Montey

The WTO report is about if Saudi Arabia could have done more to prevent the piracy, not if they were behind it. A fact that the press seem to ignore. Exactly. They are investigating whether KSA could have done more, which is always going to come back with the answer of "yes". If the WTO did an investigation into whether the United States or United Kingdom could do more to prevent piracy, the report would come back saying "yes" because there is (by definition) always more that could be done. The report will come back saying, probably in strong terms, that KSA is not doing enough to stop piracy, that KSA must do more to stop piracy, that KSA must open Saudi courts to IP theft cases, etc. But it is less likely to say much beyond that. Such a report would not meet the criteria of the O&D Test to cause the deal to be blocked. If the report goes beyond that and gives more ammunition to fail the O&D Test then the WTO will likely of exceed the remit of the inquiry, which would cause PIF to tell the PL that the report is invalid and that PIF will sue the PL if they use the WTO report to block the takeover.

In polite, diplomatic terms - "strongest possible terms" is the equivalent of saying "for the purposes of this criticism, imagine I am using the strongest language you can imagine to criticise you"... a.k.a. it's diplomatic speak for calling someone an arsehole.

That tweet from Edwards is just a repeat of what was said weeks ago, when it was then alleged that the WTO report "condemns Saudi Arabia in the strongest possible terms." Given the exact same leak weeks ago (I think, it's word for word the same), I think it is likely that the previous report came from a Qatari source and therefor (in all probability) that Edwards' source is also from Qatar (e.g. is he just getting leaks from Richard Keys?) I think the likelihood is that the WTO report will say that KSA was grossly negligent (or words of that type) in their lack of efforts to curtail piracy and intellectual property theft and that KSA was significantly misaligned with the global practice of intellectual property law by denying access to their legal system for organisations seeking redress for alleged IP theft. The report will urge KSA to change their laws to permit organisations outside of Saudi to pursue IP cases in Saudi courts. Based on previous failed attempts by BeIn and Qatar to tie KSA directly to piracy, given that Arabsat is run by Qatar, KSA, and other regional countries, and given it being unlikely to be able to prove KSA's direct involvement in piracy it is unlikely that the WTO report will provide a direct statement accusing of KSA orchestrating piracy and/or IP theft. I think it is highly probable that leaks, asserting what the WTO report is going to say, come from Qatar or Qatari proxies and therefor they will spinning anything in the WTO report to the agenda of Qatar. It is unlikely that KSA is leaking that the WTO report "condemns Saudi Arabia in the strongest possible terms", it is unlikely that the WTO itself is leaking, and it is unlikely that the PL is leaking if they have a copy. Hence, the only party left who could be leaking is Qatar, which means the leaks are guaranteed to be slanted towards Qatar's interests. (of course, I could be completely misreading things)

I don't believe any of these stories linking us to players - good ones or otherwise. I am 99.999% confident that any such stories are just agents linking players to NUFC, due to the prospect of big-spending new owners, so they can drive up the interest in, price of, or wages of their players.

He is conspicuous by his silence.

The government was always going to indicate support. Prior to the last election, Johnson made commitments to increase investment in the North of England. This takeover is a way for Johnson to say "promise kept" without having to spend any government money. From the government's perspective this takeover is manna from heaven.

My interpretation of things is: Barclays Bank was on the verge of financial collapse during the GFC; Staveley asserts she put together a consortium of investors to purchase shares in Barclays Bank and thereby provide Barclay's with a large chunk of money so they wouldn't collapse (i.e. to recapitalise the bank) and that Staveley was promised fees/commissions for putting the deal together; Barclays Bank asserts Staveley was not part of the consortium of investors and was only a bit player (e.g. an advisor) and was therefor not entitled to the fees/commissions that Staveley is claiming; Barclay's Bank has not paid Staveley what she believes she is owed; and Staveley is suing Barclay's Bank to get the money she believes she is entitled to (noting that the value of that amount has been inflated by other costs accrued during the non-payment period). This is as short as I can make it whilst being as technically correct as I can be in simple-ish language.

Yeah, at the top of the screen, right above the video stream, it says that unauthorised recording or screenshots are a criminal offence. I'd take a screenshot of it for you, but I don't want to be in a court room right after Roan.

Anything visible in a screenshot is unlikely to prejudice the case. First of all it's not a jury situation and secondly there is no real details visible (i.e. you can't see anything more than the people involved and the room they are in). The journalist may be slapped with a contempt charge. No, the prejudice argument would arise from either party arguing that Roan has an agenda and is potentially denying a fair trial with his intervention. I have no idea what he tweeted like, I'm at work He tweeted some screen captures of the court room Internet stream. Either party may argue that it would prejudice their case but I doubt the judge would rule in their favour (given it's not a jury case and the screen shots were of limited consequence). Hence, I think the judge may charge the journalist with contempt but not permit the tweet to have any other consequence for the case being heard. If I was the journalist's lawyer I would argue to the court that because the screenshots were from a publicly available source that all content that he tweeted was already a matter of public record. That, at its worst, it was a breach of the law in technicality only and not a breach of the law in spirit (that is to say that, his tweet did not violate the privacy or confidentiality of the court, or publish any materials capable of compromising judicial integrity).

