nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own f***ing product man
it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo
But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.
IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.
where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement
it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh
Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.
Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case
PL Handbook:
F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:
F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:
F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;
F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or
F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the
actual sentence imposed);
F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;
Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)
Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297
Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9
Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1
Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166
right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me
F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process
F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"
wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest
How would not doing enough to stop piracy constitute an offence though?, there has yet to be any conclusive finding (i.e. the WTO report, French court) directly blaming the Saudi state (or PIF) in the direct transmission of the piracy streams.
The bit that worries me is there doesn’t have to be any conclusive finding
“F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board“
