Chelsea up for sale?

[Pezo]

28 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

How precisely is his freedom being taken away, other than his freedom to sell Chelsea for megabucks then - checks notes - ah, yes, "donate" the money to war victims?  

He isn't being detained. He lives in unabashed luxury in Israel and Monte Carlo. 

See my other post on what a massive gangster he is. He should never have been allowed into the UK in the first place, let alone be passed a fit and proper person to own a major English football club.

Still, he'll appreciate your concern.

I'm not concerned about him, I'm concerned about freedoms from government tyranny that I thought this country used to stand for being implemented to get popular headlines. He has a travel ban so there are restrictions on his freedom. Where is the due process and innocent until proven guilty.

All the others sanctioned today have highly obvious links to the Kremlin right now except RA who as far as I can tell hasn't had much to do with VP in the last 15 years.

If someone can show that he is funneling money to the Kremlin and funding the Putin war machine then I will leave it but I can't see anything.

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's OK mate. Present your question to the Foreign Office, MI6, the International Crime Bureau etc if you think the UK has been unfair to poor Roman.

I'm sure they have evidence. They may not be able to disclose it to you for state security reasons, but I'm sure he wasn't selected at random.  There are somewhere between 75,000 and 150,000 Russians in the UK.  Only a couple of hundred worldwide have been sanctioned. 

The broad reasons for sanctioning are detailed on the government website. They are much more significant than "owning shares in a weapon company". 

If RA thinks he has been unfairly treated, there is an appeals procedure. 

Interesting tonight our buffoon leader stated the NCA had been requested to establish evidence in the case against those designated, not that it's already in place. That they'll cite they may not disclose without compromising 'national security' (sic) goes without saying.

My last role before packing it in was within OSCT ( I was there during Winchester.) I know how these things work. Recall the very same NCA (& Met) were 'unable to establish' that Covid rules had been broken in Downing St when all and sundry gawped at the images in the press 

That's what bothers me. This is the thin end of a wedge that you one day may find ruins your life. All unaccountable, all driven by sound bite. Far from being a conspiricist I'm Mr Assuredness and my refusal to turn a blind eye did for me at the HO.

Amazing the gullible falling for the Government's line today, bolstered by the awful images coming out of Ukraine,  didn't once batted an eyelid at the activities of those designated today post 2014, but why would they when those in authority claim not to have either? For the uninitiated, that's the date the barbaric Putin annexed Crimea and in doing so interfered in a sovereign territory, the very charges levelled today. Bit further east, not so close to home, but what's the difference?

Just wait till the great unwashed discover The Chinese have gained a sovereign foothold in Montenegro. 'First we've heard of it......how did they allow that to happen?" they'll claim, yet decades in the making.

As for Russians in the UK, no need to remind me. Second most observed language where I live.

[Red-Robbo]

19 minutes ago, Pezo said:

I'm not concerned about him, I'm concerned about freedoms from government tyranny that I thought this country used to stand for being implemented to get popular headlines. He has a travel ban so there are restrictions on his freedom. Where is the due process and innocent until proven guilty.

All the others sanctioned today have highly obvious links to the Kremlin right now except RA who as far as I can tell hasn't had much to do with VP in the last 15 years.

If someone can show that he is funneling money to the Kremlin and funding the Putin war machine then I will leave it but I can't see anything.

 

The highlighted lines are the important ones. Neither you nor I know the exact intelligence the UK holds on Abramovich and his links to Putin's regime. It has been suggested that he is an important conduit via which Putin launders his own money from Russia. The entire regime can be characterised as a kleptocracy, run by, and on and behalf of, people who've stolen hitherto state-run assets.  

I doubt he'd be sanctioned just to get headlines though. Apart from upsetting Chelsea fans, he has or had money invested in this country. Easier to sanction a lot of folk who rarely set foot out of St Petersburg. Unless Britain's foreign policy is being run just to delight Arsenal fans, I'd suggest there would have to be fairly good reasons this action was taken. The way, Abramovich has been scaling back on his involvement with the UK for some time suggests he may have had the insider knowledge to anticipate this invasion and its fiscal aftermath. 

The ultimate lesson of all this, of course, is don't allow crooks with non-explainable revenue sources run British football clubs.   

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Interesting tonight our buffoon leader stated the NCA had been requested to establish evidence in the case against those designated, not that it's already in place. That they'll cite they may not disclose without compromising 'national security' (sic) goes without saying.

