markhotte Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3584261/FA-in-50k-bung-probe.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3584261/FA-in-50k-bung-probe.html is it common knowledge that thats his dad or guess work ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 is it common knowledge that thats his dad or guess work ? Looking at the photo, I'd say they've got to be related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 i know that his dad is an 'agent' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Who hands over £30k without asking questions and taking legal advice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1laticsfan Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 fact that it's his dad! 100% definate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 fact that it's his dad! 100% definate. FACT or fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 What is the word, "married," doing in that article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1laticsfan Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Just fact, no need to shout it ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Just fact, no need to shout it ) FACT holds more meaning Edited May 20, 2011 by razza699 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 fact that it's his dad! 100% definate. I think what people mean is: Is it fact becasue you know him, by sight etc or fact because it stands to reason and logially it has to be him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loftyboy Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) I think what people mean is: Is it fact becasue you know him, by sight etc or fact because it stands to reason and logially it has to be him. I believe that the Mr Black in The Sun was hanging around at Latics during the "pinch me" seasons of the early nineties, I seem to recall him sat on the bench next to Big Joe. Edited May 20, 2011 by Loftyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1laticsfan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 It's fact cos I know the family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Who hands over £30k without asking questions and taking legal advice? Footballers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Footballers? Well fair play to Mr Black for taking advantage of a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well fair play to Mr Black for taking advantage of a moron. Give over. It's theft, regardless of whether the victim is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How is it theft if women asks you for money and you give it to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How is it theft if women asks you for money and you give it to them? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1laticsfan Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 The guys a prick in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 "Someone," not, "women." Unless the exchange was made in the Georgian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 "Someone," not, "women." Unless the exchange was made in the Georgian. It's irrelevant how the money was appropriated; if it was done so dishonestly, it's theft. Dishonesty is defined on the basis of whether the reasonable man would have believed it to be dishonest and whether the person in question knew it was dishonest by those standards. Asserting that someone owes you money when they don't is dishonest and is therefore theft, if you take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 It's irrelevant how the money was appropriated; if it was done so dishonestly, it's theft. Dishonesty is defined on the basis of whether the reasonable man would have believed it to be dishonest and whether the person in question knew it was dishonest by those standards. Asserting that someone owes you money when they don't is dishonest and is therefore theft, if you take it. If you're the reasonable man, I'd hate to read an unreasonable man's thoughts on this. Typing long, incomprehensible sentences doesn't make you correct. You seem to be describing fraud (in probably the most bizarre way possible). Theft is taking without the owner's consent. This is fraud. The whole thing reminds me of those kool-aid drinking rapture folk who thought they were evaporating this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 If you're the reasonable man, I'd hate to read an unreasonable man's thoughts on this. Typing long, incomprehensible sentences doesn't make you correct. You seem to be describing fraud (in probably the most bizarre way possible). Theft is taking without the owner's consent. This is fraud. The whole thing reminds me of those kool-aid drinking rapture folk who thought they were evaporating this weekend. Well, thanks for putting me and my long, incomprehensible sentences right. I can see why you might think it is fraud, and perhaps there's an argument that it is, but I'd suggest that the Theft Act and the cases of R v Hinks, R v Gomez and R v Lawrence point to theft. And theft and taking without owner's consent are two separate crimes. Mine's a Kool-Aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Well, thanks for putting me and my long, incomprehensible sentences right. I can see why you might think it is fraud, and perhaps there's an argument that it is, but I'd suggest that the Theft Act and the cases of R v Hinks, R v Gomez and R v Lawrence point to theft. And theft and taking without owner's consent are two separate crimes. Mine's a Kool-Aid. The Fraud Act (2006) points to fraud, specifically secton 2 "Fraud by false representation". http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 Your cases all pre-date the Fraud Act but: R v Hinks - SHE withdrew the money, it wasn't given to her (despite her amusing defence). R v Gomez - he basically nicked some things from a shop. They may be theft but they're both quite different from this case. Even so they could be reasonably argued as fraud under the new act - obtaining property by deception. R v Lawrence - only reference I can find is a driving offence! Its obviously a grey area. Fraud used to be considered under the Theft Act but was distinct (Section 15). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/fraud-and-blackmail#commentary-c1854191 BTW I was comparing the footballer, not you, to the kool-aid drinkers. Edited May 23, 2011 by bossrocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.