Super Tottenham
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2010
- 2,654
- 2,270
Even if we aren't guilty we are going to be made to look it in the media.
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Real_madyidd
The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
- Oct 25, 2004
- 18,802
- 12,479
What?
We didn't ask them to get them. We didn't get a copy of them. What is the problem?
StartingPrice
Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
- Feb 13, 2004
- 32,568
- 10,280
Which all, miraculously, focusses away from the underhand means the Dildo Brothas wer eusing to win a multi-million pound contract.
The moral high ground we were on may have sunk somewhat into the swamp, but it is, surely, still higher than the Spammers.
I think the DBs are very successfully deflecting attention away from that.
Okay, so, someone we emplyed did something we didn't ask them to do, whcih jsut happens to be in the national attention, ATM (but is hardly stealing the phone records of an innocent murdered girl, is it). Now, Spam-Ville could you explain exactlyhow and why you came to totally subvert the committee deciding a massive contract, with ramifications way beyond the huge financial values in open discussion :shrug:
brasil_spur
SC Supporter
- Aug 25, 2006
- 12,760
- 16,919
Not from us it won't.
Imagine you order some photocopier paper from a stationery supplier and then it turns out down the line that the paper was stolen.
You as a company are not responsible for asking a supplier to sell you some paper, nor are you responsible for checking the legality of how that paper was obtained by your supplier.
The emphasis is all on that supplier.
PFK are on of the UK's largest accountant and business advice firms, they have strict rules and regulations to follow and as such there is no come back on this against Spurs unless there is documented evidence that we requested them to do this, which there won't be.
I'm sure Stoof can come in with some more legal expertise on this, but basically from a legal perspective unless DL has been a total moron then there's nothing we can be charged with here and frankly West Ham should be very careful about what they say about PFK, as without proof of their allegations they could easily end up with a libel suit against them.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
fieryjack
Well-Known Member
- Jan 13, 2006
- 3,376
- 703
Much ado about nothing as someone once said.
I doubt very much whether there`s any evidence of anyone at Spurs asking for this. Is`nt the person who gave the records the one who should be nervously looking over his shoulder?
Im assuming phone details are not available from just anywhere.
Call it a hunch.
I doubt very much whether there`s any evidence of anyone at Spurs asking for this. Is`nt the person who gave the records the one who should be nervously looking over his shoulder?
Im assuming phone details are not available from just anywhere.
Call it a hunch.
we_all_loved_freund
Well-Known Member
- Apr 6, 2006
- 1,695
- 998
Usual practice of disclosure during litigation.
It does not say that we were in possession, before litigation had begun.
$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,683
- 34,852
That's how I read it
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Yes, I can imagine that. I can't imagine how someone's personal phone records can be obtained anything but illegally, however. Can you?
No, there won't be documented evidence that we requested PFK to obtain Brady's phone records, and possibly those of others, any more than there will be documented evidence that BoJo told Levy it would be OK to rip up the track. Nevertheless, those records were obtained and were passed on to PKF, and apparently to Spurs.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
And then litigation began, and we were.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
I don't want us to be in the wrong, but clearly we are—or at least, that's how it's going to be perceived by the wider public. I'm just amazed at the number of people shrugging this off as if it's absolutely nothing, particularly given the way the News International phone tapping scandal snowballed.
SlickMongoose
Copacetic
- Feb 27, 2005
- 6,258
- 5,043
Without addressing any other points, this is an absurd and obtuse line of argument, if you're using it to show us being in the wrong in any way.
Graysonti
Well-Known Member
- May 8, 2011
- 3,904
- 5,823
$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,683
- 34,852
I don't get how we are clearly in the wrong.
If I asked you to find someone for me and you took it upon yourself to this through hacking into bank records etc. It wouldn't be my fault. So by the same token if we have asked an accountancy firm to look into the accounts of West Ham and it's directors, we are not the ones accountable for how they go about it. This is nothing like the News of the World scandal, where the company themselves undertook those actions.
If I asked you to find someone for me and you took it upon yourself to this through hacking into bank records etc. It wouldn't be my fault. So by the same token if we have asked an accountancy firm to look into the accounts of West Ham and it's directors, we are not the ones accountable for how they go about it. This is nothing like the News of the World scandal, where the company themselves undertook those actions.
sweetness
Well-Known Member
- Jun 24, 2006
- 1,117
- 832
Public perception now means very little, as Spurs aren't interested in the OS anymore - and thus the power struggle for that location is over. Besides, those who have followed this ordeal more closely (in particular politicians) already realise that none of OPLC, BoJo, West Ham, Newham, or Spurs are without guilt.
Those in power want Levy to conform ASAP - and that means they need to help out pushing for the NDP. West Ham and OPLC are keeping this up trying to deflect their own shortcomings - it certainly won't lead to anything substantial in the long run. In time, the real discussion will be right back at the OPLC's feet, and you can quote me on that.
Real_madyidd
The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
- Oct 25, 2004
- 18,802
- 12,479
Yeah, that is what happens!
They have to provide you with the evidence so you can defend yourself.
So to clarify the events:
(1)We ask PKF to get all the information they have.
(2)They go ahead and get the telephone records (notice they said that they didn't get a third party to do it!)
(3) west ham sue us.
(4) we are handled the illegal document that we didn't request- as evidence.
where are we in the wrong? We didn't ask anyone to do anything illegal. We didn't receive the information that was obtained illegally. We have no case to answer.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
First thing to say is that none of know what's happened, we can only hope that as the court case progresses we'll get a clearer idea, but until that's happened it's completely pointless speculating on the rights and wrongs and who's in possession of them.
On SS's point about mud-sticking, and moral high-ground, he's of course correct, for me though I frankly don't give a shit about perceptions, only about reality. If we indeed engaged in criminal activity then I care, because then we'd be dealing in reality. If it turns out we didn't engage in criminality, but the mud still sticks then as I say I don't care at all.
On SS's point about mud-sticking, and moral high-ground, he's of course correct, for me though I frankly don't give a shit about perceptions, only about reality. If we indeed engaged in criminal activity then I care, because then we'd be dealing in reality. If it turns out we didn't engage in criminality, but the mud still sticks then as I say I don't care at all.