My last role before packing it in was within OSCT ( I was there during Winchester.) I know how these things work. Recall the very same NCA (& Met) were 'unable to establish' that Covid rules had been broken in Downing St when all and sundry gawped at the images in the press 

That's what bothers me. This is the thin end of a wedge that you one day may find ruins your life. All unaccountable, all driven by sound bite. Far from being a conspiricist I'm Mr Assuredness and my refusal to turn a blind eye did for me at the HO.

Amazing the gullible falling for the Government's line today, bolstered by the awful images coming out of Ukraine,  didn't once batted an eyelid at the activities of those designated today post 2014, but why would they when those in authority claim not to have either? For the uninitiated, that's the date the barbaric Putin annexed Crimea and in doing so interfered in a sovereign territory, the very charges levelled today. Bit further east, not so close to home, but what's the difference?

Just wait till the great unwashed discover The Chinese have gained a sovereign foothold in Montenegro. 'First we've heard of it......how did they allow that to happen?" they'll claim, yet decades in the making.

As for Russians in the UK, no need to remind me. Second most observed language where I live.

 

I doubt Roman Abramovich's life will be ruined. He's worth $12bn and can probably afford to take the foot of the moneymaking for the next millennia or so without noticing much of a drop in lifestyle.

When Russian taxi drivers in London start being sanctioned just because they are Russian, then I'll agree with you that it is in the thin end of the wedge.

We might ask why were the NCA not involved before and of course the answer is most if not all of Abramovich's crimes were committed a long time ago and overseas and outside our jurisdiction, added to which it suited the powers-that-be to allow Russian dirty money to flow into London. City bankers made big money from it and lots of it flowed directly to the party in power.  Now the Ukraine has made that link untenable, the party has to stop and the crooks are being evicted. From their Knightsbridge mansions anyway, it'll take longer to get them out of 10 Downing Street.

You ask the difference between the Ukraine invasion and the 2014 Crimean annexation. Several points there.

1) Although recognised as illegal, it took place during a time of turmoil in Kyiv when the Crimea was barely defended. Casualties were minimal and almost entirely from within the military.

2) Unlike the invasion of the Ukrainian "mainland", the Crimea had a non-Ukrainian majority, many of whom welcomed and indeed took up arms in favour with the Russians.

3) Russia had a more legitimate claim to the peninsula. It had not ever been considered part of Ukraine throughout most of history, it's population was Tartar and then mainly Russian and it was only designated part of Ukraine in 1954 during the Soviet era by Khruschev, a politician who had grown up in and represented he Ukrainian Communist Party in the Stalinist regime. 

4) The annexation didn't aim at wholesale regime change and/or incorporation of a neighbouring state. Russia stole a bit of Ukraine, in effect, but it didn't try to take the whole country.  

[BTRFTG]

9 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

The highlighted lines are the important ones. Neither you nor I know the exact intelligence the UK holds on Abramovich and his links to Putin's regime. It has been suggested that he is an important conduit via which Putin launders his own money from Russia. The entire regime can be characterised as a kleptocracy, run by, and on and behalf of, people who've stolen hitherto state-run assets.  

I doubt he'd be sanctioned just to get headlines though. Apart from upsetting Chelsea fans, he has or had money invested in this country. Easier to sanction a lot of folk who rarely set foot out of St Petersburg. Unless Britain's foreign policy is being run just to delight Arsenal fans, I'd suggest there would have to be fairly good reasons this action was taken. The way, Abramovich has been scaling back on his involvement with the UK for some time suggests he may have had the insider knowledge to anticipate this invasion and its fiscal aftermath. 

The ultimate lesson of all this, of course, is don't allow crooks with non-explainable revenue sources run British football clubs.   

Suggestions & accusations. Where's the proof?

Abramovich's methods in acquiring wealth are well documented, as is his rise as Governor of Chukotka. As with Thatcher's denationalization programme folks were given an opportunity to participate but most failed to realize what was on offer?  In Russia citizens were issued share certificates in denationalised  enterprises whether they'd requested or not. 'WTF do I want this piece of paper for?' So when one of the many teams of Abramovich's door-knockers came calling and offered an aluminum saucepan, or trinket, or cutlery in exchange for a piece of paper one didn't need or want, especially given it was going to that nice politician who's improved local education and health more in the past 3 years than in your lifetime, that's a no-brainer. Folks were desperate to cash in on  'freebies' offered. Save that is the capitalistic astute who understood certificates true value.  

