Not saying that is right PA but i dont like the way people are calling for him to do porridge with such glee. He's not even been found guilty of anything yet.
I don't want to "go out on a limb" for Rednapp, but I do want to see a court case before he's hung drawn an quartered. As Nolly and Rodney have said, he's not been tried yet. When did the principle of being innocent until proved guilty cease to apply?
[cite]Posted By: raymondao[/cite]if he gets locked up the stress might give him a twitch ............opps he already has one !!!
Cos of the car crash that killed his then girlfriend and caused the fire that scarred a once very good looking bloke for life.
I like redknapp and hope he's found innocent. Would love him to be next England boss.
Im glad we are all such upstanding folk on here that none of us would ever considering taking any cash in hand money for anything ever and always pay capital gains tax on everything that the tax laws state we should.
I'd not. If you think that all Harry's conduct spills out of that one unfortunate event, you're wrong
Slightly worrying to hear this view from a man of your profession.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]
You say Evasion , his accountant would say avoidance!...... I am not here to protect wealthy fraudsters, but not condem people simply because they have made some money! and wish to limit there tax liability.
Massive difference Ken, MASSIVE.
Everyone can legitimately avoid tax if they chose to do so and provided it is within the law.
You want a snack and you can't decide between a Mars bar and an apple? If you were of a mind to you could make a deliberate choice to buy one and not the other to consciously cut your tax outlay and therefore avoid tax. An extreme example, granted, but where do you draw the line - and who decides? You? Me?
Something is either legal or it isn't. Sure there's always some grey in between, but that's what the courts are for.
144 players signed in seven years at West Ham is astounding. thats more than 20 a season. Now either Harry is not quite the great manager we all think he is or he signed so many for another reason.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]144 players signed in seven years at West Ham is astounding. thats more than 20 a season.
Isn't it just? Its in Tom Bower's book. I wasn't so anti Redknapp until I read it. Once I had read it, I ws furious and despairing that 'football' did nothing about it. Of course its not just him, but he is the highest profile manager who seems to have got away with some very dodgy dealings.
I accept what people have said. Innocent until proven guilty. And personally I don't 'hope" he does time, at least not until I find out the facts.
But lets be clear why we should be interested to see it come to court. Its not the tax evasion per se, as Rodney suggested above. Its about where the money came from in the first place, on which he may not have paid tax. That is what will come out in court. If you were a Pompey fan you'd want to know all about that.
Basically HMRC is doing the job the football authorities have failed to do, and lets hope its the first of many.
...and of those 144 players signed a disproportionate amount, especially of the crappier ones that never made it to the first team, were represented by one agent. Mark Redknapp. So much so that the WHU board told him to stop buying them via him.
Sorry Nolly, you'll have to forgive me my view that the bloke's as dodgy as they come and deserves to go down for a stretch.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]...and of those 144 players signed a disproportionate amount, especially of the crappier ones that never made it to the first team, were represented by one agent. Mark Redknapp.
Really? What are the chances of that, an agent with the same surname as the manager?
The piece in the Sun says that Mark is son of 'Arry. That clears that up then! And the Sun should know cos the News International empire is littered with people called Murdoch!
I liked the description of Mark being a 'failed football agent'. And after the amount of business hid Dad put his way?
Everyone can legitimately avoid tax if they chose to do so and provided it is within the law.
You want a snack and you can't decide between a Mars bar and an apple? If you were of a mind to you could make a deliberate choice to buy one and not the other to consciously cut your tax outlay and therefore avoid tax. An extreme example, granted, but where do you draw the line - and who decides? You? Me?
Something is either legal or it isn't. Sure there's always some grey in between, but that's what the courts are for.
Bit black and white Off it.......
Just saying that 'Our Harry' has not been tried yet,
Bit of an awkward comparrisson beetween a mars bar and an apple ....... What happens if the person is allergic to 'glucose' so had to have fruit as he was medically exempt......
And while we on 'original sin', did not a certain Eve, tempt Adam with a certain fruit in the garden , or is that just a 'figment' of my imagination, plenty of people happy to put god before the law Off it........
