The TXU Energy case is a brilliant read. The Honorable Mr Justice Warren said
"I have no doubt that all of the witnesses who gave oral evidence are honest people, none of whom is deliberately lying or attempting to mislead the court except that I do have some reservation in the case of Ms Seppala"
So he thought she lied in a court of law.
Football League rule F.1.4.2 which is in the disqualification of directors and owners section:
In respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);
What offence was she convicted for, perjury presumably?Football League rule F.1.4.2 which is in the disqualification of directors and owners section:
In respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);
Bring it up at the Scg see how it goes:angelic: think you might get:banhappy:
Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.
Just wanted to share this 2008 Telegraph piece on private companies, SISU get a small mention.
Signs of legal crap were clearly there it seems
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...te-companies-Finance-at-its-very-highest.html
FL have said before the fit and proper test is very difficult for them to enforce. Unless someone has been convicted of something they open themselves up to legal action.Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.
What offence was she convicted for, perjury presumably?
Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.
FL have said before the fit and proper test is very difficult for them to enforce. Unless someone has been convicted of something they open themselves up to legal action.
Would she even have to pass fit and proper? She runs the company that manages the funds that unvested in the club, would that qualify her? Suspect its a loophole that wasn't considered when the rules were drawn up.
Is " some reservations " proof of dishonesty? Wasn't it followed by criticism along the lines of Joy's poor recollection of events? We know, or think we know, what was meant, but the judge did not say directly that Joy had lied. Just inferred it. I think that leaves room to wriggle out of the FL's definition. But, I am no expert. Tim seems to think he knows what is right in law and in fact, so maybe he could help on that.
Any offence involving an act that's proved to be dishonest. I know she's not been found guilty but it's still an offence isn't it? E.g. You could commit the offence of speeding, you haven't been found guilty but you've still committed an offence haven't you?
Is " some reservations " proof of dishonesty? Wasn't it followed by criticism along the lines of Joy's poor recollection of events? We know, or think we know, what was meant, but the judge did not say directly that Joy had lied. Just inferred it. I think that leaves room to wriggle out of the FL's definition. But, I am no expert. Tim seems to think he knows what is right in law and in fact, so maybe he could help on that.
No I don't think Timmy can help as he has recently decided he isn't a lawyer
No it's not an offence - it's an opinion.
You will be scoffed at & they will attempt to belittle you probablyChallenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.
He didn't say she had been dishonest. He said he had reservations...it stops short of calling her a liarTalking shit again grendel. Common law is only beyond the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal law.
The judge having heard all the evidence has stated a fact that would be recorded in the court that js has been dishonest and as such would not have taken her evidence as fact.
Talking shit again grendel. Common law is only beyond the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal law.
The judge having heard all the evidence has stated a fact that would be recorded in the court that js has been dishonest and as such would not have taken her evidence as fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?