It's exploitative, but not theft and in his own region he improved folks living standards immeasurably, as he continues to do till today.

What I do know is this.

Suppose a foreign citizen is abducted from a European country and executed.

Suppose one of the abductors identified themselves using a British Passport.

Suppose the Home Sec may safely claim to Parliament the document was not officially issued by the UK authorities, it's a forgery, case closed.

Suppose that's true, there is no official record.

How annoying the voice in the wilderness asking how come other than the claimed official record the document was, to all intents and purposes, an officially issued document? All those security features. All the security protocols around materials et al. But they're wilderness voices. The press and Government have moved on. Nobody is really interested. The victim, well he wasn't a nice person in the first place.

Be careful for that you wish and wedges with thin edges.

[BTRFTG]

16 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I doubt Roman Abramovich's life will be ruined. He's worth $12bn and can probably afford to take the foot of the moneymaking for the next millennia or so without noticing much of a drop in lifestyle.

When Russian taxi drivers in London start being sanctioned just because they are Russian, then I'll agree with you that it is in the thin end of the wedge.

We might ask why were the NCA not involved before and of course the answer is most if not all of Abramovich's crimes were committed a long time ago and overseas and outside our jurisdiction, added to which it suited the powers-that-be to allow Russian dirty money to flow into London. City bankers made big money from it and lots of it flowed directly to the party in power.  Now the Ukraine has made that link untenable, the party has to stop and the crooks are being evicted. From their Knightsbridge mansions anyway, it'll take longer to get them out of 10 Downing Street.

You ask the difference between the Ukraine invasion and the 2014 Crimean annexation. Several points there.

1) Although recognised as illegal, it took place during a time of turmoil in Kyiv when the Crimea was barely defended. Casualties were minimal and almost entirely from within the military.

2) Unlike the invasion of the Ukrainian "mainland", the Crimea had a non-Ukrainian majority, many of whom welcomed and indeed took up arms in favour with the Russians.

3) Russia had a more legitimate claim to the peninsula. It had not ever been considered part of Ukraine throughout most of history, it's population was Tartar and then mainly Russian and it was only designated part of Ukraine in 1954 during the Soviet era by Khruschev, a politician who had grown up in and represented he Ukrainian Communist Party in the Stalinist regime. 

4) The annexation didn't aim at wholesale regime change and/or incorporation of a neighbouring state. Russia stole a bit of Ukraine, in effect, but it didn't try to take the whole country.  

Many of your points made re Crimea are exactly the same points made by Putin as to why he needs to reconcile Mother Russia with her historic homelands (and no I don't buy that either.) Recall Putin has stated he has no intention on annexing Ukraine, just those bits like Crimea that will strengthen his foothold in the region through strategic alliances with tinpot dictators dependant upon him. Ditto neighbouring countries to whom he knows he may dictate internal policy through fear of reprisal.

The signal difference from the West (or is that indifference,) being how much does it impact us? We've no issue in invading Iraq to replace an abhorrent dictator with an even worse dictator, but when oil's at stake and it's far off who cares about morals or piles of bodies? Blair certainly didnt.

Now Finland, that could get interesting. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not always a fan of Syed's column, but that's a really good bit on SSN from 2013- am glad he did not try to gloss over how the cash was made, indeed added insight- it's certainly not like Putin came along one day, Putin and oligarchs- one of the reasons as I've said before that Putin won in 2000 was due to oligarch excess.

Article from Putin v oligarchs in early days and a bit about the here and now.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/13/russia.ameliagentleman

https://www.vox.com/recode/22971179/russian-oligarchs-influence-putin-ukraine-war-sanctions-limits

Here is a timely snippet of the article...another good one from July 2000!

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/29/world/putin-exerting-his-authority-meets-with-russia-s-tycoons.html

Quote

Mr. Putin opened today's session with a mild lecture. The tone was decidedly different from that of the Yeltsin administration, when Mr. Yeltsin would gently chide business leaders, play them against one another and seek their backing.