You would get 'crucified' for that belief in court. Harry would be a 'martyr' after all Harry believes...... Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome
Ian Burton
Harry Redknapp's solicitor
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" to quote a famous call girl( in another famous case)
All I was making the point was the guy should be pressumed innocent until found guilty, unless of course he is a Millwall type.........then a plea of insanity is lodged, and the expense of that may well be tax deductable Form 1040, Schedule A,(A deduction is allowed only for expenses primarily paid for the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness.) Please remember In May 2008 Mr Redknapp sued City of London Police for arresting him and searching his home in Poole, Dorset. The High Court ruled the search was unlawful and granted him £1,000 in damages......
Quite apart from your post being the most rambling I've ever seen on here (congrats for that, BTW - you even beat Ashtray), it's medically inaccurate, as apples contain glucose. Not, admittedly, as much as they do sucrose or fructose, but certainly enough for anyone who was allergic to it to steer as clear of them as they would a Mars bar.
I strongly believe in the principle of innocent until proved guilty.
However questions have been asked and allegations made about Mr Redknapp Senior for many years now so perhaps a court case will clarify matters one way or the other once and for all.
Glad that you got the gist offit........ because that is exactly the type of cross questioning that you will get in a court.
South London common sense does not come into it, just points of law.
You were the one making an apple and mars comparrison where you not,! as you say we will leave it at that.
Sorry about the 'ramble Leroy', as I posted earlier the principle of innocent until proven guilty was the point that I was trying to make.
Just astonished that there are so many 'saints 'on here, I will get back to the sinning way's!
*by the way
2.04 grams per 100g Apple
Mars (62.5 gram bar) 43.6 grams or 11 teaspoons of sugar:Mars bar
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]
*by the way
2.04 grams per 100g Apple
Mars (62.5 gram bar) 43.6 grams or 11 teaspoons of sugar:Mars bar
<pedant> OK - so there you have it - people allergic to glucose can't eat apples or mars bars. Thanks for clearing that up and proving my point Ken. </pedant>
Just to look at things from the other side, I have never avoided paying tax. In fact I came home tonight to find I actually paid too much tax last year and had recieved a rebate. £30.01. Get in there!
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Just to look at things from the other side, I have never avoided paying tax. In fact I came home tonight to find I actually paid too much tax last year and had recieved a rebate. £30.01. Get in there!
Lol. That 6 people you can buy for tickets for Saturdays game and still have enough for a "black jack".......;-)
You never ducked a round Chirpy? If you have you have technically "avoided" paying tax. Nothing wrong with it of course (avoiding tax - not ducking a round - that's a hanging offence!).
Also, got an ISA? You can "avoid" tax with one of those, but that's all ok and above board.
That's the point I was trying to make to Sherry Ken - there's a massive difference between tax EVASION and tax AVOIDANCE. That's all.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]That's the point I was trying to make to Sherry Ken - there's a massive difference between tax EVASION and tax AVOIDANCE. That's all.
Indeed ask Sir Philip Green. He has legitimately avoided more money than all of us Lifers combined will earn in our collective lifetimes. He's a government advisor after all!
Comments
Slightly worrying to hear this view from a man of your profession.
Massive difference Ken, MASSIVE.
Everyone can legitimately avoid tax if they chose to do so and provided it is within the law.
You want a snack and you can't decide between a Mars bar and an apple? If you were of a mind to you could make a deliberate choice to buy one and not the other to consciously cut your tax outlay and therefore avoid tax. An extreme example, granted, but where do you draw the line - and who decides? You? Me?
Something is either legal or it isn't. Sure there's always some grey in between, but that's what the courts are for.
When they invented message boards.
All the time, this is an internet forum, not a court of law.
Isn't it just? Its in Tom Bower's book. I wasn't so anti Redknapp until I read it. Once I had read it, I ws furious and despairing that 'football' did nothing about it. Of course its not just him, but he is the highest profile manager who seems to have got away with some very dodgy dealings.
