All the article mentions is taking action against The Times and Tottenham. Think this might be a bit of a smokescreen?
Haven't read the article, but Wham are basing their case on the fact (as reported by the Times) that Spurs paid investigators, and those investigators alledgedly broke the law. Very risky for us if true.
Think there's trouble afoot - this can't be good PR for us and might be dis tracting the players. http://www.whufc.com/articles/20110703/west-ham-united-statement_2236884_2385579
"The onus is now upon WHUFC to substantiate their allegations that Tottenham Hotspur employed the investigators who obtained private information illegally, false allegations are dealt with quite strictly by the courts." Well, the times have someone's bank statements, and I can't think of a legal way they could have got those. Hopefully it was through a whistleblower, but if it turns out they came from someone employed by Spurs, then we could be in bother.
Mate, if you employ someone to do a job for you, you take some responsibility for their actions. And remember, the FA don't need to prove that we did anything illegal - if they think we have brought the game into disrepute they can do what they like to us. And let's face it, we are not really painting a pretty picture of English football right now, are we?
If you employ a PI to get information, and he turns up with private documents that he cannot have obtained legally, then you go to the cops or you become implicated in the crime. If you pass those private docs onto a newspaper, then you are complicit in their publication. And the FA, FIFA etc don't have to prove any of this in court. If they take the view that employing PIs is bound to cause trouble in the end, and decide they want to make sure no one else tries the same trick, they CAN do pretty much what they like to us - fines, point deductions, bans from competitions.
I'm not sure why obtaining bank statements is necessarily illegal. Dionne Knight might have been silly enough to throw them in the bin, which is a pretty stupid thing to do nowdays, but not out of the question. "Dionne Knight's work for the Legacy Stadium Partnership (LSP) owned 50% by London Borough of Newham and 50% by West Ham United was in relation to the procurement of a construction partner after the Olympic Games." Nice to know that the poorest council in London was paying for this though, eh?
Ensil is right, it's called conspiracy, the all encompassing charge that the old bill love so much. However, it has to be proved that at least two people "conspired" to commit the offence. As to the story itself. Being sued by a couple of dodgy porn merchants You don't know whether to laugh, or cry.
As we have been told in regard to Modric, the media have a code of ethics and never lie, so West Ham have no grounds for legal action
Why is that so interesting? Most of the articles on here a pretty poorly supported, the Wumming is out of control. Most threads degenerate into squabbles. This just happened to be a topic that I'm interested enough in to suffer the morons; I've been posting mostly on SpursCommunity and ja606 since 606 went down. BTW, my first post on this thread was: "Haven't read the article, but Wham are basing their case on the fact (as reported by the Times) that Spurs paid investigators, and those investigators alledgedly broke the law. Very risky for us if true." What's wrong with that?
So what has the fact that I hadn't read the article got to do with how many times I've posted on here? I had seen the .jpg of the Times' front page, but not the continuation inside; I had read a number of precis of Wham's response, but didn't bother going to their official site. Now I've read the BBC's take on it as well. All I'm saying is that Levy's involvement with PIs, as the Times alleges, is risky. Don't see why you are getting so hot and bothered.
If you employ a PI to get information, and he turns up with private documents that he cannot have obtained legally, then you go to the cops or you become implicated in the crime. If you pass those private docs onto a newspaper, then you are complicit in their publication.
I haven't read this yet (just got the Times) However, I know that Levy is certainly no dummy. You can bet that he didn't do any of this without consulting his lawyers, first
Sorry Ensil, but CN is right. If the courts find (if it goes to court) that the PI's that Spurs employed have acted illegally, then Spurs will also be implicated legally. As for Levy 'know's what he's doing', I'm not so sure about that either. I think him pursuing this agenda has been born out of frustration that Spurs didn't get the OS in the first place coupled with the current lack of a plan B with any real current substance. His lawyers have obviously instructed him to go down this route, but now there is a counter legal claim being made by the opposition, with allegations of corruption flying back and forth, it's very messy and it is very likely to end up in the courts. I mentioned the other day that I felt that Levy may be taking the club down a detrimental route, so far I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Not for one minute can I see Spurs successfully overturning a decision by the OPLC, Newham council, The mayor of London and several Government ministers. The trouble for Levy now is though, to what extent does he pursue this? He has set the ball in motion and will either have to make a huge climb down, or battle it out in the courts for months, possibly years. I can't see any of that being of benefit to Spurs.
Hasn't Knight only been suspended on full pay, rather than sacked? I'm not sure if there's anything illegal about camping outside someone's home or going through their bins, but I doubt it. Tapping phones would be another matter, but I'd have thought that any evidence would have been physical, anyway.
So, Ensil, here's a possible scenario. Dodgy PI uses underhand methods to get some private documents, shows them to a Chairman of a Football Club, who throws his arms up in alarm and says "we don't want anything to do with that if it's not completely kosher". Dodgy PI then thinks, "OK, I can make a bit on the side by selling this to the Sunday Times". Wham sue, the dodgy PI ends up in court and admits having shown the docs to Levy. The Club Chairman then gets a polite knock on the door from Plod, who ask him why he didn't inform them of the dodgy PI's criminal activities. Does that sound risky to you? Or completely impossible?
LIDL West Ham are fervently denying that there was any 'secret cash' payments. It's up to Spurs to prove that there were. (as you mention, there should be quite a clearly traceable route of accountability) If there is an absence of evidence however, even if cash payments were made (and dirty money is often hidden), this is the only thing the courts will take into account and Spurs may well find that they are also having to face charges of libel as well as their employees (or professionals acting on their behalf) acting illegally. There's a saying that you should choose your battles wisely. In this case, I'm not sure Levy has employed those principles.
Thanks for the link Ensil. Ive been away for nearly 2 weeks, just logged on and am now completely up to speed! Fair play.