''I want to draw your attention to the fact that you built this state yourself, to a great degree through the political or semi-political structures under your control,'' Mr. Putin said. ''So there is no point in blaming the reflection in the mirror. So let us get down to the point and be open and do what is necessary to do to make our relationship in this field civilized and transparent.''

Taking aim at the oil companies, the government this week began investigating why they are paying different tax rates. And at tonight's meeting, for the first time, Mr. Putin called the Sibneft Oil Company to task for not paying enough taxes.

Up to now, Mr. Putin has not taken any action against Roman Abramovich, a friend of Mr. Yeltsin's family and a major Sibneft shareholder.

Seems fair enough to a point the economic stuff, given the chaos of 1990s Russia...the lack of tolerance for pluralism, not however!

Edited March 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Red-Robbo]

39 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Suggestions & accusations. Where's the proof?

Abramovich's methods in acquiring wealth are well documented, as is his rise as Governor of Chukotka. As with Thatcher's denationalization programme folks were given an opportunity to participate but most failed to realize what was on offer?  In Russia citizens were issued share certificates in denationalised  enterprises whether they'd requested or not. 'WTF do I want this piece of paper for?' So when one of the many teams of Abramovich's door-knockers came calling and offered an aluminum saucepan, or trinket, or cutlery in exchange for a piece of paper one didn't need or want, especially given it was going to that nice politician who's improved local education and health more in the past 3 years than in your lifetime, that's a no-brainer. Folks were desperate to cash in on  'freebies' offered. Save that is the capitalistic astute who understood certificates true value.  

It's exploitative, but not theft and in his own region he improved folks living standards immeasurably, as he continues to do till today.

What I do know is this.

Suppose a foreign citizen is abducted from a European country and executed.

Suppose one of the abductors identified themselves using a British Passport.

Suppose the Home Sec may safely claim to Parliament the document was not officially issued by the UK authorities, it's a forgery, case closed.

Suppose that's true, there is no official record.

How annoying the voice in the wilderness asking how come other than the claimed official record the document was, to all intents and purposes, an officially issued document? All those security features. All the security protocols around materials et al. But they're wilderness voices. The press and Government have moved on. Nobody is really interested. The victim, well he wasn't a nice person in the first place.

Be careful for that you wish and wedges with thin edges.

 

I think that's a very naïve explanation of how he went from market stallholder and jailbird to billionaire in two years. It's Abramovich's account, but it doesn't square with multiple other accounts.

No one is being executed by the British home secretary over this. 

This man should not have been allowed into the UK in the first place. I'm hopeful that our rep as the dodgy money capital of Europe may be over.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Red-Robbo

[swanker]

8 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I think that's a very naïve explanation of how he went from market stallholder and jailbird to billionaire in two years. 

 

Obviously the blokes gifted at making money. 

[MarcusX]

12 hours ago, RedM said:

Most people wouldn’t  know the owners of the majority of clubs I would think. Chelsea has a well known owner who is now in the media for negative reasons.

They say there is no such thing as bad publicity but Chelsea will be linked with his name and the feelings that gives for a long while yet. I doubt too many businesses, players etc will be eager to be associated with Chelsea for some time. So yes they might find there best days are behind them.

Can’t agree, there’s players who have killed and raped that are still playing football and no one cares about associating with them.

As soon as this blows over people will rush back to associate with Chelsea. There’s no morals in football.

[MarcusX]

11 hours ago, Pezo said:

I'm not concerned about him, I'm concerned about freedoms from government tyranny that I thought this country used to stand for being implemented to get popular headlines. He has a travel ban so there are restrictions on his freedom. Where is the due process and innocent until proven guilty.

All the others sanctioned today have highly obvious links to the Kremlin right now except RA who as far as I can tell hasn't had much to do with VP in the last 15 years.

If someone can show that he is funneling money to the Kremlin and funding the Putin war machine then I will leave it but I can't see anything.

You know there’s a war on right?

I have no opinion on RA - but I’m not sure how you know for fact he has little to do with VP.

If there’s evidence then this sanction is fair, in times of war. They probably aren’t going to share that evidence with Pezo on OTIB

[RedM]

12 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

 

They were saying on tv earlier that the Fit &Proper persons guidelines weren’t in place at the time he acquired Chelsea. If they were itvwas unlikely he would have passed. I didn’t realise he had been there that long, almost 20 years. Where did that time go!

