Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bungpuss finally up before the beak.

Just to check something I keep seeing thrown about loads, did he really say, under oath, that he's never sent an email, text message or fax in his life?

And this was accepted?

I know there are plenty of people of a certain age who don't 'do' technology, but I find it hard to believe that a Premier League manager / director of football involved in club and financial matters has never communicated using these mediums.

Chinny reckon, in fact.
As he is self-admittedly not very literate, then all of these messaging methods would be useless to him. He would use the phone. Also he must have some sort of office staff to do his bidding.
 
Well, that text stuff wasn't said in court - it was in police questioning, but the prosecution produced faxes and other stuff he'd sent anyway :D Plus, he's just say he didn't write it, ghost written column or something.
 
Right, so it's the next morning - and I'm still baffled by his 'innocence'.

How much evidence do they need to convict someone? He flies to Monaco, sets up a secretive bank account, £190k is dropped into it by his boss, he admits to a reporter whos recording the conversation that it's a bung for the sale of Crouch.. how the hell did he manage to slip off the hook?
You really do sound like you wanted him to go to jail?
 
Right, so it's the next morning - and I'm still baffled by his 'innocence'.

How much evidence do they need to convict someone? He flies to Monaco, sets up a secretive bank account, £190k is dropped into it by his boss, he admits to a reporter whos recording the conversation that it's a bung for the sale of Crouch.. how the hell did he manage to slip off the hook?
Convict someone of what; if we do assume you know on whom the burden of proof rests and the level of proof required, I don't think you are aware of the wording of the charge?

That's the starting point; it's not ideal to (a) work backwards, and (b) rely on media coverage - which picks out the entertaining parts and ignores the most important detailed facts. It was, after all, a 15-day trial.
 
Convict someone of what; if we do assume you know on whom the burden of proof rests and the level of proof required, I don't think you are aware of the wording of the charge?

That's the starting point; it's not ideal to (a) work backwards, and (b) rely on media coverage - which picks out the entertaining parts and ignores the most important detailed facts. It was, after all, a 15-day trial.
I feel the same about OJ Simpson. :(
 
Hmm... it's a tricky one. He's obviously a charming man - but he pretty clearly was dodging tax. So. Yes. IMO he should've gone down. I can't have been the only one who was a tad surprised that he dodged the bullet here.

The jury who sat through the whole trial clearly didn't feel that he was clearly tax dodging, but you feel that by reading the papers and watching the TV news coverage you know more than they do.
 
OK, you win. Mandaric just popped £190k into his employee's specially set up private Monaco bank account as a 'gift'... sheer co-incidence that this was just after Crouch's (redknapp led) transfer to Villa :D
 
OK, you win. Mandaric just popped £190k into his employee's specially set up private Monaco bank account as a 'gift'... sheer co-incidence that this was just after Crouch's (redknapp led) transfer to Villa :D
...and there's no way that glove fitted OJ
 
I followed a link and read this, finding myself agreeing with it.

Back in 2009, I asked why the authorities were spending so much time and public money pursuing Harry Redknapp over what seemed, in the scheme of things, to be a relatively inconsequential sum in unpaid income tax. In the context of what he had earned over the years, not to mention the millions of pounds he had already paid in tax, why didn’t they just ask him to write out a cheque for the amount they alleged he owed? From what I know about Harry, he’d have paid up willingly to avoid putting his family through the wringer.

Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs has no problem cutting deals with big corporations such as Vodafone, so why spend an astonishing £8 million and five years on this ultimately unsuccessful prosecution?

If they thought they had a rock solid case and a realistic chance of securing a conviction, why did they take so long to bring it to trial? The evidence presented to the jury was less than compelling and left plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

Justice delayed is justice denied, even though in this case Redknapp and his co-defendant Milan Mandaric were eventually found not guilty.

As I wrote more than two years ago, it’s a pity the authorities didn’t devote as much time and effort to investigating the wholesale theft of taxpayers’ money by Members of Parliament. Why wasn’t the Revenue concerned about MPs dishonestly ‘flipping’ their addresses to avoid paying tens of thousands of pounds in Capital Gains Tax? It’s not only HMRC that has questions to answer. How can the police justify a mob-handed dawn raid at Redknapp’s house, with a Sun photographer in tow?

There is never any excuse for battering on someone’s front door in the early hours of the morning unless there is an imminent risk they are about to commit a violent crime or flee the country.
Then I looked to see who the journalist was, and shot myself.
 
We paid Pompey £5m for him, so Levy wanted to ensure he'd recoup it.

Harry's been a great manager, but General Levy's the mastermind behind our transformation. And with the NDP progressing, watch this space...
 
OK, you win. Mandaric just popped £190k into his employee's specially set up private Monaco bank account as a 'gift'... sheer co-incidence that this was just after Crouch's (redknapp led) transfer to Villa :D
I know I win, he got found not guilty by 12 people who sat through the whole trial and listened to all the evidence, not some silly fucker who basis his opinions on what he reads in the papers and can't see past the football team he supports.
 
Well technically its not liable to UK tax until its repatriated surely?

Anyway, well done St Harry of Teflon
 
Well technically its not liable to UK tax until its repatriated surely?

Anyway, well done St Harry of Teflon

True. It's not liable to generate any taxation until he transfers it (by any means) back into the UK. In fact, if he wishes to use those funds to spend while he is out of the country, then he never needs to declare them at all. Providing, of course, that the money was earnt outside of the UK, if earnt/paid for services in this country, he should have declared BEFORE sending funds offshore, and that makes him guilty as charged, you are responsible for your own taxation, not your accountant or any other advisers, you.
 
christ alone knows how bungpuss got off, but I hope he gets the England gig, either he succeeds at it (i.e. we get pleasantly surprised) or I have the pleasure of seeing him get crucified by the meejah like every other England boss before him. WIN-WIN!:D
 
Back
Top Bottom