As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Boomer wrote:Lots to update you on. We've been hearing tape of Redknapp's police interview in 2009
Redknapp: "I'm most disorganised person in world. I can't work a computer, don't know how to email. Never sent a fax or even text message"
"I've never written a letter in my life. I write like a two year old and can't spell"
"My accountant runs my life. I haven't seen a wage slip for possibly ten years. I don't have bank statements"
"I pay a fortune to my accountant to look after me. He pays my bills. He runs my life"
Says wheeler-dealer 'Arry!
Ere ! you an Pizza face aren't related are you Boomer??
The reason that 'sent down' came to mean getting sent to prison is that, in almost all circumstances, when a judge issued a custodial sentence, the accused was escorted down the stairs to the holding cells in the court and then directly to a prison.
In exceptional circumstances, sentences can be deferred.
However, it is common that, following hearing the jury's verdict, the judge
will adjourn proceedings while he considers which sentence would be most appropriate. This can be anything from a few days to a few weeks or even longer. During this period the defence counsel can present evidence in mitigation ('Arry couldn't elp it m'lud, cos he comes from a long line of c**ts and is as thick as pigshit).
If the accused is considered a danger to the public or a flight risk they may be put on remand, but this wouldn't happen to fine upstanding 'Arry.
An interesting situation is whether the FA or the scum would get rid of him once convicted but prior tp sentencing or whether he'd take charge of the team and give opposition fans some fun taunting him.
I think that this could actually top lasagna-gate if he gets convicted. Spurs are good, but would they be as good with a custodian manager until the end of the year?
Even if he got sent down Sky would still be wanting to interview every transfer deadline day. "Harry what deals have you made?" "Good day really, got a full packet of fags in exchange for 10 bummings"
Has he come up with any defence other than "I didn't know" yet? Hardly need to cross examine him thus far, all the prosecution need to do is remind the jury that ignorance is not a defence
rigsby wrote:Indeed, I honestly can't see how he'll escape this. 'I didn't Know' is hardly a bloody excuse. Mandaric's spiel yesterday was embarassing.
Me either. But I have a nagging doubt as to what his punishment will be. It will quite probably not involve pleasuring her maj. Community service perhaps?
It's been a bit confusing....a lot of waffle from Mandaric about what a great bloke 'arry is and how generous he is and how himself is throwing money around as gifts blah blah....a lot of contradictions, don't know what their game plan is??
Hope the jury don't get confused with all this as I have.
Macca wrote:It's been a bit confusing....a lot of waffle from Mandaric about what a great bloke 'arry is and how generous he is and how himself is throwing money around as gifts blah blah....a lot of contradictions, don't know what their game plan is??
Hope the jury don't get confused with all this as I have.
Aye, they'll try and confuse the jury. End of the day though its a simple point of law case. Did Redknapp know that money was going into the account (answer seems to be yes, he was the one who set the account up and he moved money out of it etc). Was the money related to his employment and therefore subject to tax (answer seems to be yes, it was paid in by his employer so it would be hard to argue otherwise). Did Redknapp inform the authorities of these earnings (answer seems to be no). From that, no matter what waffle the defence come out with its an open and shut case, Redknapp got money from his employer, didnt declare it and therefore avoided paying tax. They'll need to come up with something better than "hes a bit daft" and "hes rich, why would he need 30 grand" (plenty of rich people avoid tax every year, they dont do it because they need the money, they do it because theyd rather they had it than the taxman).
His defence might yet come up with something, but as it stands I dont see any way out for him. Trouble for Redknapp is that of all the creditors, the HMRC are about the last you want to piss off, they will be confident of a custodial sentence imo
