The Tottenham Thread (Merged)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Wasn't aware of that. I suspect that could have a bearing on the outcome. It will mean he can only get six months max unless he's charged with more than one offence IIRC.

No if the Magistrate is convinced that the government has a case it'll be kicked up to the crown courts where he could get prison.

Not necessarily true. It depends whether he has been charged with a summary, indictable or each way offence.

If he has been charged on a summary basis (which was the inference of squirty's post) then the only forum for the trial is on front of the Magistrates, where he can still get six months.

If the offence is each way (which I imagine it is) then both he and the Magistrates have the option to send it to the higher court which I imagine Harry will grab with both hands.

If it's indictable only then it has to be heard at Crown Court.<br /><br />-- Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:01 pm --<br /><br />

Fortunately it's in magistrates court so cheek chappy cockneys can't let him off

Wasn't aware of that. I suspect that could have a bearing on the outcome. It will mean he can only get six months max unless he's charged with more than one offence IIRC.

Mmm, not so sure, every likelihood they could all drink 'darn the Winchester club' , along with Arfur, Tel and Co.
Btw, it used to be that if other information comes to light or the they felt it warranted a more serious punishment the Mags can halt proceedings and refer it to a higher court, unless that's changed.

Most of the Magistrates I have encountered (not that many tbf) aren't the sort of people to socialise with the likes of Harry Rednap.

 

[Castiel]

If he's actually being charged with tax evasion its almost certainly not a summary offence. They're speeding tickets and bar fights. Depending on how much he's accused of owing the government, we could be talking about millions of pounds here, not including interest and the penalty (which would be custodial in the case of so much money).

 

[Dirty Harry]

Wasn't aware of that. I suspect that could have a bearing on the outcome. It will mean he can only get six months max unless he's charged with more than one offence IIRC.

No if the Magistrate is convinced that the government has a case it'll be kicked up to the crown courts where he could get prison.

Not necessarily true. It depends whether he has been charged with a summary, indictable or each way offence.

If he has been charged on a summary basis (which was the inference of squirty's post) then the only forum for the trial is on front of the Magistrates, where he can still get six months.

If the offence is each way (which I imagine it is) then both he and the Magistrates have the option to send it to the higher court which I imagine Harry will grab with both hands.

If it's indictable only then it has to be heard at Crown Court.

-- Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:01 pm --

Wasn't aware of that. I suspect that could have a bearing on the outcome. It will mean he can only get six months max unless he's charged with more than one offence IIRC.

Mmm, not so sure, every likelihood they could all drink 'darn the Winchester club' , along with Arfur, Tel and Co.
Btw, it used to be that if other information comes to light or the they felt it warranted a more serious punishment the Mags can halt proceedings and refer it to a higher court, unless that's changed.

Most of the Magistrates I have encountered (not that many tbf) aren't the sort of people to socialise with the likes of Harry Rednap.

Maybe mate, but I'm on about a different Harry, Harry Redknapp lol.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

If he's actually being charged with tax evasion its almost certainly not a summary offence. They're speeding tickets and bar fights. Depending on how much he's accused of owing the government, we could be talking about millions of pounds here, not including interest and the penalty (which would be custodial in the case of so much money).

fair enough but as I've already pointed out I was responding to what squirty has said. I haven't followed the case with as much scrutiny as others so I'm not familiar with the amounts.

That said, as I previously stated I imagine that tax evasion covering such a wide spectrum of amounts and culpability that it most certainly in an each way offence.<br /><br />-- Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:12 pm --<br /><br />

No if the Magistrate is convinced that the government has a case it'll be kicked up to the crown courts where he could get prison.

Not necessarily true. It depends whether he has been charged with a summary, indictable or each way offence.

If he has been charged on a summary basis (which was the inference of squirty's post) then the only forum for the trial is on front of the Magistrates, where he can still get six months.

If the offence is each way (which I imagine it is) then both he and the Magistrates have the option to send it to the higher court which I imagine Harry will grab with both hands.

If it's indictable only then it has to be heard at Crown Court.

-- Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:01 pm --

Mmm, not so sure, every likelihood they could all drink 'darn the Winchester club' , along with Arfur, Tel and Co.
Btw, it used to be that if other information comes to light or the they felt it warranted a more serious punishment the Mags can halt proceedings and refer it to a higher court, unless that's changed.