Do you and I start typing at the same time? Do I have a second personality I am not aware of?

https://www.flightradar24.com/E35L/24ae677e Embraer Legacy 650 Departing: Luton Location: West cost of Greece Heading: South East towards Saudi Arabi

Anything visible in a screenshot is unlikely to prejudice the case. First of all it's not a jury situation and secondly there is no real details visible (i.e. you can't see anything more than the people involved and the room they are in). The journalist may be slapped with a contempt charge. Overall, whilst I thought Staveley did well yesterday (given she was in a cross examination situation) I think she's doing better today. She seems to have got a feel for the room, the judge, and the QC's style and is now better able to read the tone of things and the direction things are going - meaning she likely feels more in control of the situation and consequently is feeling more confident in her presentation. Where it is the QC's job to attempt to undermine the court's opinion of Staveley's case I don't think he's doing a particularly good job. Staveley appears to have reasonable answers to all questions, reasonable explanations for all pursued details, and a consistency to her evidence that likely plays well in the eyes of the court. An interesting lesson I am learning from this is that for future court room scenarios I may be involved in I am going to seek video footage of my opposing legal team. There is much that can be learned and prepared for in watching a lawyer's courtroom mannerisms and style to assist the witness (much in the same way that a professional sports person will watch footage to learn weaknesses).

Yeah, almost certainly landing at Riyadh.

I have to say, I'm fairly unimpressed with the (I presume) Barclay's lawyer. They will, likely, have had some weeks with Staveley's package of written testimony to identify ways to undermine her case and to put together their counter evidence to the court. Instead, their lawyer seems to be attempting to be tricky with language in an attempt to trip up Staveley in the court room instead of having found flaws in the evidence or flaws of interpretation of events. In most situations one would expect a court to see through such games. The (I presume) Barclays' lawyer has an evident pattern to his questioning. He pursues a series of tedious points of interpretation in an attempt to muddle Staveley and then when he feels he's got her a bit addled he hits her with a very aggressive (badgering) question in an attempt to blindside her and get her to concede a point she didn't intend to concede.

No idea why, this fat bloke on https://cl-2016-000049.sparq.me.uk/ is running rings around her. He’s just cross examining her. So far she has came up with good reasons and countered him well. There was a point where the judge even told him to let her speak as he was trying to lead the answers to his agenda by allowing her to only give responses without context. Just recently he has presented her with a document saying one thing, and she has pointed out that the document says the exact opposite to what says it does. Yeah, so far the (I presume) Barclays' lawyer is doing the sort of tricky word games that cause people to hate lawyers.

Same, I find it interesting, have havent a fucking clue whats going on I wish it wasn't almost midnight here (Australia) so I could keep watching it. I think I have some, limited, understanding of what is going on and boy I hope @RedRoseMichelle is watching and can provide some explanation. My current interpretation is that Staveley's team have presented a package of evidence and the (likely) Barclays' lawyer is now trying to undermine that evidence by attempting to get Staveley to contradict her written testimony. For example, the examining lawyer attempted to put that Staveley did not actually structure the deal to which Staveley responded by attempting to show the court that the lawyer was using an overly simplistic definition of "structure" and explained how she had undertaken substantial steps to create substantial mechanisms for the deal to happen. The lawyer also attempted to have the court believe that Staveley had not secured substantial investment for PCP, but Staveley responded by explaining (I think) the lines of credit she had established for PCP so that PCP could be a major investor in the Barclays deal.

There are actually two of these aircraft, both coming out of Farnborough at close to the same time. https://www.flightradar24.com/E35L/24ac611e - is over Saudi Arabian airspace now and is on track to potentially land at Riyadh. https://www.flightradar24.com/E35L/24ac6e40 - is currently over Egypt and continuing on a more south-south-eastern track.

Like so many sins, this too will end when a takeover is announced.

Type: Embraer Legacy 650 (preferred aircraft of Reuben Brothers) Departing: Farnborough (where many of the private jets and helicopters we've been tracking have landed or departed over previous weeks) Heading: Towards Saudi Arabia https://www.flightradar24.com/E35L/24ac6e40

Confirmed as landing at Newcastle.

https://www.flightradar24.com/CL60/24ac8e0c - Possibly lining up to land at Newcastle Airport

Interesting aircraft out of Oxford heading due North. https://www.flightradar24.com/CL60/24ac8e0c https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/2-REIN.html Type: Bombardier Challenger 604 Owner: Barents Air LLC

One of them is an aircraft owned by Setair, based out of Ataturk, Turkey - so I suspect that aircraft is on its way home and will swing North soon. (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KOC22 http://www.setair.com.tr/en/Iletisim.aspx) The other one came from Bahrain, so I doubt if it's of interest to us.

LOL - wishful thinking that.

Yep. Modern journalism is mostly about having access to people in positions of authority or positions of privileged knowledge. This is why you see journalists align themselves to various ideologies, politics, groups, etc. so they can be in the good books and get the juicy leaks. When (if) this takeover is complete there will be some journalists who will start kissing the arse of the new owners so they can ingratiate themselves and get invited to NUFC events and there will be some journalists who will go into full attack mode so they can ingratiate themselves with other benefactors (e.g. the Qataris, BeIn Sport, etc). Very few journalists (the old school journo's who don't care any more) will remain unbiased.