What
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
what it said , illegal means in contradiction to an established law, unlawful is in breach of a statute or supposedly morally incorrect.
- llegal
Means something is against the law or not authorized by law. It's most commonly used to describe a criminal offense that breaches an express prohibition and usually results in a penalty.
- Unlawful
Means something is against the law or not authorized by law, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a penalty. An unlawful act may arise in a situation where there is no express prohibition, but the act still results in non-compliance with the relevant law or rules. For example, overparking is an unlawful act, but it's not necessarily considered particularly blameworthy.
hallsteve62
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 913
PM incoming lol
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,950
I was always told that unlawful was something against the law and the other one was a sick bird !
He needs a good kicking in the semantics
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Both entail an act which is contrary to what is lawful. Whist they aren’t identical, as one tends to deal with what is proscribed by law and the other where it’s outside the bounds of the law, any comparison between the two is intellectually dishonest in the context of the subject matter, namely a clause in an agreement, which his only going to be criminal in the most extreme of circumstances.
Through the prism of rules that one organisation subjects the other to, unlawfulness is egregious. Any attempt to claim it’s not illegal is both a non-sequitur and simple semantics.
It’s akin to claiming that because you didn’t get sent to jail for speeding that provides some form of mitigation when it’s not an imprisonable offence.
It’s dishonest misdirection, nothing more.
Like I said previously, no point engaging with the ****.
I am not sure I understand what your saying or what your referring to but my point is that in order to have created the false accounts in the way that is suggested by the Premier league we would have had to have committed fraud which is illegal so I don’t think he is wrong to say this
surrounded by idiots
Well-Known Member
I also don't fully understand all the musings of @gordondaviesmoustache , I do however know that miggsy is an utter twat
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Sorry mate, I think we are at cross purposes.
I assumed (even) he wouldn’t be so stupid as to compare what City have been alleged to do, with what the PL has has been judicially found to do.
What City have been accused of is unquestionably criminal. It’s a fraudulent conspiracy. All day.
But likely to be blown out of the water. So nothing to compare this stage.
Thought he was simply trying to downplay the extent of the PL fuck up.
Anyway, I’m done talking about the **** for the day!
Illegal is a breach of a law.
Unlawful is ‘found not to be allowed by reference to specified legal principles.’ ‘Illicit’would serve better.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I prefer ****, but each to their own.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,945
Me too, but sexual preference is up to each individual.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Also, The Competition Act 1998 has criminal sanctions provided for under sections 42-4 and the power to compel a defaulting party to act in a particular way under sections 32-35 as well as the power to impose civil penalties under sections 36-40 So breaching that Act is potentially a criminal act and thereby an imprisonable offence, although most likely it would end in a fine.
Sounds pretty illegal to me.
Last edited:
laserblue
Well-Known Member
Maybe a BMer on X could send the daft **** this.
unlawful adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
Definition of unlawful adjective in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It’s a spurious point anyway because it ‘only’ being unlawful doesn’t make it ok.
The PL is one of this country’s greatest commercial and strategic assets and they can’t even get the basics right.
That’s the fucking story, not whether it was illegal or merely unlawful.
The PL is one of this country’s greatest commercial and strategic assets and they can’t even get the basics right.
That’s the fucking story, not whether it was illegal or merely unlawful.
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
I thought one was a sick bird
Yes, the more statutes we have and the less we rely on common law, the odder the law becomes. Competition Act carrying criminal sanctions seems bonkers to me.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Have updated that post, but it’s for things like obstructing an officer (which presumably hasn’t happened here, as I assume officers haven’t been involved) but there are other sanctions available under that Act which compel non-compliant parties to Act in a particular and legally enforceable way.
So illegal still fits imo.
And further to your last point, I think if someone obstructs a public official in the course of their duties then that surely has to be capable of being a criminal act, and in the most egregious and exceptional of of circumstances, imprisonable.
I agree but surely it should be covered elsewhere as a general point (it probably is) not Locked away in this act.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It is, but gives the particular regulator a stick to wield and thereby acts as a deterrent to future offending. Plus it gives the regulator autonomy when arriving at decisions around prosecution. They will be better placed to evaluate the merits of a prosecution, and can deal with the evidence in house, which should be more efficient and effective than the CPS (which is notoriously wank around charging decisions around regulatory offences) dealing with it.
And if it gets too much for the regulator after the charges are brought, the CPS has the lawful power to take over the prosecution and do with it as it sees fit, which includes running the trial and offering no evidence.
So overall perfectly sensible from a public policy point of view, imo.
Last edited: