Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Katrien sacked?

1192022242530

Comments

  • cabbles
    cabbles Posts: 15,256
    cafcfan said:

    I understand that until recently Katrien thought Companies House was a music genre.

    Lmfao :smiley:

    Very good @cafcfan - don't get above your station and try and take me on when it comes to fact of the day though. 30 odd lols earlier, the public has spoken
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,742
    edited February 2016

    cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
  • PL54
    PL54 Posts: 10,757

    cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    It was you wasn't it......
  • cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Reputational damage?

    I'll get my coat
  • cafcfan1990
    cafcfan1990 Posts: 12,811

    cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Look, I am not arguing they caused loss, but how can we talk about intention without knowing who even did it? I also agree the only costs will be admin costs, etc, nothing significant in the slightest.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,733
    I can't see why anybody is arguing at all - great effort from whoever did it. We shouldn't be debating anything other than how clever they were.
  • Dippenhall
    Dippenhall Posts: 3,919
    First thing we did when we set up our company was to register for online filing. It's easier and prevents a Charlton supporter sending in a spoof change of director. Company secretary's job, or his wife if she's working for the regime.
  • DA9
    DA9 Posts: 11,091
    I'm Spartacus
  • mogodon
    mogodon Posts: 3,406

    cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Look, I am not arguing they caused loss, but how can we talk about intention without knowing who even did it? I also agree the only costs will be admin costs, etc, nothing significant in the slightest.
    It actually doesn't matter. The police won't care, the club won't even bother to investigate as it will be a waste of time, and it will be another stick to beat the current regime (and boy are they the gift that keeps giving). End of.
  • Sponsored links:



  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,263

    This will go down in our history.

    Along with a useless manager and his amusing sidekick CEO escaping from Colchester in a laundry van, to the music from 'The Great Escape'.
    Yes, somebody should write a sitcom about it all
    I thought they had ?

    The liar without make up ?
  • Wheresmeticket
    Wheresmeticket Posts: 17,304
    edited February 2016
    Maybe they'll keep us all behind at the next game until whoever did it owns up?
    I am Spartacus.
  • Wheresmeticket
    Wheresmeticket Posts: 17,304
    edited February 2016
    .
  • HandG
    HandG Posts: 2,134
    It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.
  • hermann
    hermann Posts: 481
    One of the top stories on news aggregation site NewsNow (box on the right hand side): newsnow.co.uk/h/

  • DA9
    DA9 Posts: 11,091
    HandG said:

    It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.

    Akin to issuing a statement that "the search for a full time head coach now starts"
  • Maybe they'll keep us all behind at make us attend the next game until whoever did it owns up?
    I am Spartacus.

    Fixed it for myself.
  • HandG said:

    It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.

    If they want to create a martyr, crack on.
  • cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Reputational damage?

    I'll get my coat
    Damage to her pride, maybe ?

    And we all know what pride comes before......

  • cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Reputational damage?

    I'll get my coat
    Damage to her pride, maybe ?

    And we all know what pride comes before......

    A huge spike in the share price of KY Jelly.
  • Sponsored links:



  • cafcfan said:

    Nicholas said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house

    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?
    What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.
    Reputational damage?

    I'll get my coat
    Damage to her pride, maybe ?

    And we all know what pride comes before......

    A huge spike in the share price of KY Jelly.
    Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not entirely sure that we all knew that.....
  • Missed It
    Missed It Posts: 2,734
    Are any of the media types on here able to get an estimate of the cash value of the media coverage generated by this latest Meire mishap? All for the price of a first class stamp!
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    Who cares who done it.

    She bit and it went all over the media like wildfire.

    Hopefully she won't learn from it
  • J BLOCK said:

    Roland en route

    Doing a Christian Gross.
  • J BLOCK said:

    Roland en route

    He's eyeing you in a particularly predatory manner. I can see a crimewatch appeal pending.

    "Mr J Block was last seen snapping this middle aged man on a train. Police would like to speak to this man to assist with their inquiries. He is known to have a fondness for collecting obscure footballers from the backwaters of Europe and the middle east and should not be approached."
  • C_A_F_C
    C_A_F_C Posts: 3,866
    Thats what happens when you hire Karel Fraeye to drive you around London.
  • J BLOCK said:

    Roland en route

    Doing a Christian Gross.
    Are you sure, it doesn't even look like he's straining....
  • LuckyReds
    LuckyReds Posts: 5,866
    edited February 2016
    J BLOCK said:

    Roland en route

    Wait... that is isnt it?

    Cheap git has over half a billion in the bank and wont even bother with a £15 uber. Typical.