Telegraph Entrapment Scheme

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

I used to like thier crossword - but little else.

More of a Beano man politicaly. Haven't bought a paper for 20 years except when on holiday to do a crossword.

They are all poor and with thier owners agendas clouding everything.

Yes it did have a good crossword

 

[johnola]

I had a bit of a legal wrangle with a minion employed by the telegraph.

We rented a house from her mum and on giving notice when her mum was undergoing hospital treatment she unjustly with held our deposit.

The filth and lies she wrote about us in the arbitration hearing were completely fabricated, demonstrably wrong and personal. She lost.

Makes me laugh to hear that rag pretend to be holier than thou.

 

[T-C]

While I think this whole thing is a joke, its good to see Redknapp reverting to type....

“They never had a bet anyway,” Redknapp continued. “No-one had a bet. Impossible. Anyone who’s watching this who understands betting odds knows that a team on the top playing a team that’s relegated, it’s not a betting proposition. You can’t bet on that. It’s ridiculous.”

Errrr.... the story doesn't mention the teams or time of year Harry, and the allegation related to spread betting on the score so they would definitely get the odds.

 

[thfcsteff]

Its all about opinion. Mine is he was talking over possible options for a paid lecture tour at a 'private' meeting and was not aware he was being taped. He like many said things that IF he had known it was going to be broadcast, he may or may not have said, but he was not given that common courtesy. But we live in a media fudge fest now, with reality TV addicts lapping this stuff up. As for the FA they are rank amature at best unfit to goven the game. England manager should have ALL there meeting vetted by a FA appointed PA to safeguard against the predatory media and this now should be mandatory for all top clubs.

It could be easily be our manager caught with hi guard down at a private function, luckily I hope Levy will be on this.

This was done to sell newspapers nothing else. These so called "reporters" are venal tripe hounds.

Are you talking about Pochettino? I will send you money for a fine dinner if he is ever stung. I will categorically tell you he is not of that nature or type. Look, let's face some shadow truths here...Fat Sam, Redknapp, Pulis and that school of 'management' all dine at the same restaurant and all received the same education.

 

[thfcsteff]

But you don't like him to start off with!

I am ambivalent towards Sam in this instance as I am to all people in his situation.
This type of so called evidence gathering is intrapment pure and simple and stinks of hypocrisy. Two wrong don't make a right.

Entrapment is used every single day in law enforcement mate, do me a favour!!! As for this situation, again, if Fat Sam was innocent there would be nothing to report. How about we recognise that he was wholly irresponsible and stupid?

 

[StephenH]

Entrapment is used every single day in law enforcement mate, do me a favour!!! As for this situation, again, if Fat Sam was innocent there would be nothing to report. How about we recognise that he was wholly irresponsible and stupid?

Actually "entrapment" not used by the police.

have a read http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/police-entrapment/

 

[glorygloryeze]

He a football manager not the CEO of a FTSE 500 company.........stop being so pompous.
If he wrote a FAQ on "3rd party ownership" and published on his web site after being told not by the FA. Then by Sam, but all this is OTT and I understand it common knowledge how these can be circumvented.

Ridiculous comment, esp the bolded bit

 

[thfcsteff]

Actually "entrapment" not used by the police.

have a read http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/police-entrapment/

I did.
And it is.
First off, here's a paragraph from your own PDF which would actually show that if there is still anyone left who believes poor poor Fat Sam was a victim of 'entrapment' then they should consider the fact that it might not be a point of defence (depending on how many pounds an hour your lawyer charges to find the loopholes flunkies and public defenders simply don't know).

<<
Entrapment as a defence?
Entrapment cannot be used as a defence in court proceedings. This is because the act of entrapment does not take away the intent to commit a guilty act from the accused. In this sense the entrapment has served its purpose in that a prohibited act was observed, the guilty party arrested and the guilty intent supposedly not manipulated, just the circumstances surrounding the guilty act. It would be taken into account however as mentioned above, if the actions of the police or other government agents acted contrary to the integrity of the criminal justice system, in which sense it is not for a defence lawyer to use but for a judge to ascertain and act accordingly.>>

I think you might find this interesting reading.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/01/point-of-law.aspx

I think what we might be disagreeing on is whether The Telegraph set-up an 'innocent man' to 'commit a potentially unlawful act' he might previously have not considered but for the specifically-engineered opportunity. You know, like if I was to somehow ensnare you to meet me on the Seven Sisters Road on the chance I might have a bindle of dope! Let's face it, unless you are a dope user, you are going to politely tell me where the sun doesn't shine.

You can most certainly 'entrap' those who commit offences/have interest in committing offences. You cannot 'entrap' someone who doesn't. My neighbour tells me about 'sting' operations they have had to run, and they have even been subject to 'perps'...