I accept what people have said. Innocent until proven guilty. And personally I don't 'hope" he does time, at least not until I find out the facts.
But lets be clear why we should be interested to see it come to court. Its not the tax evasion per se, as Rodney suggested above. Its about where the money came from in the first place, on which he may not have paid tax. That is what will come out in court. If you were a Pompey fan you'd want to know all about that.
Basically HMRC is doing the job the football authorities have failed to do, and lets hope its the first of many.
I hope you did it via the CL link!
Sorry Nolly, you'll have to forgive me my view that the bloke's as dodgy as they come and deserves to go down for a stretch.
Lol. Just looked at our Amazon account and we've made 7p out of the deal, but it also says Appy Arry gets .50p. This fella's unreal!
Hope that 7p is declared to the taxman.
Really? What are the chances of that, an agent with the same surname as the manager?
The piece in the Sun says that Mark is son of 'Arry. That clears that up then! And the Sun should know cos the News International empire is littered with people called Murdoch!
I liked the description of Mark being a 'failed football agent'. And after the amount of business hid Dad put his way?
Everyone can legitimately avoid tax if they chose to do so and provided it is within the law.
You want a snack and you can't decide between a Mars bar and an apple? If you were of a mind to you could make a deliberate choice to buy one and not the other to consciously cut your tax outlay and therefore avoid tax. An extreme example, granted, but where do you draw the line - and who decides? You? Me?
Something is either legal or it isn't. Sure there's always some grey in between, but that's what the courts are for.
Bit black and white Off it.......
Just saying that 'Our Harry' has not been tried yet,
Bit of an awkward comparrisson beetween a mars bar and an apple ....... What happens if the person is allergic to 'glucose' so had to have fruit as he was medically exempt......
And while we on 'original sin', did not a certain Eve, tempt Adam with a certain fruit in the garden , or is that just a 'figment' of my imagination, plenty of people happy to put god before the law Off it........
You would get 'crucified' for that belief in court. Harry would be a 'martyr' after all Harry believes...... Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome
Ian Burton
Harry Redknapp's solicitor
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" to quote a famous call girl( in another famous case)
All I was making the point was the guy should be pressumed innocent until found guilty, unless of course he is a Millwall type.........then a plea of insanity is lodged, and the expense of that may well be tax deductable Form 1040, Schedule A,(A deduction is allowed only for expenses primarily paid for the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness.) Please remember In May 2008 Mr Redknapp sued City of London Police for arresting him and searching his home in Poole, Dorset. The High Court ruled the search was unlawful and granted him £1,000 in damages......
Do you wish to 'appeal Off-it'.......
Quite apart from your post being the most rambling I've ever seen on here (congrats for that, BTW - you even beat Ashtray), it's medically inaccurate, as apples contain glucose. Not, admittedly, as much as they do sucrose or fructose, but certainly enough for anyone who was allergic to it to steer as clear of them as they would a Mars bar.
However questions have been asked and allegations made about Mr Redknapp Senior for many years now so perhaps a court case will clarify matters one way or the other once and for all.
South London common sense does not come into it, just points of law.
You were the one making an apple and mars comparrison where you not,! as you say we will leave it at that.
Sorry about the 'ramble Leroy', as I posted earlier the principle of innocent until proven guilty was the point that I was trying to make.
Just astonished that there are so many 'saints 'on here, I will get back to the sinning way's!
*by the way
2.04 grams per 100g Apple
Mars (62.5 gram bar) 43.6 grams or 11 teaspoons of sugar:Mars bar
;o)
Lol. That 6 people you can buy for tickets for Saturdays game and still have enough for a "black jack".......;-)
Also, got an ISA? You can "avoid" tax with one of those, but that's all ok and above board.
That's the point I was trying to make to Sherry Ken - there's a massive difference between tax EVASION and tax AVOIDANCE. That's all.
Indeed ask Sir Philip Green. He has legitimately avoided more money than all of us Lifers combined will earn in our collective lifetimes. He's a government advisor after all!
Ain't saying it's "right" necessarily, but there's a massive difference.