Rumours
Re: Rumours
colinboag wrote:Can I just say that I don't 100% buy this stuff about Ex' being the most disadvantaged. Had Sarries been weaker, they might not have reached the final, and the team that did might have had a really good day - glorious uncertainty, etc.
I agree
Re: Rumours
Where did I say that Saracens players were guilty of a crime,I did say the club actions were criminal ,and as we know not all criminals are brought to trial if it embarrasses the people with money and does not serve their purpose
If Joe Bloggs fails to pay his taxes he is taken to court and ends up with a criminal conviction companies have their accountants reach an agreement to pay some of the amount they owe and then carry on as normal
Re: Rumours
caldiglaws wrote:Where did I say that Saracens players were guilty of a crime,I did say the club actions were criminal ,and as we know not all criminals are brought to trial if it embarrasses the people with money and does not serve their purpose
If Joe Bloggs fails to pay his taxes he is taken to court and ends up with a criminal conviction companies have their accountants reach an agreement to pay some of the amount they owe and then carry on as normal
Caldi - You initially described and insinuated Saracens as being guilty of criminal behaviour. You then extended the same blanket of criminality to cover their players. You wrote "I'm sure a good lawyer could look at payments made to Saracens players and the club's denial of some of these payments and make a case for fraud or tax evasion if they wanted to criminally charge them".
Sarries have broken PRL's Rules. Possibly their players were aware of same. Both were guilty of breaking PRL Rules but neither are criminals per se.
Similarly Joe Marler broke a rugby Regulation and was rightly punished. He is not a criminal either.
Re: Rumours
Gloucester Mute wrote:Similarly Joe Marler broke a rugby Regulation and was rightly punished. He is not a criminal either.
Or is he, he was found guilty by the RFU of an act that is against the laws of rugby but would also be a criminal offence if taken further, he has not been found guilty of a crime by a court but admits to committing a criminal offence, is he a criminal by definition
Simon Devereux would possibly have an opinion on this
Re: Rumours
Gloucester Mute wrote:caldiglaws wrote:Where did I say that Saracens players were guilty of a crime,I did say the club actions were criminal ,and as we know not all criminals are brought to trial if it embarrasses the people with money and does not serve their purpose
If Joe Bloggs fails to pay his taxes he is taken to court and ends up with a criminal conviction companies have their accountants reach an agreement to pay some of the amount they owe and then carry on as normal
Caldi - You initially described and insinuated Saracens as being guilty of criminal behaviour. You then extended the same blanket of criminality to cover their players. You wrote "I'm sure a good lawyer could look at payments made to Saracens players and the club's denial of some of these payments and make a case for fraud or tax evasion if they wanted to criminally charge them".
Sarries have broken PRL's Rules. Possibly their players were aware of same. Both were guilty of breaking PRL Rules but neither are criminals per se.
Similarly Joe Marler broke a rugby Regulation and was rightly punished. He is not a criminal either.
No I can't see him wearing balls and chains...or smashing and grabbing either
Re: Rumours
Castle Grim Reaper wrote:Gloucester Mute wrote:Similarly Joe Marler broke a rugby Regulation and was rightly punished. He is not a criminal either.
Or is he, he was found guilty by the RFU of an act that is against the laws of rugby but would also be a criminal offence if taken further, he has not been found guilty of a crime by a court but admits to committing a criminal offence, is he a criminal by definition
Simon Devereux would possibly have an opinion on this
CGR - You are muddling yourself between Laws of the Land v Rules and Regulations of Rugby.
I am certain that if the CPS/Police wanted to charge Marler for breaking a Law of the Land they would have charged him with same.
Re: Rumours
They may just do so if they get a complaint. There is a subtle difference between committing a criminal act and being charged with such....
Most people on this board will have got away with a minor criminal act at least once in their lives.
Re: Rumours
My point was that the dictionary definition of criminal is somebody who has committed a crime, not somebody who has been convicted of a crime. As he has admitted to doing something that is a criminal offence he has therefore by definition admitted to being a criminal.
You may think I am splitting hairs, whereas in truth I am pointing out that you are with your condemnation 
(Not aimed at you Sir H 
)
Re: Rumours
SirHenry wrote:They may just do so if they get a complaint. There is a subtle difference between committing a criminal act and being charged with such....
Most people on this board will have got away with a minor criminal act at least once in their lives.
Yes not agreeing with Mute ....