|
|
News
Topic has 25 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 10/05/2008, 9:25 PM
|
ROBERT
 
Joined on 16/08/2003
NR Gt. Yarmouth
Posts 3,389
|
|
|
 keith gerrard wrote: | |
Yes, but I still cannot understand why those responsible for these obvious frauds are not arrested.
Do the authorities not realize that to omit to do so, will open the door for further abuse of the publics trust.
Are we building a criminal society that is accepted here?
|
|
Keith, you have hit the nail on the head. It also stems throughout the whole justice system of pityfully poor sentencing and failing in bringing in this case blantant fruadsters to justice.
Someone is to blame and gave the OK to put these programmes on and is very highly paid. and should be able to know what is right or wrong in doing so.
I have no respect for these people drawing wads of cash, making massive mistakes and go unpunished after breaking the law which many others would not get away with. Nobody excepts the responsibility but somebody makes the decision and takes the salary.
A very sad reflection on us as a nation, creating high paid criminals above the law...........?
We have a society that treat celebs and other highly paid with total amunity from the law at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008, 2:30 AM
|
Equitator
Joined on 04/11/2003
Posts 935
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you know that this money was just resting in their account…
The circumstances of this omission seem to come within the orbit of the Fraud Act 2006, which came into force on 15 January 2007. The Act repeals and replaces the eight deception offences in the Theft Acts 1968 -1996. It introduces a general offence of fraud, and other fraud offences which can be used in particular circumstances.
If any alleged offence occurred before the present Act came into force then the Theft Acts 1968 -1996 will apply.
If it was known by the parties that their process was subject to certain audit then I would say that no criminal offence has been committed.
If it was known by the parties that their process might be subject to audit and they took no beneficial action in the interim in the hope that they might get away with something, then I would say that under any of the Acts a criminal offence has been committed.
Equitator
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008, 11:28 PM
|
gardener
Joined on 04/10/2007
Posts 927
|
|
|
|
|
All I know is that one has such a high forehead he looks like Boris Karloff ( or even Hermann Munster)
Let's have a good things to come out of Newcastle thread...
Newky broon-bottles handy for p****** into at concerts in t old days when bottles were allowed..
Lindisfarne- handy for singing along to when p***** on the afore mentioned
But not Ant and Dec.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 (26 items)
|
< 1 2 |
|
|
|
EDP24 Forums » EDP24 General » News » Re: Arrest Ant and Dek
|
|
|
|