This guys greed knows no bounds

[Jakubclaret]

Can you imagine how many charities must approach people like Harry Redknapp? Should he give up his time for free every time every time he’s asked?

Would you? In his shoes.

[Rileybobs]

Would you? In his shoes.

No, of course not. If I was as wealthy as Harry Redknapp I would make my fair share of charitable donations but I wouldn’t give up my time free of charge to anyone who asked - in this case a fake charity.

[Jakubclaret]

No, of course not. If I was as wealthy as Harry Redknapp I would make my fair share of charitable donations but I wouldn’t give up my time free of charge to anyone who asked - in this case a fake charity.

It's allowed you know, you can actually do somebody a good turn &:expect nothing in return, I believe in karma to a degree, good things happen to good people.

[Rileybobs]

It's allowed you know, you can actually do somebody a good turn &:expect nothing in return, I believe in karma to a degree, good things happen to good people.

If you’re going to give up your time to a made up charity without a charge then you’re more naive than I thought, and that’s very naive considering you believe in karma and ghosts.

[Jakubclaret]

If you’re going to give up your time to a made up charity without a charge then you’re more naive than I thought, and that’s very naive considering you believe in karma and ghosts.

He'll be judged on the intent, I'm actually researching now & it appears that he was tricked into accepting the money backing the bogus cuppa charity, the money was accepted before the discovery so the fake charity argument doesn't come into play really because he didn't know prior.

[Rileybobs]

He'll be judged on the intent, I'm actually researching now & it appears that he was tricked into accepting the money backing the bogus cuppa charity, the money was accepted before the discovery so the fake charity argument doesn't come into play really because he didn't know prior.

It comes into play because he’s never heard of them so he has no affiliation to the charity. Even if he did have he would be perfectly entitled to accept cash from the likes of Cancer Research for giving up his time to promote the charity.

If someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken without pay would you do it? In fact, a better question would be if someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken for £20,000 would you decline? Honest answers please.

[Jakubclaret]

It comes into play because he’s never heard of them so he has no affiliation to the charity. Even if he did have he would be perfectly entitled to accept cash from the likes of Cancer Research for giving up his time to promote the charity.

If someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken without pay would you do it? In fact, a better question would be if someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken for £20,000 would you decline? Honest answers please.

I'd research meticulously before accepting any offer to establish the charities credentials first & foremost, because he was accepting money prior from what could have been a genuine charity (he didn't know) he'll be on offer for criticism, despite tricking him, entrapment however you'd describe it. With his wealth already a sense of expectation to do charity work gratis would be normal in some people's opinions.

[tarkys_ears]

It comes into play because he’s never heard of them so he has no affiliation to the charity. Even if he did have he would be perfectly entitled to accept cash from the likes of Cancer Research for giving up his time to promote the charity.

If someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken without pay would you do it? In fact, a better question would be if someone you’d never heard of called you and asked you to give up a day to wear some t shirts and have photos taken for £20,000 would you decline? Honest answers please.

I'm a person of integrity and would happily give up my time if I were "famous" to promote valid causes.

If I were a 2-bit street rat, I'd gladly sell my soul to some betting company or otherwise gobshite company for a few quid, no questions!

[tim_noone]

I'm a person of integrity and would happily give up my time if I were "famous" to promote valid causes.

If I were a 2-bit street rat, I'd gladly sell my soul to some betting company or otherwise gobshite company for a few quid, no questions!

Oi Oi Harry ...stepney green Geezer and prize cock!

[Rileybobs]

I'd research meticulously before accepting any offer to establish the charities credentials first & foremost, because he was accepting money prior from what could have been a genuine charity (he did know) he'll be on offer for criticism, despite tricking him, entrapment however you'd describe it. With his wealth already a sense of expectation to do charity work gratis would be normal in some people's opinions.

