Art agent in court for card dealing.

[kerrywez]

I am sorry to have to say that we can't count on Sir Richard, look at what the baskets did to him when he wanted to run the lotto for the people, not the profit the sh*ts who got it did it for.

I have great respect for Sir Richard and hope he can do something about them, but I fear that there will be another brown envelope landing on someone's desk with some encouragement and a list of what has to be done, after all how much do they spend on keeping their monopoly at present. It is just a case of the sauce not being the same for the goose as it is for the gander.

Very best regards Wez

[north star]

Originally Posted by kerrywez

I am sorry to have to say that we can't count on Sir Richard, look at what the baskets did to him when he wanted to run the lotto for the people, not the profit the sh*ts who got it did it for.

I have great respect for Sir Richard and hope he can do something about them, but I fear that there will be another brown envelope landing on someone's desk with some encouragement and a list of what has to be done, after all how much do they spend on keeping their monopoly at present. It is just a case of the sauce not being the same for the goose as it is for the gander.

Very best regards Wez

Point Taken.. But as I quoted my opinion only

Regards

[merlodlliw]

VAT. I am only aware of vat on advertising in newspapers,the sale of newspapers in the UK is vat zero rated, unlike South Ireland,

As for the subscriptions on Sky, if they are vat rated,then the 17.5% in the UK will be taken monthly but hidden in the costings, Sky will not pay the VAT on subs(if vat is charged,dont know) monthly, but keep it in its coffers.

As for Sir Richard Branson, I can give a few facts here, it was the establishment that vetoed him(he was never forgiven for beating Lord
who was chairman of British Airways) he took them on
when B.A. tried to do the dirty tricks & kill Virgin Atlantic, Branson I think beat BA in the States Courts.
The Establishment never forgave him,although Branson was the prefered bidder for the lotto in the UK,Blair under pressure put in one of his legal cronies who worked with him prior, This crony( NOW known as Lord Dome)advised give it to Camelot
the then Chairman of the Govt appointed Lotto selection panel,resigned due to Govt interference.
It was known in the trade if Branson got it,the Govt would no longer be able to steal from the lotto funds(Dome an example), so.

1.Branson refused to have Govt yes men on its lotto board.
2.Branson unlike the current outfit,Camelot was too honest.
3.Branson was never forgiven for beating Lord King(BA)funny handshakes.
4.The establishment won,the people lost.
5.The hate of the lotto,being open and not for profit.

So now we have.
1.The govt can rob the lotto for 2012,taking funding away from needy causes outside London, Lotto Chairman in Wales admitted this.
2.Camelot whose board is made up of,well have a look
3.Camelot on winning the bid,gave its Chief Exec & Board many £Ks as bonus within a week,when everyone hoped they would lose.
4.Camelot declairing, only they trusted themselves to run the lotto scratch cards, the Govt agreed.
5.Scratch cards being sold days after a £1M winner,thousands duped that they could still win, not a slapped hand here.
6.Camelot offshoot fined in the US for fiddling a US State lottery,this was
one of the reasons the Chairman(woman) of the selection panel resigned as well as interference from the Govt.

And the guy who took the money at the time,well surprise its Gordon Brown the then C of the Exr, Labour party of the people, Labour party of the brown envelopes more like it.

Long winded, but thats how I feel. Had Murdoch gone for the lotto,not Branson well who knows. This as gone a long way from card dealing, which I opened as thread one.


Bob, PS I would have been banned from DS for this thread.

[bigtee]

On the main issue of the conviction of the card seller the fact that we don't know the full details plus the fact that the fella pleaded guilty (I wonder why on earth!), means we cannot yet read much into the judgment. On the related point of whether a pub can screen Premiership matches using foreign cards e.g. ART, Nova etc, there is currently a case involving a lady pending before the courts which will probably provide a firmer conclusion than we have up to date. Hitherto courts have given apparently contradictory decisions.

