Crosswords14 mins ago
Was the Harry Rednapp trial a waste of money
It cost far more than the amount of money the IR believed had been evaded. That is probaly true of every prosecution, it just seems they wanted to make an example of him and it has backfired.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, and he was doing what any right-minded citizen would do – protecting , as far as he could and by any legal means at his disposal, his cash from the remotest possibility of it being appropriated by the revenue for the government to waste.
As I said in an earlier thread, Dave Hartnett, the head of HMRC let two multi-national companies avoid payment of upwards of £6bn, which puts Mr Rednapp’s £100k or so into perspective. Let’s not castigate Mr Rednapp for earning a few bob and trying to keep hold of it. The fact that he cannot read and write as well as some is further to his credit. It shows you can be successful without an Eton and Oxbridge education.
The revenue got it wrong. They did not have sufficient evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty of an offence and so it follows he is not guity – there is nothing in between. But to hear the sulky HMRC spokesman Chris Martin on the steps of Southwark Crown Court last week you would never think so.
So, to answer your question, if I was able to keep the prying eyes and thieving hands of the revenue off of some of my cash by opening a Monaco account in my dog’s name, I’d do exactly the same.
As I said in an earlier thread, Dave Hartnett, the head of HMRC let two multi-national companies avoid payment of upwards of £6bn, which puts Mr Rednapp’s £100k or so into perspective. Let’s not castigate Mr Rednapp for earning a few bob and trying to keep hold of it. The fact that he cannot read and write as well as some is further to his credit. It shows you can be successful without an Eton and Oxbridge education.
The revenue got it wrong. They did not have sufficient evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty of an offence and so it follows he is not guity – there is nothing in between. But to hear the sulky HMRC spokesman Chris Martin on the steps of Southwark Crown Court last week you would never think so.
So, to answer your question, if I was able to keep the prying eyes and thieving hands of the revenue off of some of my cash by opening a Monaco account in my dog’s name, I’d do exactly the same.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.