Those aren't facts, those are the arguments presented by the prosecution, later in the trial Harry's defence will argue that Harry didn't open the bank account, but Mandaric did, they will also argue that Harry never had access to the account and that Mandaric told him the money had all been lost in a bad investment. I assume they will also argue that why on earth would anybody declare a bank account to HMRC that they never opened, never had access to and as far as they knew any money in there had been lost in a bad investment?
Once all sides have presented their arguments it will be up to 12 people led by a judge to decide which version of events is true and whether either, both or neither of them are guilty of the charges they are accused of.
At least the press have the decency to include the prosecution's arguments in inverted commas and not state them as fact.
I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.
How was the jury vetted? Did they have to say if they followed a football team?
What if they are all Spammers?
If I was on a jury with Wenger in the dock he would be guilty no matter what the evidence was.[/quote]
Nah I would not. But you give me a Foy, a Clattenberg or a Webb and I would do any of them good and proper :grin:
From what I`ve read so far, this looks particulary bad for Mandaric, with the prosecution trying to get something on Harry by association.
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.
I think this whole week will make harry not want to became england manager, you can see that he is getting alot abuse and the media attention is insane atm, this might give him a taste of what it may be like, if it goes wrong with england in the future
How was the jury vetted? Did they have to say if they followed a football team?
What if they are all Spammers?
'Arry will not be found guilty as his lawyer's far too professional to allow that to happen.
The inland revenue will be made to look like they are witch hunting, this being a high profile case and all.
Much ado about nothing IMHO and during the next two weeks this will become obvious.
I would have thought that sort of thing would have been taken into account...
Harry himself said he went to Monaco to open the account. He said he didn't want to, but that's what he did.
He doesn't deny that he received a payment from Mandaric, which he says was his cut of the Peter Crouch deal.
Yep, this is a factThe account was opened in his dogs name.
All I'm saying - and I don't quite know why it's coming in for such opprobrium - is that most of the British public (if they notice the case at all) will think that all of that is a bit dodgy.
In my office, anyone who cares thinks it's dodgy to be getting a slice of the transfer fee.
They also think it's funny/strange that the account is opened in his dogs name.
I know my parents and their generation think it's morally dubious to have off-shore accounts for the purpose of reducing tax. I think it is a bit too - though my philosophy is to live and let live, judge not lest ye should be judged an all that.
I'm well aware that none of that is illegal (as far as I know), and tha plenty of rich people take advantage of tax havens, will have accounts in strange names, and that in the case of getting a slice of the transfer fee there was nothing in the rules to say he shouldn't.
I'm making no judgement myself.
My rather narrow point was that there's not a lot of point getting our knickers in the twist over lurid newspaper headlines, nor worrying about the fairness of the British, adversarial, trial by jury system of justice.
For some reason a few people have taken that as criticism of Harry, when in fact it's clearly nothing of the kind, it's my view on the impact of the court case, immaterial of the verdict.
As you say we all on this board should care about the verdict, for the reasons you give. I was not saying we shouldn't care about that, but only that we shouldn't give two figs for the public perception. Who cares :shrug
I also didn't want an embarrassing thread in the vein of the one on RAWK and was warning against going down that route.
That could well be quite a boring, uninteresting thing to say, in which case ignore it - as the majority have done - but don't misrepresent what I am saying and then castigate me for that misrepresentation.
Agenda/twit/tactical mastermind.
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.
If your location is correct, then why do you have an opinion on that when you dont contribute to the public purse yourself ?
Maybe you want to try being objective after both sides have their say then instead of filling this thread with a big pile of complete shite.
Maybe you want to try being objective after both sides have their say then instead of filling this thread with a big pile of complete shite.
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.