Anyway...he deserved EVERYTHING he got in my opinion.

 

[StephenH]

I did.
And it is.
First off, here's a paragraph from your own PDF which would actually show that if there is still anyone left who believes poor poor Fat Sam was a victim of 'entrapment' then they should consider the fact that it might not be a point of defence (depending on how many pounds an hour your lawyer charges to find the loopholes flunkies and public defenders simply don't know).

<<
Entrapment as a defence?
Entrapment cannot be used as a defence in court proceedings. This is because the act of entrapment does not take away the intent to commit a guilty act from the accused. In this sense the entrapment has served its purpose in that a prohibited act was observed, the guilty party arrested and the guilty intent supposedly not manipulated, just the circumstances surrounding the guilty act. It would be taken into account however as mentioned above, if the actions of the police or other government agents acted contrary to the integrity of the criminal justice system, in which sense it is not for a defence lawyer to use but for a judge to ascertain and act accordingly.>>

I think you might find this interesting reading.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/01/point-of-law.aspx

I think what we might be disagreeing on is whether The Telegraph set-up an 'innocent man' to 'commit a potentially unlawful act' he might previously have not considered but for the specifically-engineered opportunity. You know, like if I was to somehow ensnare you to meet me on the Seven Sisters Road on the chance I might have a bindle of dope! Let's face it, unless you are a dope user, you are going to politely tell me where the sun doesn't shine.

You can most certainly 'entrap' those who commit offences/have interest in committing offences. You cannot 'entrap' someone who doesn't. My neighbour tells me about 'sting' operations they have had to run, and they have even been subject to 'perps'...

Anyway...he deserved EVERYTHING he got in my opinion.

I do not agree with stings for non criminal act. I they are a 'sting' or 'con' to sell flagging newspapers.
Was not fussed about Sam and England like many on here, thought he should be given a chance, so 'I' no prior axe to grind regarding Sam.

Please Southgate has been given a chance.

But I will never be comfortable with these type exposes. loathed the MP Duck house hyperbole.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

I do not agree with stings for non criminal act. I they are a 'sting' or 'con' to sell flagging newspapers.
Was not fused about Sam and England like many on here, thought he should be given a chance, so 'I' no prior axe to grind regarding Sam.

Please Southgate has been given a chance.

But I will never be comfortable with these type exposes. loathed the MP Duck house hyperbole.

Agree, what do they tell us about human nature that anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't already know?

 

[parklane1]

I did.
And it is.
First off, here's a paragraph from your own PDF which would actually show that if there is still anyone left who believes poor poor Fat Sam was a victim of 'entrapment' then they should consider the fact that it might not be a point of defence (depending on how many pounds an hour your lawyer charges to find the loopholes flunkies and public defenders simply don't know).

<<
Entrapment as a defence?
Entrapment cannot be used as a defence in court proceedings. This is because the act of entrapment does not take away the intent to commit a guilty act from the accused. In this sense the entrapment has served its purpose in that a prohibited act was observed, the guilty party arrested and the guilty intent supposedly not manipulated, just the circumstances surrounding the guilty act. It would be taken into account however as mentioned above, if the actions of the police or other government agents acted contrary to the integrity of the criminal justice system, in which sense it is not for a defence lawyer to use but for a judge to ascertain and act accordingly.>>

I think you might find this interesting reading.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/01/point-of-law.aspx

I think what we might be disagreeing on is whether The Telegraph set-up an 'innocent man' to 'commit a potentially unlawful act' he might previously have not considered but for the specifically-engineered opportunity. You know, like if I was to somehow ensnare you to meet me on the Seven Sisters Road on the chance I might have a bindle of dope! Let's face it, unless you are a dope user, you are going to politely tell me where the sun doesn't shine.

You can most certainly 'entrap' those who commit offences/have interest in committing offences. You cannot 'entrap' someone who doesn't. My neighbour tells me about 'sting' operations they have had to run, and they have even been subject to 'perps'...

Anyway...he deserved EVERYTHING he got in my opinion.

Its a pity it took so long.


YEp

 

[thfcsteff]

I do not agree with stings for non criminal act. I they are a 'sting' or 'con' to sell flagging newspapers.
Was not fussed about Sam and England like many on here, thought he should be given a chance, so 'I' no prior axe to grind regarding Sam.

Please Southgate has been given a chance.

But I will never be comfortable with these type exposes. loathed the MP Duck house hyperbole.

Fair enough mate, we agree to disagree based on the specifics of the 'piece' in hand. I agree, there are times when these 'stings' are of no public service whatsoever (Hugh Grant for example, who cares who blows his todger?) but for me, this was of public interest and legit given it is a position of national significance. As always, good discussion.