You would think so wouldn't you? Unfortunately those suitably qualified tend to be intelligent enough to keep their membership to themselves so we might be struggling. Oh wait a minute. I hope you weren't being facetious when you said certified?
Catch up TC. (copy from previous thread) 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. Haigh was not even being investigated in the UK. Either her majesty's finest were not interested, or GFH fancied their chances only in Dubai
Funny that. That's what he was accused of, but as far as I'm aware, not what he was convicted of. Not like lawyers to get it wrong, is it? The Arabian Times agrees with the YEP that it was 'Breach of Trust'. V.Strange. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/form...-dubai-jail-sentence-607511.html#.V8R1-mBrjIU Also, how can you pay a lawyer if all of your bank accounts have been frozen worldwide?
As I've said in another post, he couldn't pay as the court had frozen his bank accounts globally. As for his representation, there appear to be conflicting reports about that. I have no idea which version is correct. There even appear to have been conflicting judgements from the different Dubai courts: "David was wrongfully convicted of ‘breach of trust’ in 2015 by a Dubai court. He was not given a fair trial on even the most basic definition of a fair trial. He was denied access to translators, lawyers, was prevented from presenting his evidence or cross examining those accusing him, he wasn’t allowed in Court or even when he was he wasn't allowed to speak and wasn’t allowed to see any of the evidence against him, all set against a background of torture, beating sexual abuse and inhumane and degrading treatment. David was offered a Royal pardon 10 days after been wrongfully convicted, a pardon he did not accept. He was prevented from appealing his wrongful conviction to the UAE Supreme Court hours before he was due to fly home. He was prevented from appealing by those that set him up filing a false ‘Twitter slander’ case and by the DIFC Courts stopping David’s access to his money to pay for a lawyer, notwithstanding DIFC Court orders stating he could have such money". I have no idea who is right or who is wrong - I'm only interested in GFH 'getting it', tbh. I don't like miscarriages of justice, and there are grounds for thinking there may be a case to answer here, given that an organisation such as Human Rights Watch gets involved.
These bank accounts which had next to nothing in them when he became our CEO had more than £3mill in when frozen, do you not think that's weird? Perhaps he plays the lotto How much did GFH say in their legal submissions they were in the hole for? Oh that's right more than £3mill, a coincidence? As none of the invoices were paid ( they were frozen) where are the people knocking on the doors of elland road wanting to be paid? You know the answer but perhaps want to have an argument based on sumantics?
You seem to think I'm an advocate for DH. I'm not. I just want him to go for GFH. But you'd rather spoil for a fight, wouldn't you? So, perhaps you could tell us how you know these accounts were empty, then had £3m in them. If this another 'opinion' or do you really have evidence of this potentially libellous statement? Oh, and how do you know none of the invoices were paid? Evidence or opinion? Do you know if they actually existed, or were they fabricated? And have you considered that DH might have been the person doing the invoicing to GFH from himself?
With respect, the Saudi's knew they couldn't hold Haigh any longer so thought they'd go after him for twitter slander... Unbelievable. Only in Dubai....
I am not spoiling for a fight at all, I am just not willing for you to bombast me or any one else. It was David Haigh who said he had no cash when he was installed as our CEO when asked about taking a stake, months later he was in a position to cover running costs of the club out of his own pocket. The invoices were real enough to gain Haigh a conviction. I posed a series of questions as indicated by question marks. You do understand the laws of libel ? As I said you are attempting to bombast /bully those disagreeing with you into acquiescence. The only thing I stated was that gfh said they were in the hole for over £3 mill and as things stand they have convinced the only court to have tried the evidence of this.
my little brother knocked 9 bells out of a bloke once and i got nicked went to court and took the ****e but i was innocent please forward all your donations to me