It is to be hoped that the ultimate outcome will be as favourable as onef rom two years ago in the case in the following link:

Pubs win the right to show football on Saturday afternoons - Crime, UK - Independent.co.uk

[bigtee]

Also, the Press Release below (snaffled from _http://www.marconidigital.com/product_info.php?products_id=1280) suggests that another major case is due for full hearing next month:

Press Release Orchard Brayton Graham LLP Wins First Round in Ground Breaking Football Premier League Test Case

City law firm Orchard Brayton Graham LLP acting for two of the three defendants in “The Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL) v QC Leisure & others” won the first round of a landmark case defending against the FAPL. Mr Justice Barling in the Royal Courts of Justice found in favour of the Defendants in an important interim application on Friday the 18th of January.


The legal action concerns the ability of the FAPL (the Claimant) to restrict distributors from selling foreign satellite decoder cards in the UK. The Defendants (including QC Leisure and a group of Publicans) have been importing and using non-UK decoder cards mainly from Europe in order to receive live Premier League football matches from foreign satellite broadcasts. FAPL contend that these acts are contrary to Sections 298 and 299 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.


The Defendants argue that they are entitled in law to import and use decoder cards without restriction from EU based satellite broadcasters under the relevant EU Directive, (The Conditional Access Directive) and under the rules of the Treaty of Rome covering the free movement of goods and services in the European Single Market. In particular they argue that FAPL’s licence agreements breach EU competition law by seeking to prevent Satellite Broadcasters from supplying cards outside their home countries.


FAPL applied to the court to have summary judgment dismissing the EU Competition Law defence.
In ruling, Mr Justice Barling stated, “The contractual provision with which we are concerned does not consist merely of a grant of such exclusive rights; indeed the clause in question is not granting any right at all: on the contrary the provision appears to impose certain obligations upon the foreign broadcaster, namely to undertake to “procure” that non - UK decoder cards are not authorised or enabled by the licensee or any sub-licensee or distributor, agent or employee of such persons, so as to enable anyone to view the foreign broadcaster’s transmission outside the latter’s territory. In other words, foreign licensees are apparently required to prevent use of the decoder cards outside their licensed territory”

The Judge ruled that “the Community legislation relied upon by the Defendants fortifies me in the conclusion that the Article 81 defence is a legitimate subject for a trial, and that the application for summary judgment should be rejected.” and ...“that it would not be appropriate to stay the trial of the competition defence”. The Judge awarded costs to the Defendants.


OBG’s team is led by top intellectual property Partner Paul Sutton instructing Martin Howe QC of 8 New Square. Of the judgment Partner Paul Sutton said, “We are pleased that the path is now clear for the court to examine the important European issues in detail. We look forward to the full trial which is set for the 14th of April 2008”

[flashgordon1952]

another saddo here ! who looks at dishes and wishes his was as big as that/ (dishes i mean) I dont know whether these particular cards are illegal or not. but there has been a lot on grey sky cards . What channels are these cards for ? sky or another provider. The problem is always on price ! if sky s contract price for business customers was reasonable then there would never be a grey market in the first place. Where i use to work we had a guy who did grey cards for other satellites other than sky, there appeared to be a good demand especially as he would supply the dish and get yu going. To me its up to the guy who buys such a card and he cannot cry wolf when he get a knock on the door from the authorities. he knows he is breaking the law. And is a chump doing so.

[Robbo]

Originally Posted by flashgordon1952

What channels are these cards for ? sky or another provider.

The cards are not for Sky, they are for foreign prividers.

[lincsat]

And the issue here is the Saturday 3pm games that are not available on Sky. The issue is whether the Football authority is a higher power than the EU.

It wouldn't surprise me if the judgement goes against the EU Law here, the Authorities are keen to push the EU when it suits themselves, how many times do we hear "Europe told us to". But when an EU Law suits the people, the government does it's best to block it, like with Satellite channels from all Europe or Cheap ciggy's from Europe.