How do you know how much charity work he does free of charge? He was offered the money, why shouldn’t he take it? This ‘sting’ is a pathetic attempt to discredit someone and it seems that quite a few gullible people have fallen for it. Maybe the Daily Star should have donated the £20,000 to a more worthwhile cause than Harry Redknapp.

[Rileybobs]

I'm a person of integrity and would happily give up my time if I were "famous" to promote valid causes.

If I were a 2-bit street rat, I'd gladly sell my soul to some betting company or otherwise gobshite company for a few quid, no questions!

But it wasn’t a valid cause. It was a fake charity.

[joey13]

How do you know how much charity work he does free of charge? He was offered the money, why shouldn’t he take it? This ‘sting’ is a pathetic attempt to discredit someone and it seems that quite a few gullible people have fallen for it. Maybe the Daily Star should have donated the £20,000 to a more worthwhile cause than Harry Redknapp.

No one knows how much charity work he does for free apart from close family and obviously his dog , what we do know is he takes money for promoting a charity, you see he didn’t know it was fake when he took the money , it’s really not difficult to understand, is it ?

[Jakubclaret]

But it wasn’t a valid cause. It was a fake charity.

The overriding point being he accepted the money when the charity could have been genuine & not fake, he wasn't aware cuppa was bogus before accepting the money, the intent to capatilise upon a needy charity existed, when he's already excessively wealthy, it doesn't look good, some people will feel he tried to take advantage, I'm turning in now, night.

[Rileybobs]

No one knows how much charity work he does for free apart from close family and obviously his dog , what we do know is he takes money for promoting a charity, you see he didn’t know it was fake when he took the money , it’s really not difficult to understand, is it ?

No it’s not difficult to understand. What is wrong with accepting a payment from a charity in return for a service? Lots of people make a living working for charities.

This isn’t a footballer player being asked to sign a shirt for charity and demanding a charge, it’s somebody being offered money to give up their time to raise the profile of a charity and accepting the offer. Harry Redknapp and his like will have countless approaches from charities, should he accept them all without charging? If this was Cancer Research for example then I could almost understand the outrage, but it was a made up charity. Fair play to him for making easy money from a terrible newspaper.

[Rileybobs]

The overriding point being he accepted the money when the charity could have been genuine & not fake, he wasn't aware cuppa was bogus before accepting the money, the intent to capatilise upon a needy charity existed, when he's already excessively wealthy, it doesn't look good, some people will feel he tried to take advantage, I'm turning in now, night.

So to go back to my previous question which you conveniently chose not to answer, would you have turned down £20,000 to wear a t shirt and pose for some photographs for a charity you’d never heard of? Please give me your honest answer.

[dsr]

There's no reason for someone with vast wealth to do everything a charity asks him too. On the contrary, he's perfectly entitled and able to turn it all down.

But if it's a real charity, why should he take the money? If it's a good cause, then do it for nothing. If it's not a good cause or he is already committed to all the good causes he thinks reasonable, then turn it down.

But the problem with this hypothetical £20k is the same as with the "chuggers" waylaying people in the town centre. If Mr or Ms Average is giving money to benefit the less well off, then that money should not be earmarked to go to the chuggers, or to Harry Redknapp. One of the children's charities, which I won't name because I'm not certain which it was, a few years back published accounts showing that less than half its income went on looking after children. The rest went on admin and political campaigning.

My mother sent a £50 cheque to another charity (again, not certain who) a few years ago. All she wanted back was a receipt. But she has had so much correspendence since that she reckons the whole of the £50 has been spent on begging letters and the cheap tat they send with it to make people feel guilty.

That's the sort of action Redknapp gets involved with when he takes money from charities.

[Jakubclaret]

So to go back to my previous question which you conveniently chose not to answer, would you have turned down £20,000 to wear a t shirt and pose for some photographs for a charity you’d never heard of? Please give me your honest answer.

