• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Harrys Trial

Richard Kingson @RichardKingson

'Arry also claims his pet Rosie was much more than a dog. Big trial of 2013 might be 'Arry again on bestiality charges
 
This one got me:

More laughter as Redknapp talks about Rosie again. "I don't ever like calling her a dog. She was better than that"
 
the whole thing is my favourite buttplug. The prosecution are cheating the public purse paying the fees of a top QC which for the preparation and duration of this trial alone will far outweigh the amounts in dispute.

Most people (especially opposing fans who want him hung out to dry) aren't following this carefully, or even looking at it objectively, they are just reading the headline stuff.

Not sure if we are getting fed the whole thing, but the main prosecution evidence appears to centre on the word of a journalist at a bent newspaper. We are getting more jokes and laughs from Redknapp being reported than anything else.

Quite how two wealthy men (and Mandaric is incredibly wealthy) would act as alleged is mind boggling given the amounts of tax they have paid already.
 
It does seem that the prosecution's arguments are based on coincidences rather than rock solid evidence. They've said it seems likely that payments into that bank account are a bonus related to his employment, but, they haven't actually produced anything that proves without doubt that it was.

I suppose the most damning piece of evidence is the phone recording of Redknapp himself telling that journalist that the money was definitely a bonus re the sale of Peter Crouch. Whether he's found guilty or not will probably come down to whether the jury believe Redknapp when he says that he was lying to the journalist just to get rid of him.
 
EJG said:
It does seem that the prosecution's arguments are based on coincidences rather than rock solid evidence. They've said it seems likely that payments into that bank account are a bonus related to his employment, but, they haven't actually produced anything that proves without doubt that it was.

I suppose the most damning piece of evidence is the phone recording of Redknapp himself telling that journalist that the money was definitely a bonus re the sale of Peter Crouch. Whether he's found guilty or not will probably come down to whether the jury believe Redknapp when he says that he was lying to the journalist just to get rid of him.
Click to expand...

The prosecution's evidence is based on the fact that the amount transferred is the same amount that Harry missed out on by changing his contract, that Harry has been caught on tape saying that it's a bonus AND that it was put in an offshore account with a code name that makes it look like it was hidden away.

Harry's evidence seems to be based on the fact that he was lying when he incriminated himself and that he's so rich and so stupid that he doesn't know where or what happens with his money.

Really doesn't look good unfortunately. If he loses this case and it's looking more and more like he will, then he'll go to jail. He's a high profile figure and they'll want to make an example of him. Our season is in big big trouble if he goes down.
 
Actually the amount wasn't the same. The prosecution said "Was it simply coincidence that the ?ú100,000 was not that far from the 5% (Crouch) that Redknapp had lost?". I'm not saying it looks good, but the fact that the figures are different produces an element of doubt.

Again, his interview with the NOTW journalist looks bad, but the fact that he was talking to a scummy journo introduces the element of doubt. If he'd said the same things to the police he'd be fudged, but he didn't.

Even if found guilty I'd be surprised if he went to jail. The ex-chairman of Darlington fiddled his taxes for years and in far worse ways than Harry has allegedly done (filing false tax returns, not declaring massive benefits in kind from his company, etc) and underpaid his tax by over half a million quid. He was sentenced to three years inside for all that, so I'm not sure Harry would get jail time for not paying the tax on a couple of one off payments.

I could be talking gonad*s of course, I have no real idea :) Shame there isn't someone who works in the legal profession on here that could give us a real idea of the likely punishment if found guilty.
 
SUIYHA said:
The prosecution's evidence is based on the fact that the amount transferred is the same amount that Harry missed out on by changing his contract, that Harry has been caught on tape saying that it's a bonus AND that it was put in an offshore account with a code name that makes it look like it was hidden away.

Harry's evidence seems to be based on the fact that he was lying when he incriminated himself and that he's so rich and so stupid that he doesn't know where or what happens with his money.

Really doesn't look good unfortunately. If he loses this case and it's looking more and more like he will, then he'll go to jail. He's a high profile figure and they'll want to make an example of him. Our season is in big big trouble if he goes down.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

The prosecution have basically zero evidence other than a taped conversation with a journo, in which Harry has admitted he lied to. Its not a crime to lie, and taking into consideration the paper the journo worked for, I still cant believe it was ok to use in court.

I havent read one thing that they have even nearly proved he did wrong, or seems dodgy. Mandaric and Redknapp sound like they have made the prosecution look like fools in my opinion.....all they have done is accused him of lying. But have backed it up with nothing.

Ask yourself if you have no doubt whatsoevr that Harry knowingly cheated the tax office from what youve read. Thats waht the Jury have to decide, and from what I can make out, that would be impossible. Where is the evidence?

Its non existent.
 
SUIYHA said:
The prosecution's evidence is based on the fact that the amount transferred is the same amount that Harry missed out on by changing his contract, that Harry has been caught on tape saying that it's a bonus AND that it was put in an offshore account with a code name that makes it look like it was hidden away.

Harry's evidence seems to be based on the fact that he was lying when he incriminated himself and that he's so rich and so stupid that he doesn't know where or what happens with his money.

Really doesn't look good unfortunately. If he loses this case and it's looking more and more like he will, then he'll go to jail. He's a high profile figure and they'll want to make an example of him. Our season is in big big trouble if he goes down.
Click to expand...

Don't agree.

Put yourself on the Jury, are you able to say, having listened to all the evidence (albeit only what has been reported) can you say beyond any reasonable doubt that the money deposited was a payment of a bonus and subject to tax? The only evidence is at best circumstantial, and even Harry saying it was a bonus to a journo doesn't make it a fact. There would appear to be no evidence that actually proves the claim.

Claim dismissed.
 
Just read BBC, and the whole Prosecution hinges on Harry lying to the Journo.

What he said to the Police stacks up. What he told the Tax Office stacks up. His and Mandaric's story stacks up. He has done nothing strange in terms of his account....he didnt keep it a secret. The money that went in was not the same amount as the difference in contract.

How the f#ck did this get to court?
 
The great thing is that the money spent on the trial (paid for by the tax payer) is almost certainly far more than the amount of tax they claim Harry and Madric have avoided paying.
 
EJG said:
The great thing is that the money spent on the trial (paid for by the tax payer) is almost certainly far more than the amount of tax they claim Harry and Madric have avoided paying.
Click to expand...

Wait what? So the tax payer paying a lot for a trial that seems completely pointless is a great thing?

I think we differ on our definitions of 'great' :p
 
I was being sarcastic... although your response could also be sarcastic... brick, the internet definitely needs a specific font for sarcasm!! :)
 
If, worst case scenario, he gets convicted and they throw the book at him, can he appeal and avoid going to prison or will he have to go in then appeal?

(My knowledge of the legal system being nil)

The whole thing sounds ludicrous considering how much the guy has paid in tax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back