craig 5,199 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/03/20/king-strikes-confidential-deal-with-sars http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/06/28/player-in-court-wrangle-with-king-curator-over-stud-farm First link is a settlement, not a conviction. The 2nd one also doesnt confirm a conviction. So, unless I am missing something, I dont see any convictions for tax evasion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Gangsters Al Capone Easdales tax evasion, what does that make King ? Al Capone was not a gangster because he dodged tax, nor are people calling Easdale a gangster because one of them once dodged tax. Edited July 10, 2013 by Super Cooper 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 First link is a settlement, not a conviction. The 2nd one also doesnt confirm a conviction. So, unless I am missing something, I dont see any convictions for tax evasion. What you also don't see is 332 outstanding criminal charges, if you see a settlement forced on King by a South African bench seizure of property and monies as some sort of vindication of his tax expertise who am I to argue. King of course is purer than the driven snow as we are all aware, seizure and settlement was because King had done no wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 What you also don't see is 332 outstanding criminal charges, if you see a settlement forced on King by a South African bench seizure of property and monies as some sort of vindication of his tax expertise who am I to argue. King of course is purer than the driven snow as we are all aware, seizure and settlement was because King had done no wrong. Outstanding charges doesnt mean he is a criminal, unless I missed the "innocent until proven guilty" legal mantra. My original post asked if "King had been convicted" - you posted two links to suggest he had. Neither link prove any convictions. This is nothing to do with supposition, you posted suggesting he had been convicted when evidently he hasnt been. Settlements do not always accompany accepted guilt. Or, are we saying that RFC would have been guilty of the EBT evasion case if Whyte had been successful in his settlement attempt ? No, it doesnt mean we were guilty, it means we would have seen the benefit of simply paying for the issue to be resolved. Do you know for sure that this wasnt Dave King's reasoning when he settled ? Remember, it could very well have been worth his while settling given his assets were frozen - a settlement which appeases both sides would make sense. As for the outstanding charges... no convictions yet, correct ? I didnt see me suggesting anywhere that he was as pure as the driven snow, can you point me to where I said that please ? What I will point to was my question as to whether or not he had been convicted of tax evasion.... and your links in supprt of that didnt, in fact, support it at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 green is holding a knife to our throat with this. and by we i mean rangers. in order to maximize his monetary gain. the question is when does he start cutting of fingers and what does that involve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Outstanding charges doesnt mean he is a criminal, unless I missed the "innocent until proven guilty" legal mantra. My original post asked if "King had been convicted" - you posted two links to suggest he had. Neither link prove any convictions. This is nothing to do with supposition, you posted suggesting he had been convicted when evidently he hasnt been. Settlements do not always accompany accepted guilt. Or, are we saying that RFC would have been guilty of the EBT evasion case if Whyte had been successful in his settlement attempt ? No, it doesnt mean we were guilty, it means we would have seen the benefit of simply paying for the issue to be resolved. Do you know for sure that this wasnt Dave King's reasoning when he settled ? Remember, it could very well have been worth his while settling given his assets were frozen - a settlement which appeases both sides would make sense. As for the outstanding charges... no convictions yet, correct ? I didnt see me suggesting anywhere that he was as pure as the driven snow, can you point me to where I said that please ? What I will point to was my question as to whether or not he had been convicted of tax evasion.... and your links in supprt of that didnt, in fact, support it at all. What I will point to is your ability to suspend the reality of King's position and the censures imposed on him, your stance is akin to that of the appeal Judge who the other day claimed that the man cleared of Jill Dando's murder after serving eight years was not innocent enough to warrant compensation, maybe you don't think King is guilty of anything and has been relieved of his ill gotten gains by the big bad SARS and courts. King is a wrong un, you are of course free to disagree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 sars are famously corrupt and racist. iirc the guy at sars who went after king had had to leave because of the witch hunt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 What I will point to is your ability to suspend the reality of King's position and the censures imposed on him, your stance is akin to that of the appeal Judge who the other day claimed that the man cleared of Jill Dando's murder after serving eight years was not innocent enough to warrant compensation, maybe you don't think King is guilty of anything and has been relieved of his ill gotten gains by the big bad SARS and courts. King is a wrong un, you are of course free to disagree. No more wrong than Easdale though, right ? Except Easdale's brother DID get convicted of tax evasion, whilst King hasnt as yet. The reality of King's position, no matter how long or how loud you remonstrate, is that he hasnt been convicted as yet. Could he ? Of course. Has he ? Not yet, not as far as I can see. Nothing to do with suspending reality. Was it not you that mentioned that you deal in FACTS.... well, fact is, unless there is a conviction I havent seen as yet, is that King hasnt been convicted. That would appear to be the facts as they currently stand. No need to suspend reality for that. Perhaps it is YOU that is suspending reality to shoe-horn your dislike of King into a "convicted tax evader" persona. Again, I dont believe I said that King is not guilty of anything. I will go by the facts if that is OK by you.... and fact is, even though SARS have, as you mention, 323 charges up against him.... those charges have been placed upon King for a decade now... how come SARS dont have any convictions as yet ? Again, I am not saying he is innocent... but if SARS had found enough to convict, you dont think they would have done so by now ? King may indeed be a wrong un, but personally I dont think he is any worse than having the Easdale's with the hand in the running of Rangers. Personally I would prefer King to Easdale, as is my prerogative. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 No more wrong than Easdale though, right ? Except Easdale's brother DID get convicted of tax evasion, whilst King hasnt as yet. The reality of King's position, no matter how long or how loud you remonstrate, is that he hasnt been convicted as yet. Could he ? Of course. Has he ? Not yet, not as far as I can see. Nothing to do with suspending reality. Was it not you that mentioned that you deal in FACTS.... well, fact is, unless there is a conviction I havent seen as yet, is that King hasnt been convicted. That would appear to be the facts as they currently stand. No need to suspend reality for that. Perhaps it is YOU that is suspending reality to shoe-horn your dislike of King into a "convicted tax evader" persona. Again, I dont believe I said that King is not guilty of anything. I will go by the facts if that is OK by you.... and fact is, even though SARS have, as you mention, 323 charges up against him.... those charges have been placed upon King for a decade now... how come SARS dont have any convictions as yet ? Again, I am not saying he is innocent... but if SARS had found enough to convict, you dont think they would have done so by now ? King may indeed be a wrong un, but personally I dont think he is any worse than having the Easdale's with the hand in the running of Rangers. Personally I would prefer King to Easdale, as is my prerogative. Facts are simple, Easdales brother was convicted and King was relieved of shed loads of ill gotten gains by South African courts, ideally neither should darken the hallowed portals, however saints are thin on the ground especially in business. and as usual we the fans will have no say. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Facts are simple, Easdales brother was convicted and King was relieved of shed loads of ill gotten gains by South African courts, ideally neither should darken the hallowed portals, however saints are thin on the ground especially in business. and as usual we the fans will have no say. How much did the shed loads amount to? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.