The question had already been answered indirectly you can do somebody a good turn without expecting anything in return, I'll answer the question now directly on the proviso that I was already wealthy I'd flatly refuse & carry out the charity work FOC.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

You mean you like to deal with facts when it suits you ?
I’ve already said you are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion and that of many people is that he was guilty as hell of both the incidents I mentioned - one because I know the facts and the second because it was one of the most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard. My opinion is that he had very clever and expensive lawyers and they managed to get him off with it...but that he still did it.

You are talking about these incidents like he hasn’t been ridiculed all over the media for getting off with them.

You are one weird fish.

But he was found not guilty. So what you think is irrelevant, frankly.

[TVC15]

But he was found not guilty. So what you think is irrelevant, frankly.

So you think that opening an account in Monaco and not declaring significant amounts of money to avoid paying tax (both facts) were both just “accidents” and good old honest cockney cheeky chappy Harry did not know what he was doing ?
Oh and btw all of our views on this are completely as irrelevant (or relevant) as each other on this and pretty much every single topic we post on. You are kind of missing the point of a message board though....but cheers for pointing it out....you got a “like” from Harry’s biggest fan so that’s great

[Jakubclaret]

So you think that opening an account in Monaco and not declaring significant amounts of money to avoid paying tax (both facts) were both just “accidents” and good old honest cockney cheeky chappy Harry did not know what he was doing ?
Oh and btw all of our views on this are completely as irrelevant (or relevant) as each other on this and pretty much every single topic we post on. You are kind of missing the point of a message board though....but cheers for pointing it out....you got a “like” from Harry’s biggest fan so that’s great

Nobody can change the fact the results of the investigation uncovered no wrongdoings, it's murky enough as it is regarding old Harry, there's enough rope already there to swing a few times over, we have a legal system in place dealing with guilt & non guilt, your suspicions or knowledge regarding offshore accounts carried no merit towards a guilty verdict when the FA investigated.

[TVC15]

Nobody can change the fact the results of the investigation uncovered no wrongdoings, it's murky enough as it is regarding old Harry, there's enough rope already there to swing a few times over, we have a legal system in place dealing with guilt & non guilt, your suspicions or knowledge regarding offshore accounts carried no merit towards a guilty verdict when the FA investigated.

You are wrong - it was established as fact that he opened an offshore account, that he put money in it and that he did not declare a significant amount of money he should have done and avoided tax....all facts.
What he got off on was that he said he did that without realising what he was doing - and for whatever reason the prosecution was unable to provide enough evidence to prove that he did.
It seems to be you who is suggesting he is involved in lots of “murky” things - I haven’t got a clue what you are referring to here but that’s seems a strange thing to be saying when I all I have done is quote factual things that either I know about or were well reported.

I know he was found not guilty but that does not mean I have to believe that he was telling the truth. His version of events is even more ridiculous than OJ Simpson’s but yep he got off on a technicality and the prosecution failed to find enough evidence to prove him guilty - this happens very frequently.

The fact that you keep on talking about these murky things and yet seem to be arguing that he did not do this blatantly obvious thing is a bit weird to say the least. Do you honestly think that he did not know what he was doing when he opened an offshore account and put money in it to hide it from the taxman ? Is that a normal everyday transaction that you would do and think that you were doing it for any other reason than to avoid tax ?
Call me cynical but based on the mass wealth Harry has accumulated he seems more adept with money than most people rather than the financial retard he successfully argued in the tax avoidance case !

[nil_desperandum]

A few people really don't get this charity fundraising thing.
To put this in context I really cannot stand Redknapp, BUT:
If someone like Harry agreed to every charity request then he wouldn't have enough hours in the day.
He'd be out doing charity gigs morning noon.and night.
What most "famous" people do is attach themselves to maybe 2 or 3 charities with which they have some affinity and they "work for" or promote them when they can for free.
Other charity work is chargeable but at a reduced fee.
So for example: appearance at Sportsman's Dinner might be £3000, and appearance at Charity Fundraising Dinner £1500.
It's perfectly legitimate and moral to charge a fee when the purpose is to raise money.
(Fee eg £1500, profit on event, say £5000.
Charity happy and grateful )
I've no idea of course whether the Redknapp clan do any charity work for free.
Only the dog would really know that when going through the annual accounts.