[BS2 Red]

1 minute ago, RedM said:

They were saying on tv earlier that the Fit &Proper persons guidelines weren’t in place at the time he acquired Chelsea. If they were itvwas unlikely he would have passed. I didn’t realise he had been there that long, almost 20 years. Where did that time go!

Have they ever found anybody to not be fit and proper? Looking at the scumbags that have owned football clubs over the last few years, I don't think the guidelines are anywhere close to being fit and proper.

[Pezo]

26 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

You know there’s a war on right?

I have no opinion on RA - but I’m not sure how you know for fact he has little to do with VP.

If there’s evidence then this sanction is fair, in times of war. They probably aren’t going to share that evidence with Pezo on OTIB

There is always a war on!

I don't know that he has little to do with VP but he has certainly distanced himself publicly since being in this country, the important thing is that's not how our system works - it's really important that there is separation between the executive and the judicial, if the the executive takes the law into there own hands against individuals then that's tyranny.

By your logic we don't know that you don't have anything to with VP are you ok for the government to sieze your assets?

The government is a beast of almost unlimited power, that needs controls, checks and balances to ensure the individual is protected, that's why laws are interpreted by the judicial system and implemented otherwise it's just a dictatorship.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Pezo said:

There is always a war on!

I don't know that he has little to do with VP but he has certainly distanced himself publicly since being in this country, the important thing is that's not how our system works - it's really important that there is separation between the executive and the judicial, if the the executive takes the law into there own hands against individuals then that's tyranny.

By your logic we don't know that you don't have anything to with VP are you ok for the government to sieze your assets?

The government is a beast of almost unlimited power, that needs controls, checks and balances to ensure the individual is protected, that's why laws are interpreted by the judicial system and implemented otherwise it's just a dictatorship.

The government has applied the law. RA is free to challenge the decision in the courts. So there is a separation of powers.

[Bristol Oil Services]

13 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

 

How Jim white's not on Newsnight I'll never know ...

[BTRFTG]

11 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I think that's a very naïve explanation of how he went from market stallholder and jailbird to billionaire in two years. It's Abramovich's account, but it doesn't square with multiple other accounts.

No one is being executed by the British home secretary over this. 

This man should not have been allowed into the UK in the first place. I'm hopeful that our rep as the dodgy money capital of Europe may be over.

 

Aside from his politically generated wealth RA acquired money, power and influence in mopping up many of the shortcomings from the 'loans for shares' scam when bankers started to run for the hills. But those schemes, however iniquitous, weren't illegal, they were promoted by Yeltzen and his regime. Oh, and there's the oft forgotten architect of that scheme - The US Government who through USAID made certain capitalistic reforms were here to stay, that Communism should never again rear it's head. Reforms drafted by Ivy League economists and bankers. The US created a model that mirrored it's own capitalist expansion at the 'turn of the century'. A few individuals owning natural resource, transport, steel & communication who became extraordinarily wealthy. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt & Carnegie were pretty much oligarchs and though only now know for their once phenomenal wealth few recall those, like Rockefeller, who came from absolute poverty and amassed vast sums over a very short period of time. Right time, right place, right opportunity, the American way. Few accuse them of illegality or connivance. Funny how The West's 'entrepreneurs' are also The East 'criminals'.

[BTRFTG]

26 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The government has applied the law. RA is free to challenge the decision in the courts. So there is a separation of powers.

The Law is so wide ranging and nebulous as to not know where to start. There's also the Catch 22 (flaw in your argument) that without being able appear in court and without funds to support an action in the UK,  how might RA defend himself? Would The Government provide him Legal Aid or permit him entry?

If RA has breached whatever it is claimed by The Government they should openly publish the evidence. He may well be guilty, the problem being we don't know and have zero verifiable fact upon which to base our opinions. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'. The Government appears to have turned lynch mob. If so, who next dangles from the branch to suit their purpose?

[chinapig]

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The Law is so wide ranging and nebulous as to not know where to start. There's also the Catch 22 (flaw in your argument) that without being able appear in court and without funds to support an action in the UK,  how might RA defend himself? Would The Government provide him Legal Aid or permit him entry?

If RA has breached whatever it is claimed by The Government they should openly publish the evidence. He may well be guilty, the problem being we don't know and have zero verifiable fact upon which to base our opinions. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'. The Government appears to have turned lynch mob. If so, who next dangles from the branch to suit their purpose?

