Harry due in court on Monday 23rd January 2012 (merged)

[halfcenturyup]

The thing about his defence though, is that it isn't consistent and I would be surprised if the prosecution don't concentrate on this in the summing up.

i) If he is trying to say it was a loan and that he earned so much money that the tax on this amount wasn't material to him anyway, why did he need such a small loan to invest? There seems to have been no loan contract to support this view either (btw, why the two defences? a) It was a loan b) I was told the tax was paid on it? As far as I know there is no tax on a loan).

ii) He has admitted he lied to get himself out of a situation, he has already told the court he is an idiot, disorganised, someone who never wrote a letter, sent an e-mail, a text .... clearly that can't be the case and it is a reflection of his "dodgy" character, telling porkie pies and playing the good cockney to get out of this situation.

iii) And finally, it's up to the individual to pay his taxes. It's no good saying he thought the tax was paid on it. If it was income and he thought the tax was paid on it, he needed to show a certificate saying it had been when he declared it.


As far as I can see from the little that has been reported: he received income, he didn't declare it and pay tax. Guilty, probably a big fine. Was it deliberate and so justify a more severe sentence? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, but I would think his defence has at least raised doubts with the jury about the type of person he is ....

 

[Crouchinho]

Personally I think he's innocent but reading some of the evidence its edging towards guilty

He's guilty, but pleading ignorance is his only defence. I would do the same

I agree I think he's just ignorant but that won't get him off! He's already played the thick card

Who knows, it may work. The fact that Mandaric is backing him by saying that money was nothing to do with football a bonus as a friend. Redknapp saying he's paid 8m in taxes so why does he want an extra 100k. may convince the jury so who knows.

I think the government should be targetting image rights where footballers avoid paying full whack tax and save a few million a year. For me that is more tax evasion than what Harry has done. It's just a shame that is legal

 

[mat]

is bluemeister Chas or Dave?

 

[CityBuzzin]

I don't think people are really following this case, just reading the headline grabbing stuff. It looks as if he's going to get off or at most get a fine or a ticking off and most seem to be saying he's guilty. I'd love him to be guilty, but ultimately there is no decent evidence and the motive is incredibly flimsy. It's amazing this has got to court and I can only think that it was done as deterent.

Redknapp really isn't pleading ignorance as his main defence and nor is the fact he's claimed to be disorganised or can't read or write of any real significance. The only "evidence" the prosecution seem to have of any value is the an interview with the NOTW. The trouble with that is that Harry himself wouldn't have been benefiting from the tax evasion in that scenario, so it seems more likely he was lying to the journalist as he claimed today. As much as we'd all like Redknapp to be guilty, he isn't. The most that can realistically happen is that they find him guilty in the sense that he was neglegent and give him fine and the judge will give him a bit of a ticking off. But those hoping he's going to be right in the shit are going to be disappointed.

He is fucking guilty as sin.....End off

 

[plongo]

Just a small, but important point it's

EVADE not avoid

 

[Newman Noggs]

I have been interviewing fraudsters or 30 years and they have numerous things in common. Firstly, they usually claim to be too innocent in the ways of the world or too stupid to be a fraudster, secondly, they usually claim to be victims of state persecution, thirdly, they are usually personable individuals always ready with a humorous soundbite to deflect attention from the serious matter, fourthly, they usually explain suspicious monies received as "loans", fifthly, they never keep anything in writing such as "loan agreements", sixthly, their accomplices are usually the main, and often the only, defence witness.

Haven't heard all the evidence so maybe Harry is innocent. We'll see.

 

[SWP's back]

Pmsl at "blue"miester.

I do live watching someone trying to convince themselves that black is indeed White.

 

[Pubteam Lomas]

Think he will get off and I think it shows up the flaws in the jury sysytem.
I don't think many jurors understand the jargon used in financial cases (I know I wouldn't) and people will be swung by his cheeky cockney chappy image.
To me he hasn't really defended himself, like his "I was thinking how I could mark David Beckham," line
Utter bollocks, but some people will think thats true cos he's Arry, while people on here know hes talking shit.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Think he will get off and I think it shows up the flaws in the jury sysytem.
I don't think many jurors understand the jargon used in financial cases (I know I wouldn't) and people will be swung by his cheeky cockney chappy image.
To me he hasn't really defended himself, like his "I was thinking how I could mark David Beckham," line
Utter bollocks, but some people will think thats true cos he's Arry, while people on here know hes talking shit.

It's the prosecution's job to discredit his "cheeky chappy" quotes by showing he isn't stupid, he has written letters, he has sent texts, he has made bank transfers, he doesn't write like a two year old etc.. I assume they will do that Monday in their summing up. It's the judge's job to direct the jury on the issues of the case and what matters should be considered and what matters shouldn't be. The fact that he is a cheeky chappy isn't one of them.

 

[BlueTony]

Think he will get off and I think it shows up the flaws in the jury sysytem.
I don't think many jurors understand the jargon used in financial cases (I know I wouldn't) and people will be swung by his cheeky cockney chappy image.
To me he hasn't really defended himself, like his "I was thinking how I could mark David Beckham," line
Utter bollocks, but some people will think thats true cos he's Arry, while people on here know hes talking shit.

I agree entirely. I have sat on a jury and the level of ignorance and downright stupidity of "the man in the street" is frightening. In my case it was a child abuse trial where the accused was up on 3 counts of molesing a 12/13 year old girl ( the offences happened over a period of time and she had a birthday somewhere along the way ) which still gives me nightmares from time to time even though it was 18 years ago.

Anyway the defence made the mistake of putting the peado on the stand and he tripped himself up so many times it was untrue, he was guilty as sin but durining the deliberations it was unanimous on the first 2 counts but one (Fat Ginger and only just old enough to sit on a Jury) person had their doubts about the 3rd count. It took us all (i.e. the other 11 of us 2 hours to argue this dickhead around to a unanimous guilty of all charges verdict {meanwhile this poor girl is sitting and waiting and probably thinking "what if they think I made it up and he comes home?"}.

The point I am trying to make is that there should be some kind of psychological and intelligence test to be sat before you can sit on a jury. I am not the kind of person to be swayed by the nature of the charges. To pick a case as an example teachers are particularly open to charges of abuse, lets face it all you have to do is put a child in it's place in class or give it detention and allegations can be made, I am not saying a teacher has never abused thier position of trust, there are too many in prison to say that is the case, but as a natural sceptic I will listen to all the evidence and make my mind up rather than have the knee jerk reaction of "peado hang him/her".

In cases of fraud and tax evasion I firmly believe that there should be specialist juries who have knowledge of these matters i.e. accountants, tax spcialists etc because a lot of people have got off these charges because the juries were incapable of appreciating the subtleties of the case.

As to whether Harry is guilty, sounds like it to me but I am not on the jury and have only listened to the news which is obviously only going to broadcast the juicy bits.