[Jakubclaret]

You are wrong - it was established as fact that he opened an offshore account, that he put money in it and that he did not declare a significant amount of money he should have done and avoided tax....all facts.
What he got off on was that he said he did that without realising what he was doing - and for whatever reason the prosecution was unable to provide enough evidence to prove that he did.
It seems to be you who is suggesting he is involved in lots of “murky” things - I haven’t got a clue what you are referring to here but that’s seems a strange thing to be saying when I all I have done is quote factual things that either I know about or were well reported.

I know he was found not guilty but that does not mean I have to believe that he was telling the truth. His version of events is even more ridiculous than OJ Simpson’s but yep he got off on a technicality and the prosecution failed to find enough evidence to prove him guilty - this happens very frequently.

The fact that you keep on talking about these murky things and yet seem to be arguing that he did not do this blatantly obvious thing is a bit weird to say the least. Do you honestly think that he did not know what he was doing when he opened an offshore account and put money in it to hide it from the taxman ? Is that a normal everyday transaction that you would do and think that you were doing it for any other reason than to avoid tax ?
Call me cynical but based on the mass wealth Harry has accumulated he seems more adept with money than most people rather than the financial retard he successfully argued in the tax avoidance case !

Rules are rules & breaches are breaches A legal system is already in place & other governing bodies deciding upon guilt & non guilt & assessing all the available evidence & making a decision based upon that. The law needs to be complied with whether we all think it's right or wrong. HR was subject to investigation & the FA decided based on the available evidence he wasn't guilty, it can be discussed until the cows come home I can guarantee that fact won't be altered.

[TVC15]

Wow - you sound like some kind of Hitler Youth robot - “Ze rules must be obeyed”

You don’t even seem to know what the facts of the case were....but before you come back with the obvious I am aware that one of the facts was that he was found to be not guilty.

You still have not said whether you believe he was telling the truth or offered an explanation as to why you think he opened an offshore account in Monaco and forgot to declare to the British authorities the chunk of money he put in there - why do you think he did this ?

Are you incapable of expressing an opinion ?
Do you take a similar approach on VAR decisions ?
The Chris Wood penalty on Saturday was not given so my opinion is it must have been the right decision.

[tim_noone]

Rules are rules & breaches are breaches A legal system is already in place & other governing bodies deciding upon guilt & non guilt & assessing all the available evidence & making a decision based upon that. The law needs to be complied with whether we all think it's right or wrong. HR was subject to investigation & the FA decided based on the available evidence he wasn't guilty, it can be discussed until the cows come home I can guarantee that fact won't be altered.

I used to like you as Rumpole of the Bailey. You always quit while ahead.take heed.

[Jakubclaret]

I used to like you as Rumpole of the Bailey. You always quit while ahead.take heed.

True, Harry's bent as a nine Bob note, but let's at least hammer him for what's he actually been done for.

[TVC15]

True, Harry's bent as a nine Bob note, but let's at least hammer him for what's he actually been done for.

Whereas you are hammering / calling him “bent” for what exactly ?

He did open an offshore account in Monaco
And he did put a large sum of money in the account
And he did fail to declare that money for tax despite being given the opportunity to do so on more than one occasion.

That all sounds pretty reasonable stuff to “hammer” him about.
I’ll ask you again for what factual misdemeanours are you calling him bent for ?

[Jakubclaret]

Whereas you are hammering / calling him “bent” for what exactly ?

He did open an offshore account in Monaco
And he did put a large sum of money in the account
And he did fail to declare that money for tax despite being given the opportunity to do so on more than one occasion.

That all sounds pretty reasonable stuff to “hammer” him about.
I’ll ask you again for what factual misdemeanours are you calling him bent for ?

I'm taking tims advice, I've said enough.

[TVC15]

I'm taking tims advice, I've said enough.