Most of the Magistrates I have encountered (not that many tbf) aren't the sort of people to socialise with the likes of Harry Rednap.

Maybe mate, but I'm on about a different Harry, Harry Redknapp lol.

Sorry about my misspelling of Harry, Harry ;-)

 

[Castiel]

fair enough but as I've already pointed out I was responding to what squirty has said. I haven't followed the case with as much scrutiny as others so I'm not familiar with the amounts.

That said, as I previously stated I imagine that tax evasion covering such a wide spectrum of amounts and culpability that it most certainly in an each way offence.

In which case the magistrate would kick it up, provided the government has a plausible case. :P (All assuming Harry has been hiding some serious sums of money, and if he's been doing it at all, its reasonable to assume its a serious amount.)

We don't have to wait long to find out what happens in any case.

 

[josh_spurs]

To be fair that was harsh, but well played city, would rather have yous than the rags.

 

[Speaker]

Very disappointed. Great game, good football in show. I personally feel that both lescott and balotelli would have received their walking papers on another day. To have Defoe miss the clearest cut chance of the game and then get done by a pen (stonewall no complaints) was sickening. I feel we should have won that game, but that's football.

 

[Crouchinho]

Well done. Gutted about the result, but kind of feel like you did when you played United in the cup. Pretty proud at our performance and almost getting a winner.

I hate blaming refs but that Balo decision was poor. I get a feeling the FA might do what they did with the Adebayor situation, even though it's not as clear.

 

[Speaker]

No way in a million years was that unintentional

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

2bh if it wasnt for Savic I don't think you'd have got back in the game.

we were due some reffing luck and got it with balo, didn't see lescott's.

Balo will get banned because he's Balo and we're not rags.

Felt we deserved to win but got lucky in the way we did so.

Having Adebayor cost you, because till we gifted you a goal you never looked like scoring.

just keep United in check for 2nd, please :).

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Spurs are unlucky. That was a terrible miss by Defoe.

re the Balo 'stamping', the muppets at the FA are very selective about the use of video replays. What's their argument for not using them in games? Not all levels of the game have video present? Well Sunday pub leagues don't do action replays the next day so why do the FA?

 

[Mayor West]

No way in a million years was that unintentional

Blatant red. More than makes up for the kompnay travesty though. Even if he gets a retrospective ban, at least he was on the pitch to win us the game.

 

[Speaker]

Lescott and balo should get retrospective bans. They were both with malice. But, can't blame the ref, both were well disguised and difficult to see.

 

[Mayor West]

Don't agree about the lescott one.

 

[Speaker]

Don't agree about the lescott one.

Why not? Intentional elbow to the face straight red. The only way he thought that he was going shoulder to shoulder was if he suddenly thought he was in the NBA, and kaboul was 7"2

 

[Mayor West]

Don't agree about the lescott one.

Why not? Intentional elbow to the face straight red. The only way he thought that he was going shoulder to shoulder was if he suddenly thought he was in the NBA, and kaboul was 7"2

No one can prove it was intentional though. It is quite a reasonable argument to suggest lescott and any other player for that matter would raise their arms to gain forward moment or stop getting clattered in his own face.

 

[stony]

Big fucking lol@'arry crying like a bitch on Talkshite. Shut up you twitching **** and stop talking shit.

Balo has given him his excuse as to why they have lost and he won't fucking shut up about it.

My dislike for this horrible twat grows daily.

 

[Crouchinho]

Didn't think Lescott's was bad really, unintentional. He's not really a dirt player. Kaboul didn't argue too much either

 

[Mayor West]

Didn't think Lescott's was bad really, unintentional. He's not really a dirt player. Kaboul didn't argue too much either

Agreed.

 

[M18CTID]

Other half texted me a Tweet saying 'Arry has resigned - apparently it's Sky Sports Twitter account but no news anywhere else. Anyone else shed any light on it? I'm assuming it's bollocks.

Anyway, great game today that could've spun either way to be fair. I love Balotelli but he's staring down the barrel of a retrospective 3 match ban for that stamp.