PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...
I thought one was a sick bird
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Also, The Competition Act 1998 has criminal sanctions provided for under section 42. 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree but surely it should be covered elsewhere as a general point (it probably is) not Locked away in this act.
 
KS55 said:
I agree but surely it should be covered elsewhere as a general point (it probably is) not Locked away in this act.
Click to expand...
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:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
It boggles my brain that this is such an issue for some people.
Nothing the premier league do should be illegal or unlawful. It’s a stupid arguments for morons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.