Very good well done.
You call him bent as a ten Bob note for no specific reason at all after spending a day defending him for something he actually did and got off on a technicality of playing dumb and blaming his accountant, financial advisors and his dog !

That makes loads of sense - nearly as much as your speeding cameras nonsense.

Obtuse is an understatement !

[CharlieinNewMexico]

You are wrong - it was established as fact that he opened an offshore account, that he put money in it and that he did not declare a significant amount of money he should have done and avoided tax....all facts.
What he got off on was that he said he did that without realising what he was doing - and for whatever reason the prosecution was unable to provide enough evidence to prove that he did.
It seems to be you who is suggesting he is involved in lots of “murky” things - I haven’t got a clue what you are referring to here but that’s seems a strange thing to be saying when I all I have done is quote factual things that either I know about or were well reported.

I know he was found not guilty but that does not mean I have to believe that he was telling the truth. His version of events is even more ridiculous than OJ Simpson’s but yep he got off on a technicality and the prosecution failed to find enough evidence to prove him guilty - this happens very frequently.

The fact that you keep on talking about these murky things and yet seem to be arguing that he did not do this blatantly obvious thing is a bit weird to say the least. Do you honestly think that he did not know what he was doing when he opened an offshore account and put money in it to hide it from the taxman ? Is that a normal everyday transaction that you would do and think that you were doing it for any other reason than to avoid tax ?
Call me cynical but based on the mass wealth Harry has accumulated he seems more adept with money than most people rather than the financial retard he successfully argued in the tax avoidance case !

It's not a technicality if the prosecution fails to find enough evidence to prove them guilty. That's the law! Lol.

[TVC15]

It's not a technicality if the prosecution fails to find enough evidence to prove them guilty. That's the law! Lol.

So why do you think he opened an offshore account in Monaco and failed to disclose the money he had put in there ? What other possible reason is there for opening offshore accounts other than to avoid tax ? And he was also given more than one opportunity to declare the money for tax and failed to do so.

Cases often fall through on technicalities - OJ Simpson’s did and many others do. Plus do you believe that all verdicts are the correct ones ?

I’m not debating whether he was found guilty or not - he wasn’t. I’m saying that I don’t believe his version of events because I cannot find any logical reason why he would do what he did other than to avoid tax and I do not believe the nonsense about his dog, not being able to read and write (Harry not the dog !).

If you choose to believe him that’s fine.

[claptrappers_union]

I’ve just seen a clip of this programme online. I’ve not watched the whole thing and this is what I got from it

The bigger the celebrities profile, the more they command, but the charity fee will be significantly different than asked to do the same for a betting company or a coffee company or wearing some toiletry brand or whatever.

Also, they didn’t just take the money, their agents quoted a fee, agreed a price and then the celebrity fulfilled that agreement and the charity benefited for the exposure that from that celebrities endorsement.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

So why do you think he opened an offshore account in Monaco and failed to disclose the money he had put in there ? What other possible reason is there for opening offshore accounts other than to avoid tax ? And he was also given more than one opportunity to declare the money for tax and failed to do so.

Cases often fall through on technicalities - OJ Simpson’s did and many others do. Plus do you believe that all verdicts are the correct ones ?

I’m not debating whether he was found guilty or not - he wasn’t. I’m saying that I don’t believe his version of events because I cannot find any logical reason why he would do what he did other than to avoid tax and I do not believe the nonsense about his dog, not being able to read and write (Harry not the dog !).

If you choose to believe him that’s fine.

I choose to believe the law, the legal system, and those who enforce it with legitimate evidence, not your TVC15 fantasy island "wull...I think he dun it (contrary to every legal process applied) so he dun it".

Completely my opinion but hey, you're entitled to yours if you'd like to continue to appear uneducated.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

So why do you think he opened an offshore account in Monaco and failed to disclose the money he had put in there ? What other possible reason is there for opening offshore accounts other than to avoid tax ? And he was also given more than one opportunity to declare the money for tax and failed to do so.

