PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[CC1]

It's not a wind up. It is genuine. And for all the doubters, I am happy to send the email chain of two emails to someone for verification if required.

Anyone familiar with Outlook on Android / Samsung phones will recognise the shortening of the full email address to "You" when viewing incoming emails like this.

Go on then …… let’s see the emails

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

He's replied.
View attachment 171557

I notice he doesn't say anything about being confident about the outcome. Clearly the PL have won.

@Nicholas van Whatsisface - everyone who doubted you owes you an apology.

 

[Paladin]

Professional courtesy perhaps given Paladin’s line of work.

No, I simply looked up his email address and decided to use his work one rather than the generic one he has as a member of the House of Lords.

He responded from Outlook for iPhone, so must have been checking his emails, and he replied out of courtesy. I didn't expect a reply.

I'm retired, I have no personal acquaintance with Lord Pannick, although I do know another KC, who incidentally is a City fan.

 

[blueste41]

The Core Duties

The core professional duties expected of barristers.

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

Contrary to Core Duty 2, 3, 5 and 6 for sure and possibly 1 and 10 too.

So Khaldoon and Masters can say we don't know anything but a KC can't? Saying "we don't know anything" didn't remotely break any of his core duty's let alone "for sure".

 

[calumdown]

So Khaldoon and Masters can say we don't know anything but a KC can't? Saying "we don't know anything" didn't remotely break any of his core duty's let alone "for sure".

 

[117 M34]

Anyone got the email addresses of the people on the panel?

 

[Paladin]

Go on then …… let’s see the emails

You will just accuse me of doctoring it or creating it myself. As I said, I'm happy to forward the emails to someone to verify by inspecting the headers etc.

Here's the preview from my phone though.

 

[Claytop]

Anyone got the email addresses of the people on the panel?

m.rosen@4newsquare.com

Give it a go...

 

[Centurions]

You will just accuse me of doctoring it or creating it myself. As I said, I'm happy to forward the emails to someone to verify by inspecting the headers etc.

Here's the preview from my phone though.

View attachment 171638

I really, really wouldn't bother bud. If someone is that needy then just ignore them.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So Khaldoon and Masters can say we don't know anything but a KC can't? Saying "we don't know anything" didn't remotely break any of his core duty's let alone "for sure".

Thanks for the heads up on the CoC but my post was in response to the following question:

Is it normal, even permitted, etiquette for a KC to respond to a random member of the public regarding the status of a case?

I wasn’t directly commenting on the (fake) email.

 

[CC1]

You will just accuse me of doctoring it or creating it myself. As I said, I'm happy to forward the emails to someone to verify by inspecting the headers etc.

Here's the preview from my phone though.

View attachment 171638

As this is not a public issue but a case between an organisation and one of its members, I find it hard to believe these are genuine….. I’m sure the club would not be happy if he was corresponding with any Tom Dick & Harry (& you of course :-). ) about it

 

[Paladin]

given his status,
is it at all possible that he has someone who reads and answers his emails?
and/or are you high enough up the ladder that the said someone would have passed the email on to his lordship?

I have no influence with him or anyone else important. It's possible that someone replied on his behalf, but it doesn't read like that to me.

 

[CC1]

I really, really wouldn't bother bud. If someone is that needy then just ignore them.

Why is it being needy? It’s a pretty big thing to put on a forum about such a huge case. Unless it’s one big joke that gone right over my head of course :-)

 

[I'msingingingtheblues]

You will just accuse me of doctoring it or creating it myself. As I said, I'm happy to forward the emails to someone to verify by inspecting the headers etc.

Here's the preview from my phone though.

View attachment 171638

Even if he does know the outcome or timing, out of professional courtesy and diligence, he would never say anything or give any indication as to outcome or confidence levels - at least, not until instructed by CFG to do so.

 

[Stoned Rose]

:) It only says what it says. And it doesn't necessarily say what people are thinking it's saying. Lawyers are experts in saying things in a way that sounds convincing and that can eventually be "proven" to be right, whatever happens.

I'll take the poster's word it's a real reply. It's bizarre, though - the fact he replied, not the content. I have my doubts, though. Whenever he replies to my emails, he calls himself Dave ....

Didsbury?

 

[IrishBlueSince92]

Would the panel really advertise that?

No but I mean stories in the media, as we heard around this time last year that the decision may not come until the summer, and then in the summer more stories that we probably won't hear until October.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Even if he does know the outcome or timing, out of professional courtesy and diligence, he would never say anything or give any indication as to outcome or confidence levels - at least, not until instructed by CFG to do so.

Very high up PL figures don’t live by the same standards. Especially around random members of the public they hardly know.

;)

 

[ArniArason]

Amazing he replied. Perhaps now people can accept that even the parties don't know what it will say

Didn't someone else get this same reply?

 

[dadnlad]

Anyone got the email addresses of the people on the panel?

Onholiday.com
Takingthepiss. org
Allthetime in theworld@ntlworld

 

[halfcenturyup]

Didsbury?

Well fuck it, I knew I was making a mistake somewhere .....