If found guilty Just make HR pay what he owes plus interest and costs. Draw a line under it and move on. Why should the tax payer have to foot a prison bill.? We pay for far to many who should not be sent to prison. But that is a whole new can of worms.
Harry Redknapp
- Thread starter mussiesredhat
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
If he's found guilty of tax evasion to the tune of hundreds of thousands, he'll definitely get sent down, you can't just let people off six figure fraud, just because it costs money to imprison them(anyway, the repaid tax would more than cover the cost).
Talking off unnecessary sentences, a mate of mine got 8 months for running off with a lads cheeseburger. He was walking home from a night out when the lad got gobby, my mates friend punched him, my mate ate his burger.
His friend got a police caution.
My friend got 8 months inside.
How does that make any sense?
If your house is burgled and someone is found guilty, do you want them to just give you your TV back and then be released with no other punishment?
Redknapp's defence seems to be simply that he's thicker than a whale omelette. He's claiming that he writes like a 2 year old and can't use a fax machine or send an email, I'm not sure the court's going to buy this 'I'm not bent, just a bit dim' routine.
It wouldn't make him bankrupt but if he refused to pay it's the best way to get the money out of him.
Many people are found to have done illegal acts by HMRC and Companies House but hardly any are criminally punished.
I don't understand the point of most of the criminal justice system. After dozens of criminal acts they put somebody in jail for a few months while they have quite a nice time compared to a lot of countries jails. It would be a lot better if they made jail a proper punishment and therefore a deterrent. They wouldn't have to spend a lot on those kind of jails either.
Bring Phoenix jails to the UK! What about Siberian jails?
Bring Phoenix jails to the UK! What about Siberian jails?
I sent an email to a client and one question asked about rental income. Today the client gives me his company accounts data and some personal data and I question him about expenses like giftaid and pension contribution. I explain that most people have bank interest received. He said he'd send me that. I explained that some people have property rental income. He says "I have a flat I rent out"! He nearly slipped that one past me.
If HR has had an accountant long term he will have been asked about all his bank accounts. Why would he go to Monaco to set up a bank account in a pet's name if he thought it was all above board?
Apparently Redknapp can't write and is completely disorganised, can't use emails or send text messages, (his own words), he's doing his best at the moment to put himself out of any contention, he will be saying he is short-sighted next and a bit deaf too.
At least Wenger can read and write.!
Redknapp has totally blown his chance aftr todays comments in cour.
Redknapp has totally blown his chance aftr todays comments in cour.
He did wear glasses in court. I'm surprised he wasn't using one of those horns!
If he gets found guilty it would be difficult to be appointed England manager. Venables did seem to resign because the FA wouldn't guarantee he could stay in the role because of his court case so there is a difference.
I would still go for Roy Hodgson as England manager. He may be nervous of taking the job in case it's another "Liverpool". Any foreign manager will get a massive salary and won't have the passion.
He is using what is technically called the 'Silly Bugger Defence' whereby the defendant is too stupid/busy/unworldly to have committed the crime or indeed any other crime. 'I am but a humble footy manager trying to make my way in the world'. 'I foolishly put my trust in others and they let me down' etc etc. This defence worked with cheery Ken Dodd but was less successful with the miserable old scrote Leicester Piggott. My recommendation - crack a few jokes in the witness box 'arry.
I agree, 'arry will almost certainly go down if found guilty. I have personally known someone who went to the nick for tax fiddling over a hell of a lot less than our 'arry. And if they are to make an example then this is the one. The judge is the only one who can save him.
I'll have a go:
The police knew if it went to trial the defence for the punch (you've said it was a single punch) would be that he "feared for his safety", so it was reasonable to use force to preemptively defend himself and remove the threat he felt. The critical part there is that the force has to be the minimum required to remove the threat without exposing himself to more danger, ie if one punch stops it then he stops as well or it's assault by him. If it doesn't stop him then he can go again. I'm going to guess that the caution was for breach of the peace?
The other guy nicking the burger is doing so after the threat has been removed so is effectively mugging the guy, even if it is just a burger. It just happens that the guy wanted to press charges for it, there was the evidence for it, and there was no mitigating circumstances.
Here's the chant to go with it- to the Only Fools and Horses theme tune.
No income tax, no VAT, no Premier League points off Man City, in the dock, face so pale, Harry Redknapps going to jail.
Class
I'm surprised the defence didn't offer the pre-emptive first aid defence.
The man who had just been incapacitated seems to have anger management issues which led to him needing to be subdued. It's not unreasonable to assume underlying high blood pressure that would have been enhanced by alcohol. Removing what had then become a choking hazard as well as a contributor to the high blood pressure should be seen as an act of mercy...your honour.
If you want to go to extremes you could claim it as being in the interests of national security. By stopping him suffer heart problems later on you're saving the nhs money, which saves the government money, which can be spent providing the military with the correct equipment for the conflicts they're in.
The preemptive self defence is valid though. So long as you can legitimately claim that the other person's actions lead you to believe you were about to be assaulted if you didn't take action, then you're entitled to take action. If someone is pissed up and being aggressive towards you it's reasonable to think that they could be about to hit you, so you're allowed to prevent them so long as the force used to do so isn't excessive.