Cases often fall through on technicalities - OJ Simpson’s did and many others do. Plus do you believe that all verdicts are the correct ones ?

I’m not debating whether he was found guilty or not - he wasn’t. I’m saying that I don’t believe his version of events because I cannot find any logical reason why he would do what he did other than to avoid tax and I do not believe the nonsense about his dog, not being able to read and write (Harry not the dog !).

If you choose to believe him that’s fine.

PS. Ojs fell through because they failed to prove anything you know, like, finding someone guilty of anything...

[TVC15]

I choose to believe the law, the legal system, and those who enforce it with legitimate evidence, not your TVC15 fantasy island "wull...I think he dun it (contrary to every legal process applied) so he dun it".

Completely my opinion but hey, you're entitled to yours if you'd like to continue to appear uneducated.

If you are so much more “educated” than me you patronising pr-ick then answer the question I asked as to why he opened an offshore account and put significant monies in which he failed to declare for tax ?
With you being educated and all that you will know that those are the facts of the case and not in dispute.
Surely it’s not a difficult question for someone as intelligent as yourself.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

These facts of the case have already been discussed. In a legal environment. And found he had nothing to answer.

Simples

[TVC15]

PS. Ojs fell through because they failed to prove anything you know, like, finding someone guilty of anything...

You mean it didn’t fall through because of a technicality with police evidence being tampered ?
So you believe he didn’t do it ?
Oh ok
He was a solid stand up guy - what happened to him after the trial as a matter of interest ?

Do you believe every judicial decision to be the correct one then ?
Or is it just Harry Redknapp and OJ Simpson’s you believe ?

Just for clarification as you seem to have a bit of a problem understanding I am not disputing what the verdict was - that’s factual.

[TVC15]

These facts of the case have already been discussed. In a legal environment. And found he had nothing to answer.

Simples

You just can’t answer the question can you ?
I’ve quoted you the facts of the case.
It doesn’t sound like you even know what they were.
For someone so intellectual you are really struggling with this.

[Hipper]

I’ve just seen a clip of this programme online. I’ve not watched the whole thing and this is what I got from it

The bigger the celebrities profile, the more they command, but the charity fee will be significantly different than asked to do the same for a betting company or a coffee company or wearing some toiletry brand or whatever.

Also, they didn’t just take the money, their agents quoted a fee, agreed a price and then the celebrity fulfilled that agreement and the charity benefited for the exposure that from that celebrities endorsement.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches

I saw it too - Dispatches, Channel 4 - and agree it seemed more about agencies expecting fees to be paid for their clients. Harry was one such celebrity but there was a woman who I'd never heard of who seemed to be an even bigger fish then Redknapp.

One interesting point was that one celebrity - Boris Johnson's Dad - turned the Cuppa gig down because Cuppa wasn't a registered charity. Charities don't have to be registered but if the are they must comply with certain rules.

Overall it seems to me one of those programmes telling us what we already suspected.

[Heathclaret]

Any wealthy celebrity who charges for charity work is a disgrace. If you want to be a donor, do it anonymously, if you want to promote a charity, do it for free.

Sick and tired of reading about CEO’s of charities earning up to half a million a year while volunteers work in the shops.

We donate to two charities that are important to us, say no to the rest. Celebrities can do the same. They don’t have to promote something they don’t believe in just to earn some more money.

[ecc]

I doubt very, very much that Harry Redknapp would ever act in an unlawful manner. Pretty scandalous even suggesting such a thing.

[Rileybobs]

I’m not debating whether he was found guilty or not - he wasn’t. I’m saying that I don’t believe his version of events because I cannot find any logical reason why he would do what he did other than to avoid tax and I do not believe the nonsense about his dog, not being able to read and write (Harry not the dog !).

What nonsense about his dog do you not believe?

[dsr]

There is no question that Harry Redknapp flew to Monaco and opened an account in his dog's name because he wanted to avoid paying tax on taxable income. That was all admitted at the trial.

