The BBC should have been closed down year ago, but still to be in existence when they blatantly covered up and let a paid employee paedophile continue his appalling acts says everything that needs to be said about the BBC.
Anyone who continues to pay the licence fee to these hypocrites needs there collective heads to be examined.
I feel the more they bias report things the bigger the hole they dig for themselves. I am convinced that all our enemies including the media have and still are giving us enough rope to hang them.It's telling that all the so called journos were like pigs to the trough when one of the UEFA insiders leaked something but hasn't properly reported a Court judgement in relation to the integrity of their process. If the CAS had described City's conduct in relation to the 2014 settlement as "worrisome" then you can be sure the media would be reporting it. UEFA know they've lost now and it's about trying to find a solution which does the least amount of damage to their reputation and the most amount to ours. The media is also fully on board with this, hence the reason for the continued misreporting of the case.
It's the last of these that I find particularly interesting. Disclosure takes place for a number of reasons, mainly so that the defendant can see the evidence against it in full, thus ensuring a fair trial. But one reason is so that the Court can be sure that no documents have been created and backdated to suit an emerging argument. We were assured.that full dusclosure had taken place on 11th July but, over two weeks later, the "scope document" appeared.
A scoping document is important in any investigation because it is part of the investigation plan and sets out the parameters of the investigation. That, might include, for example, time period or particular documents. It not only ensures a focused investigation from the investigator's perspective but also, from an evidential point of view, ensures that the investigation isn't just a fishing exercise designed to dig up any dirt. It intrigues me that this wasn't produced until after we had been assured that we had full disclosure. I'm sure that the club will be seeking answers.
It's the last of these that I find particularly interesting. Disclosure takes place for a number of reasons, mainly so that the defendant can see the evidence against it in full, thus ensuring a fair trial. But one reason is so that the Court can be sure that no documents have been created and backdated to suit an emerging argument. We were assured.that full dusclosure had taken place on 11th July but, over two weeks later, the "scope document" appeared.
A scoping document is important in any investigation because it is part of the investigation plan and sets out the parameters of the investigation. That, might include, for example, time period or particular documents. It not only ensures a focused investigation from the investigator's perspective but also, from an evidential point of view, ensures that the investigation isn't just a fishing exercise designed to dig up any dirt. It intrigues me that this wasn't produced until after we had been assured that we had full disclosure. I'm sure that the club will be seeking answers.
I bought a streaming radio last year which gives me access to thousands of digital channels across the world and podcasts from every corner of the globe. It has made me realise just how really shit the BBC is. The much repeated claim that the "BBC is the best broadcaster in the world" is just a myth. The public service broadcast content from the USA and Canada is streets ahead as is Netflix and SKY Atlantic. The BBC is just like United "stuck in the past."I notice the BBC have now changed the story. They are a total embarrassment for a national broadcaster.
From what I hear, “our” prime minister is going to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC. These vultures are now claiming they might have to go behind a paywall. In other words, they’re fucked because they’ve fucked the British people in their hubris.
Interesting reading earlier:
"63. The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances".
This "scope document" not originally passed to City could prove a bias in the process. For example, if they had asked the accouncy firm to prove a financial link as a related party between Etihad and our owner, would the accountants been told to accept that the wording of the leak is the truth, that "HRH" in the leak is Sheikh Mansour (not true), and "related parties" are to be looked at as accepted in the rules at the time? We seem to be accused of hidden payments by the owner not being available to UEFA when settling in 2014. The value of the Etihad sponsorship was part of the settlement and put down as a related party anyway so there's little to justify further punishment? They changed the rules on related parties and sponsors at a later date so this wouldn't apply back then. Also do UEFA have all our emails? How can they prove they are correct in wording when the leaker is being prosecuted for blackmail and they seem to be selectively used against us?
From memory the Etihad sponsorship was accepted as market value and so the 'related party' test never got activated. Not that I think it would have failed anyway.