What you're talking about there is complicity. But you don't have to be complicit in a crime to have action taken against you. For example, if a nurse allows one of their patients to die due to negligence, it is her employers who will face charges. (There are lots of cases of Hospital trusts being taken to court over these types of incidents) The nurse would certainly face disciplinary action and may also face criminal charges (depending on the severity of the case) they may also be struck off the register from their professional bodies. But, the point being, is that ultimately, their Employer would be liable for prosecution, as they would be responsible for ensuring that their staff were acting within the law.
I think that they mean a a private detective has been sitting in a parked car, staking out her home, Ensil. Doesn't sound as good as camping out, does it? Have Spurs actually said that there have been any secret cash payments, Piskie? The Sunday Times has, but I was under the impression that Levy hasn't made any sort of public statement at all, so libel would be impossible. As Ensil has already pointed out, you're not responsible for any illegal activities performed by an employee. If you've told them to do something illegal or implied it, then you'd be responsible. If they've told you that they've done something illegal and you've not acted, then you're responsible. If you hire them to do something legitimate and they act illegally, then it's not your problem.
If Levy has chosen an unwise battle, it would be an extreme rarity. Levy generally knows exactly what he's doing in these cases. I would be inclined to share the view that the Gvt may not want any more potentially embarrassing revelations re the OPLC to emerge, and will find a compromise with Levy. Levy has gone very public with this whole thing for a reason.
Essentially, PNP, it comes down to what I said earlier. To implicate Levy, or Spurs, you would have to show clear evidence of conspiracy. If there is none, then the PI's will be left to hang out & dry.
Exactly, NSS. I have the feeling that West Ham have gone on the offensive to try to distract people from the actual story. Regardless of whether they actually did anything wrong or not, the whole situation with Dionne Knight looks pretty bad, especially as there was somebody at the club in a relationship with her. They're well aware of that and acting in this manner looks like an attempt to portray themselves as the victims, to me.
In that case no, not unless for example it was a defect on a company car that caused the accident. But there is a law called Vicarious liability, which is defined as being So there is in statute, a legal recourse to pursue those connected with the perpetrators of a criminal act. Personally I think, that if the PI's are found guilty of illegal activity, Spurs will hang them out to dry and will likely not be prosecuted for their activity. But on a point of law, there is recourse for the courts to do so if they chose.
I'm under the impression that some sort of negligence or complicity would have to be indicated for Spurs to be liable, though. If Levy hired an outwardly honest private detective and didn't ask him to break the law, then I see no reason why he'd be held accountable, even under vicarious liability. He couldn't be expected to foresee such action and he's not palming off any responsibility that he's undertaken.
No proof at the moment I think is the key phrase. WHU issuing a statement 'If there is any further publication of allegations' - is a shot across the bows. A statement of intent rather than a conclusive case. But they obviously feel that a criminal act has taken place by people working on THFC's behalf. It's messy for sure, claim and counter claim will inevitably end up with someone getting sued. I can see no benefit coming out of this for either club.
I'm not a lawyer. However, as far as I understand it, conspiracy before, or after the fact, is the potential charge. In which case they must produce clear evidence of the alleged conspiracy to implicate either Levy, or Spurs?
I think you're right. It would be harsh to punish Levy or Spurs if they employed someone to to carry out a task in good faith and within lawful parameters. I think vicarious liability is the exception to the law, rather than the rule. The main principle of guilt is that there is 'actus reus' (Latin for "guilty act") and a 'mens rea' (Latin for "guilty mind") which firmly places the onus of prosecution on the perpetrator. However, it is in law as a contingency to ensure that a secondary party can be held accountable, in law, for actions, whilst committed by another person, but on behalf of that other party.
Why was Dionne Knight hired by OPLC in the first place? They've made it clear that she was in a relationship with an employee of West Ham, so why risk the appearance of impropriety from the outset? That she then went on to undertake work for West Ham while still under their employment is just ludicrous, especially as West Ham were aware of her employer. That she was paid to help procure a construction partner for the stadium before West Ham had won the bid just looks dishonest, frankly.
West Ham, horrible club with horrible fans. Don't want us to get the Olympic Stadium but it was obvious to everyone our bid was better in every way.
I wonder who this mysterious 'West Ham employee' is? Got to love the moral outrage by the Spammers, too! "They staked out the house of somebody that was working for both the club and the OPLC? How dare they act upon a rather obvious conflict of interest! She has a 14-year-old child, too! Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children? " Hilarious stuff!
Like I said, being sued by a couple of dodgy porn merchants I suppose Dionne could always get her tits out for one of their mags if she loses her job
Or, they are aware that both Spurs and themselves have committed illegal acts and are trying to enforce a stalemate?
The person that Dionne Knight was in a relationship with was Ian Tompkins, according to the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...spended-Olympic-Stadium-corruption-probe.html He's been suspended, too. His job title? Olympic Project Director! http://www.whufc.com/page/Staff/0,,12562,00.html Seriously, you couldn't make it up.
Yes, but we were speculating on the motives of the clubs involved. To me, that suggests that West Ham were aware that something was going on, but have only chosen to 'use it' now that Spurs are threatening them with legal action.
I agree. But if it is the case that West Ham are aware that both they AND Spurs have acted illegally, then this behaviour would be perfectly congruent with one party trying to force a stalemate. i.e. You've got dirt on us, but we've got dirt on you, so let's call it quits, as it's in neither's interest for it to go to court
In a nutshell, this sums it up perfectly. I said before that I think this will only bring detriment to Spurs. At the end of the day, I can't see anyone going back and reversing the decision to give WHU the OS and give it to Spurs instead, that would be a huge loss of face and reputation for the OPLC, Newham council and the Mayor of London. It's not going to happen in my opinion. Like I'd mentioned, the old saying is that you have to choose your battles wisely, even if you think you're right, it takes a wise head to see that the outcome might eventually not be to your benefit.