The only question was whether he was deliberately committing a criminal act, or whether he was just doing as he was told because he was too stupid to know any better. The jury went for the latter.

[Heathclaret]

There is no question that Harry Redknapp flew to Monaco and opened an account in his dog's name because he wanted to avoid paying tax on taxable income. That was all admitted at the trial.

The only question was whether he was deliberately committing a criminal act, or whether he was just doing as he was told because he was too stupid to know any better. The jury went for the latter.

Better to dumb than a liar and a fraud, not a difficult choice to make really. Do you think Redknapp is dumb?

[J50]

There is no question that Harry Redknapp flew to Monaco and opened an account in his dog's name because he wanted to avoid paying tax on taxable income. That was all admitted at the trial.

The only question was whether he was deliberately committing a criminal act, or whether he was just doing as he was told because he was too stupid to know any better. The jury went for the latter.

He's too stupid to know any better. Jamie isn't the sharpest tool in the box but Harry is the bluntest. Both do plenty for charity in consistent and small ways too, and even though a busy person Jamie is always willing to give time and effort to people when he can, supporting his boys from the sporting sidelines at every opportunity he can make, helping others with lifts to fixtures (as he doesn't have a normal 9-5 job unlike most parents). And he'll always sign when asked by the other teams' kids or have a photo with them etc etc. - 'donations' of time and effort more than money are more important in my book. Funny that there are people out there that think Harry runs his own Twitter account and they reply to him as well

[CharlieinNewMexico]

You just can’t answer the question can you ?
I’ve quoted you the facts of the case.
It doesn’t sound like you even know what they were.
For someone so intellectual you are really struggling with this.

A jury can't be asked " where will this guy be in 5 years if it's a bad place you should find him guilty" or " what do you think of him, is he a shady sheister?' it's laughable that you think that.

The only thing I'm struggling with is your ability to just let a legal system play out.

Every post you're just sounding like Charles Bronson.

Maybe we should be worried.

[TVC15]

A jury can't be asked " where will this guy be in 5 years if it's a bad place you should find him guilty" or " what do you think of him, is he a shady sheister?' it's laughable that you think that.

The only thing I'm struggling with is your ability to just let a legal system play out.

Every post you're just sounding like Charles Bronson.

Maybe we should be worried.

Wow - I sound like Charles Bronson ?

To be honest it’s obvious you no nothing about the Redknapp case. I ain’t got a clue what you are talking about in terms of 5 years time or a jury - neither were relevant in Redknapp's case.
So far all you have seem to have said is generic points about the legal system and letting it “play out”.
Nobody is disputing that but you seem to think that precludes anyone from having a view as to whether the verdict was correct.
You are obviously not going to offer any explanation as to why you think Redknapp flew to Monaco and opened offshore accounts which allowed him to avoid tax (all facts which he did not dispute in the case) so happy to leave it there as it’s obvious from your last post that your replies are just going to lead to personal insults.

[Steve1956]

Wow - I sound like Charles Bronson ?

To be honest it’s obvious you no nothing about the Redknapp case. I ain’t got a clue what you are talking about in terms of 5 years time or a jury - neither were relevant in Redknapp's case.
So far all you have seem to have said is generic points about the legal system and letting it “play out”.
Nobody is disputing that but you seem to think that precludes anyone from having a view as to whether the verdict was correct.
You are obviously not going to offer any explanation as to why you think Redknapp flew to Monaco and opened offshore accounts which allowed him to avoid tax (all facts which he did not dispute in the case) so happy to leave it there as it’s obvious from your last post that your replies are just going to lead to personal insults.

Charlie has a Death Wish arguing with you.....you are never wrong

[TVC15]

Charlie has a Death Wish arguing with you.....you are never wrong

You are wrong - I’m wrong loads !!!!
I think he might be Harry’s estranged son - maybe Harry went to the 1970 World Cup and whilst opening some bank accounts in Mexico he got off with the local cashier ? We know how he likes to collect bank accounts.