I doubt he is now so poor that he would require legal aid. Nor is he likely to need to be a litigant in person because he can't afford representation. Only his assets in this country are frozen.

The likes of us are extremely unlikely to get legal aid for a civil case. Indeed cuts in legal aid have led to increasing numbers of ordinary citizens having to be litigants in person. So I don't have much sympathy on that front. The court would certainly not stand in the way of him being represented.

Being a civil case there is a lower burden proof of course and it would be a matter for judicial review. That would not require him to appear in person but if he so chooses he can do so via video from anywhere. Even his superyacht.

He will have received a detailed decision no doubt though whether he would want that in the public domain is a moot point. So he would likely use one of the London law firms with experience of representing oligarchs to make his case.

Though the speed with which he announced the sale of Chelsea before being sanctioned suggests he won't pursue the matter. Much as he didn't challenge the removal of his visa in the courts iirc.

I suspect a deal will be done in due course to allow the sale of Chelsea and he will go quietly.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Aside from his politically generated wealth RA acquired money, power and influence in mopping up many of the shortcomings from the 'loans for shares' scam when bankers started to run for the hills. But those schemes, however iniquitous, weren't illegal, they were promoted by Yeltzen and his regime. Oh, and there's the oft forgotten architect of that scheme - The US Government who through USAID made certain capitalistic reforms were here to stay, that Communism should never again rear it's head. Reforms drafted by Ivy League economists and bankers. The US created a model that mirrored it's own capitalist expansion at the 'turn of the century'. A few individuals owning natural resource, transport, steel & communication who became extraordinarily wealthy. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt & Carnegie were pretty much oligarchs and though only now know for their once phenomenal wealth few recall those, like Rockefeller, who came from absolute poverty and amassed vast sums over a very short period of time. Right time, right place, right opportunity, the American way. Few accuse them of illegality or connivance. Funny how The West's 'entrepreneurs' are also The East 'criminals'.

Am glad you mentioned Loans for Shares, often think it's glossed over somewhat when Putin and oligarchs come up.

Illegal? Possibly not, corrupt very much a different argument. Either way something that could be challenged by a future leader- and indeed it was, in 2000 by Putin.

The stuff about American capitalism and it's rise is interesting too. Oligarchs of their day?

[zippycar]

15 hours ago, Ring said:

Yes, but he somehow got himself onboard starship enterprise allowance scheme, with a prince of wales award for supplying Valium and amphetamines.

That must be grounds for sanctions.

Sheriff Fatman 

[Pezo]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

The government has applied the law. RA is free to challenge the decision in the courts. So there is a separation of powers.

It's the order of proceedings, the government creates the law and courts decide if you have broken it, in this scenario it looks like the government have introduced a law and decided that RA is guilty and now RA has the ability to prove his innocence in court.

You shouldn't have to challenge to prove you are innocent just because the government have said your guilty.

That's guilty until you can prove your innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

I doubt he is now so poor that he would require legal aid. Nor is he likely to need to be a litigant in person because he can't afford representation. Only his assets in this country are frozen.

The likes of us are extremely unlikely to get legal aid for a civil case. Indeed cuts in legal aid have led to increasing numbers of ordinary citizens having to be litigants in person. So I don't have much sympathy on that front. The court would certainly not stand in the way of him being represented.

Being a civil case there is a lower burden proof of course and it would be a matter for judicial review. That would not require him to appear in person but if he so chooses he can do so via video from anywhere. Even his superyacht.

He will have received a detailed decision no doubt though whether he would want that in the public domain is a moot point. So he would likely use one of the London law firms with experience of representing oligarchs to make his case.

Though the speed with which he announced the sale of Chelsea before being sanctioned suggests he won't pursue the matter. Much as he didn't challenge the removal of his visa in the courts iirc.

I suspect a deal will be done in due course to allow the sale of Chelsea and he will go quietly.

As the sanctions stand he wouldn't be able to contract any UK legal services. It's also a fundamental principle in UK law that one may appear in person.

That's the issue here. The Government are making things up as they go, irrespective of what standing they might have legally. Of all the Government press releases yesterday not one indicated how or why any of those sanctioned had breached the terms of the latest knee-jerk legislation. If thise sanctioned support the war against Ukraine and it's destabilisation then say how they are so doing? Being wealthy and knowing Putin, well that applies to many around the world and not only Russians.

