yours and you are entitled to it. I have replied to be polite but this is my final pint on this. As you are now on twittering terms with David why not ask him how he went from having no cash of note to being able to bank roll the club in just four months.
I've not yet formed an opinion, which is why I'd like to see some evidence. You were the one asking how much evidence I needed, so I replied, giving some specifics of the evidence I'd like to see. I'm still waiting. Or perhaps you don't have any evidence at all? Btw, I'm not brow beating. That's your speciality. I'm just following up your kind request with some relevant questions. Or perhaps you were being insincere. As if!
I think the on the receiving end recognise brow beating when it happens. You are aware of exactly what he was convicted of and as its a matter of record there is nothing more to add. Just for the record your post #10 indicates you have formed an opinion. Try to save your faux outrage for someone that hasnt seen it too many times now.
I'm not sure where you get that from, WC. The court records state he was found guilty of his first charge, and sentenced accordingly. FACT. He was found not guilty of the 'twitter' charge which was trumped up as he was about to be released form his first sentence. This is also a matter of court record, as is his incarceration for 4 months on a charge tha the was not guilty of. Put it this way - if someone incorrectly accused you of dropping litter or some such thing, would you be happy to spend 4 months in a squalid jail waiting on a trial date? You are also perfectly entitled to have an opinion, and it may be right, or it may be wrong. I have an open view on the matter. You correctly express an opinion, but some on here present their opinions as fact. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence if 'fact' is being presented.
Read your first sentence again SLOWLY.... You have answered the question you posed me. And stop posting your opinions as fact there's a good chap.
Yes, we all know about your brow beating. It's discussed often, but never recognised by you. I am not 'exactly' aware of what he was convicted of. I don't even know what the exact charge was, not being familiar with the Dubai legal system. Again, if you have evidence of this, I'd be delighted to peruse it. But I suspect you haven't. As for post #10, I think you must read it again in context. I have formed the opinion that there may well be more to hear, as I believe the full story has not yet been told. I prefer not to form a firm opinion on the matter until I've heard both sides. Do you really consider that to be an unreasonable standpoint? And it's not faux outrage - I'm actually quite excited that GFH might be in for some grief. Aren't you?
My oh my! We are tetchy today. You clearly don't understand the difference between evidence & verdict.
Ex-Leeds United and GFH Capital general counsel David Haigh has been found guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust in Dubai and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Haigh’s sentence includes time served and he will be released in November, having spent 13 months in prison in Dubai before he was officially charged in June. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That means he was guilty of taking the money [our money]
Not tetchy at all. Had a nice couple of days celebrating some good news. I have apologised and tried to ameliorate my natural instincts in a genuine attempt to build bridges with you, you have excercised your right to rebuff my attempts. Doesn't Google work in Wetherby? I am sorry if I have misinterpreted what you clearly said in post 10. Perhaps you could edit it to say what you now say you meant to say. GFH mean nothing to me, as I understand it their equity is passing to another entity in the coming weeks so they will become irrelevant. I couldn't care less about the shambolic owners we have had and just want to see the club find new owners and get some much needed real investment and stability. Don't you?
I understand this is your final pint , so I'll be quick... I think you'll find that the double jeopardy ruling was abolished since the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The supposed crime happened in England, so should have been investigated in England. The point you are trying to make that he defrauded a Dubai Company, so its only right that he gets tried there is a poor one! Are you saying if somebody stole a load of bread from ASDA, they should be tried in America? (as they are owned by Walmart) Poor argument. I do not believe many people would disagree with me there. You only need to read reports by Amnesty International to find out how corrupt the Saudi laws are. Is that all you got?
In your opinion are verdicts generally reached based on the evidence prosecution and defence submit? What you might be getting confused by is the lower burden of proof required in Dubai (closer to balance of probability then beyond reasonable doubt), but Haigh went to Dubai so subjected himself to that risk.
See previous reply. Assets belonged to Dubai based company and Haighs greed put him in harms way. Not going to change my mind, so let's agree to disagree. Sorry didn't mean double jeopardy (retried when initially found not guilty) I meant couldn't be tried twice after being found guilty of the offence already.
Where did you get your info? I can only find a reference in the YEP, which says that he was only guilty of 'breach of trust'. I must confess, I have no idea what that means. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ven-two-year-jail-sentence-in-dubai-1-7432196
As you should have seen with BHS,if you have some control over money in a company,its very easy to help yourself to loads of it,if you are in a trusted position,you should also have noted how difficult it is to prosecute in this country despite many millions being taken.
What you're not taking into consideration is that he was prevented from having appropriate legal representation or a translator. How can you defend yourself against professionals & having no idea what was being sent? They cut his tongue out, metaphorically. Not even a one-sided argument - just a presentation of prosecution 'fact'. And what about the 'evidence' provided for the second 'twitter' charge? Took them 4 months of him rotting in jail to work out that he couldn't possibly have done it due to their restrictions on him!
quick question how many final posts can you have before it really is your final post ? not included the one they play when you are brown bread
