Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest BlacknWhiteArmy

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404789_2909289503523_1599156381_32618893_1592993700_n.jpg

 

Fuck off :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Redknapp: 'I write like a two-year-old'

 

I didn't believe this at first, thought it was some sort of spoof/joke. But then I saw this headline. :lol:

 

"Well, y'see, thing is... I actually can't write anything at all." :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest kingdawson

I wonder if other fan message boards are having as much fun as us with this case.

Not even Gooner fans are having as much 'fun' as you guys tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see the prosecution not pushing to make an example of a high profile tax evasion case like, considering how much we hear about austerity and the country being skint.

 

Exactly. They could have quite easily taken the cash off him and swept it under the carpet, they have chosen not to. That tells me they are hellbent on making an example of him

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Haris Vuckic

I wonder if other fan message boards are having as much fun as us with this case.

Not even Gooner fans are having as much 'fun' as you guys tbh.

 

Not sure any fans in the country booed Joey Barton as loud as your fans did at White Hart Lane so if you could get down off the high horse...

 

If he's guilty and the punishment is normally prison - send the saggy bastard down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see the prosecution not pushing to make an example of a high profile tax evasion case like, considering how much we hear about austerity and the country being skint.

 

Exactly. They could have quite easily taken the cash off him and swept it under the carpet, they have chosen not to. That tells me they are hellbent on making an example of him

 

Agree - but ultimately it's all down to a jury. It will come down to how each lawyer puts their case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I've strung this from sporadic twitter reading over the last few days:

 

 

Evidence against Redknapp seems pretty solid: he opened the account in Monaco in person; it's in the name of his pet dog and the year of his birth; he kept it hidden for near on 10 years; and he is the only person with access to the account, one person and one signature...

 

In defence Redknapp is playing the 'I know nothing/I'm retarded' card: he claims to have the reading age of an infant; is completely unorganised; and is "financially illiterate", requiring an accountant for all his financial dealings.

 

Have I missed anything of real importance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see the prosecution not pushing to make an example of a high profile tax evasion case like, considering how much we hear about austerity and the country being skint.

 

Exactly. They could have quite easily taken the cash off him and swept it under the carpet, they have chosen not to. That tells me they are hellbent on making an example of him

 

Agree - but ultimately it's all down to a jury. It will come down to how each lawyer puts their case.

 

It is quite easy to make a judgement after only hearing one side of the argument, however judging by what we've heard so far the defence appears as though it's going to built upon a lot of ignorance, buck passing and pointing the finger at each other.

 

I don't know whether I'm reading too much in to the non-appearance of Peter Storrie but I think it says a lot about the outcome of this trial. Given the cost of bringing this to trial, I'd say there's got to be a 90% chance of a conviction, given the high profile and media interest.

 

At the same time, I guess they don't call him Harry Houdini for nowt!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I've strung this from sporadic twitter reading over the last few days:

 

 

Evidence against Redknapp seems pretty solid: he opened the account in Monaco in person; it's in the name of his pet dog and the year of his birth; he kept it hidden for near on 10 years; and he is the only person with access to the account, one person and one signature...

 

In defence Redknapp is playing the 'I know nothing/I'm retarded' card: he claims to have the reading age of an infant; is completely unorganised; and is "financially illiterate", requiring an accountant for all his financial dealings.

 

Have I missed anything of real importance?

 

You've probably saved the trial Judge writing his summing up notes there!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...