At its extreme it's also not a civil case. Should the Government have been found to have permanently deprive those sanctioned of access to their assets for no established reason that would be theft.

I think many a lawyer is going to enhance their wealth once this quickly and ill-thought legislation gets tested.

[The Batman]

17 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

He lives in unabashed luxury in Israel and Monte Carlo. 

 

 

 

Don't we all. 

[BTRFTG]

17 minutes ago, Pezo said:

It's the order of proceedings, the government creates the law and courts decide if you have broken it, in this scenario it looks like the government have introduced a law and decided that RA is guilty and now RA has the ability to prove his innocence in court.

You shouldn't have to challenge to prove you are innocent just because the government have said your guilty.

That's guilty until you can prove your innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

Lest not forget the legislation with which they hope to punish those sanctioned isn't yet statute. Retrospectively convicting folks for crimes that weren't crimes at the time, where might that lead?

Too late in the day the public and Courts are only now cottoning-on to the dangers and abuses in the likes of Police maintaining non-crime, hate incident databases. Where one may be unilaterally condemned and punished despite having done nothing wrong.

[ExiledAjax]

17 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

At long last we may now get a proper investigation on how English football is run.

Its administration is antiquated and the structure is not fit for purpose.

Massive Revolution needed

If you've not already done so then please write to your MP and ask them to support the fan led review's recommendation of introducing a football regulator. Ask them to speak to Richard Gould and Steve Lansdown about our club supporting the fan led review.

If your MP is a Conservative then ask them to lobby Johnson and Dorries to get the regulator into the Queen's speech. 

If your MP is not a Conservative ask them to set aside party rivalries and support the fan led review.

Make it clear that your vote hangs on football being reformed.

The fan led review may not be a perfect set of recommendations, but it is something that has a) happened, b) has support, and c) now needs backing to ensure it actually has a chance to bring about some meaningful change.

Edited March 11, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Red-Robbo]

6 hours ago, swanker said:

Obviously the blokes gifted at making money. 

 

A bit like the Kray Twins or Joseph Mobutu etc....

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As the sanctions stand he wouldn't be able to contract any UK legal services. It's also a fundamental principle in UK law that one may appear in person.

That's the issue here. The Government are making things up as they go, irrespective of what standing they might have legally. Of all the Government press releases yesterday not one indicated how or why any of those sanctioned had breached the terms of the latest knee-jerk legislation. If thise sanctioned support the war against Ukraine and it's destabilisation then say how they are so doing? Being wealthy and knowing Putin, well that applies to many around the world and not only Russians.

At its extreme it's also not a civil case. Should the Government have been found to have permanently deprive those sanctioned of access to their assets for no established reason that would be theft.

I think many a lawyer is going to enhance their wealth once this quickly and ill-thought legislation gets tested.

I think we may share a dislike for the authoritarian streak in the current government. But my concern is more to do with it trying to give itself powers to remove citizenship from ordinary people without notice or recourse, to restrict the right to protest on the grounds that somebody might be upset by any given protest, to limit judicial review to prevent citizens from challenging the government in court and so on.

As to this case, from the Foreign Office:

An asset freeze prevents any UK citizen, or any business in the UK, from dealing with any funds or economic resources which are owned, held or controlled by the designated person and which are held in the UK. It will also prevent funds or economic resources being provided to or for the benefit of the designated person.

I mustn't drag this out as it's bad netiquette but we are both at least free to defend Abramovich or not as the case may be.

[View from the Dolman]

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Of all the Government press releases yesterday not one indicated how or why any of those sanctioned had breached the terms of the latest knee-jerk legislation...

What is the "knee-jerk legislation" you refer to?

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Pezo said:

It's the order of proceedings, the government creates the law and courts decide if you have broken it, in this scenario it looks like the government have introduced a law and decided that RA is guilty and now RA has the ability to prove his innocence in court.

You shouldn't have to challenge to prove you are innocent just because the government have said your guilty.

That's guilty until you can prove your innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

You are correct where the criminal law is concerned of course but that doesn't apply to civil matters. Official bodies make all sorts of decisions all the time.

So e.g. if you claim benefits the courts don't decide the claim DWP does on the basis of social security law. If you believe the decision to be wrong in law you can appeal to a tribunal and from there, if granted leave, can appeal to the upper tribunal and so on up the hierarchy.