Scoffers
Well-known member
He's only slightly less dodgy than the current England manager (allegedly)
Harry Redknapp,if found guilty ?
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Geriatric Seagull
New member
If found guilty, should be made to manage Palace or pay off Pompeys debts!
Last edited:
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,628
He's doing well this morning. Tells a NOTW journalist that a payment he received was a bonus re Peter Crouch, and is now telling the court he lied to the NOTW for various reasons, but that he absolutely 100% for sure isn't lying now, guvnor, no sir, and it was most certainly NOT a bonus.
Harry Redknapp admits lying to journalist over payments | UK news | The Guardian
Harry Redknapp admits lying to journalist over payments | UK news | The Guardian
BensGrandad
New member
It doesnt really matter what you tell a newspaper because they turn it around and misquote to suit their purpose of selling their paper especially the likes of the NOTW.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,628
The newspaper hasn't misquoted anything. They wrote exactly what Harry Redknapp told them.
HE has admitted lying to THEM.
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
''Blackburn agreed to release the experienced centre-back, enabling him to make the move to White Hart Lane despite the transfer window having closed at 11pm on Tuesday night.''
If is was possible to do this I would have thought it would happen a whole lot more.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,628
We've signed someone before outside the window, because he wasn't under contract to anyone. Can't remember who it was, but it wasn't that long ago.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
You all seem to be assuming that the jury is made up of football fans, that won't be the case as the selection process for jury service is completely random.
Anyone with any connection or opinions on the people in the trial are told to declare it by the clerk of the court before they are sworn in, as soon as they enter the Courtroom and if that is the case the Judge will tell them they are not wanted and to go back to the waiting area to be selected for another case.
Anyone with any connection or opinions on the people in the trial are told to declare it by the clerk of the court before they are sworn in, as soon as they enter the Courtroom and if that is the case the Judge will tell them they are not wanted and to go back to the waiting area to be selected for another case.
Albion Dan
Banned
I doubt it. I dont think the message that you can rip off HMRC for about £40k and get a slap on the wrist is one the courts would want to send out to the masses!!!!!
Exactly. I would say it is a reasonable possibility that at least some on the jury had never even heard of him before the trial. Add this to the seemingly widespread public attitude towards wealthy people and the tax they pay (which, of course, jurors will be told to disregard, but it is impossible to do so fully) and I wouldn't be so sure of an acquittal.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
In the case I 'tried', when questioned by the prosecution, the defendant admitted in the witness dock that he had lied in his police statement.
The prosecution barrister pretty much had him by the short and curlies from that point.
It was generally agreed in the deliberation that the only reason the case had gone to trial was because the defendant had absolutely no other possibility of avoiding a custodial scentence.
I was amazed that the barristers and Judge allowed the police witness to read out his list of previous convictions in open court before instructing the jury to retire. I can assure you it was so long that I wasn't able to make notes of all of them, but I got at least 16 of them written down.
The prosecution barrister pretty much had him by the short and curlies from that point.
It was generally agreed in the deliberation that the only reason the case had gone to trial was because the defendant had absolutely no other possibility of avoiding a custodial scentence.
I was amazed that the barristers and Judge allowed the police witness to read out his list of previous convictions in open court before instructing the jury to retire. I can assure you it was so long that I wasn't able to make notes of all of them, but I got at least 16 of them written down.
Difference here being Nelson cancelled his contract and then signed for someone else pretty much straight away.
He has had some amazing counsel, says he can't read or write, pleads ignorance of his money and economic affairs (it wasn't me), now admits to being a liar.
Above all this he could of avoided all this mess if he had just settled with the taxman before it went this far.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,628
It doesn't happen often, but there are certain criminal offences that the jury is allowed to know about previous convictions in some circumstances. Something to do with having a propensity to commit those type of offences. I think it usually only crops up if the defence are trying to use the previous "good character" as a defence, something like that: clearly someone cannot stand before a jury and claim they're honest and decent and "not that kind of person" if they manifestly are thanks to a string of previous offences.
Most defendants with history will steer well clear of claiming to be angels, but you do get the odd buffoon who will try and wing it.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
It can be done, and is done quite a lot. The issue, of course, is that the club releasing the player can't get a fee for him. Nelson has barely been fit this season and was probably on a decent wage, so clearing him off the wage bill was to Blackburn's advantage, and they wouldn't have got a fee for a 33 year old crock anyway.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,628
He'll get off. I don't know how, but he will. Nothing EVER sticks to that man, no matter how many times he comes to the attention of various authorities. Teflon Harry.