(and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really.
Pardon me, is that a Belgian frite on your shoulder?
(and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really.
Pardon me, is that a Belgian frite on your shoulder?
no, but lets be honest - you and plenty of others on here can't stand being out of the loop - most are just concerned about the crap on the pitch
At the end of the day, what harm has it done? None, so why would the Police want to investigate. Neither KM or Charlton suffered (until the club made it public, then they only felt embarrassment). She was running the club fro 5/12 until now without any effect, so who has suffered?
Funny thing is - why would RD remove her from the post, when she is the one taking all the stick - I know she's brought it on herself (and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really. She's clearly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things - its him that needs to be targeted .
I would hazard a guess that the hope behind the anti-Meire comments (or abuse, if you will) is that they will demonstrate to the court of public opinion that she is incompetent and, more importantly, encourage her to quit. We cannot do anything, beyond involving the Belgian media (on which, well done to those who have, by the way), of putting much pressure on Duchatelet himself without protesting in Belgium. However, as I understand it, the aim of the protests is to make Charlton unmanageable for the regime and pressure it out. I'd be fairly certain that if Meire can be "persuaded" to jump ship, and if similar pressure continues with whoever would be her replacement, that outcome can be achieved. We want him to wish he had never brought us into his network.
(and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really.
Pardon me, is that a Belgian frite on your shoulder?
no, but lets be honest - you and plenty of others on here can't stand being out of the loop - most are just concerned about the crap on the pitch
I have believed all along that protests against her should be no-nonsense but not personal. If we stoop low it hands her the moral high ground with the media and she simply does not deserve that. It's working at the moment because even the press are picking her apart, so keep protests not about Meire the person but about her incompetence and the fact she's a lying puppet.
As far as this site is concerned, I still reserve the right to refer to her as Squirrel Face (mainly because it still makes me chuckle) but will limit myself to that!
Funny thing is - why would RD remove her from the post, when she is the one taking all the stick - I know she's brought it on herself (and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really. She's clearly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things - its him that needs to be targeted .
He isn't here, and she has stated publicly on at least two occasions, that we need to deal with her, not him. Therefore, she gets it.
She doesn't do herself any favours anyway, she walks into blunder after blunder, I've never known a person like it. It's almost like she's a comedy sketch character, except it isn't funny, it's actually embarrassing that someone like that is in charge of the club.
(and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really.
Pardon me, is that a Belgian frite on your shoulder?
no, but lets be honest - you and plenty of others on here can't stand being out of the loop - most are just concerned about the crap on the pitch
You've got me confused, I don't even know where the loop is!
I'll take it as a compliment that you think I'm actually in the know on anything. But I think that says more about you then me!
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.
It would, but as @Airman Brown said, it would take a lot of police time and effort to find out who did it (even if they could) and they have a lot of other more pressing things to occupy them other than an upset precious Belgian. I doubt the police have even been informed, nor do I imagine the club is investigating anything. What are they going to do? Ask for handwriting samples from everyone going through the turnstiles on Saturday?
absolutely, sorry should have read all comments. Was just responding to AB stating it's not fraud, which is incorrect. Don't doubt its going to be hard to track the guilty party down though, and I certainly hope they are not successful.
(and the intellectuals on here love nothing more than an argument, particularly if somebody implies they are more intelligent - no greater crime on here other than being more ITK). Personally I think the abuse aimed at her is a bit childish and to a certain extent, cowardly really.
Pardon me, is that a Belgian frite on your shoulder?
no, but lets be honest - you and plenty of others on here can't stand being out of the loop - most are just concerned about the crap on the pitch
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.
It would, but as @Airman Brown said, it would take a lot of police time and effort to find out who did it (even if they could) and they have a lot of other more pressing things to occupy them other than an upset precious Belgian. I doubt the police have even been informed, nor do I imagine the club is investigating anything. What are they going to do? Ask for handwriting samples from everyone going through the turnstiles on Saturday?
absolutely, sorry should have read all comments. Was just responding to AB stating it's not fraud, which is incorrect. Don't doubt its going to be hard to track the guilty party down though, and I certainly hope they are not successful.
cafcfan has already replied to you on this - which seems to be well argued but you don't seem to have responded to him?
cafcfan Member 11:18AM
cafcfan1990 said:
» show previous quotes It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed. The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
i'm not claiming to know the law either way BUT surely someone has presented company's house with false documents and they have done so fraudulently by forging her signature?
i'm not claiming to know the law either way BUT surely someone has presented company's house with false documents and they have done so fraudulently by forging her signature?
The press release was a gaff. And boldly stating the club had launched an investigation keeps this alive as until they announce the investigation has concluded, it is fair game for her to be asked at every interview what the state of that investigation is.
KM is failing mega style as a CEO of a Championship club. She makes blunders at all stages. Cannot encourage law breaking but the " resignation" issue gives her bad publicity, lets the outside world know what she is thought of at Charlton. Make it easy KM resign totally from the club.
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed. The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?
Comments
She's gonna sign in a minute
As far as this site is concerned, I still reserve the right to refer to her as Squirrel Face (mainly because it still makes me chuckle) but will limit myself to that!
She doesn't do herself any favours anyway, she walks into blunder after blunder, I've never known a person like it. It's almost like she's a comedy sketch character, except it isn't funny, it's actually embarrassing that someone like that is in charge of the club.
I'll take it as a compliment that you think I'm actually in the know on anything. But I think that says more about you then me!
“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you.”
Matthew 18 Chap 9
Even the bible wants her gone
cafcfan Member
11:18AM
cafcfan1990 said:
» show previous quotes
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
Cannot encourage law breaking but the " resignation" issue gives her bad publicity, lets the outside world know what she is thought of at Charlton.
Make it easy KM resign totally from the club.
You've got me confused, I don't even know where the loop is!
I'll take it as a compliment that you think I'm actually in the know on anything. But I think that says more about you/blockquote
Maybe I have - r u one of the moderators? I'm sure u got a bit shirty with me once before when I posted under a different name.