You know, I do fully get the logic of this. Not just
@projectriver, but one or two more have claimed this from the start. I accept that is the principle in law, and they understand law and are stating it from an informed position. And everyone here has accepted that, including me.
Do we know though, that it definitely applies here however, in a PL internal investigation? Beyond just the assumption that because it is in law and the PL would have to act within UK law.
Do they Have to have the same level of burden of proof, the high threshold described. Do they have to categorically prove that so many people deliberately colluded to commit fraud over a decade.
Or is, within the context of an internal investigation of a member club, the threshold less, i.e concluding from our books alone that they arent to the league rules and expectations. As would seem to have happened in the investigation that has led to the charges. What is it that makes the 'burden of proof' discussed definitely apply to the PL regulatory body?