• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Allen Stanford Arrested and Charged with Fraud

fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mind you Mr Z he does still have that moustache - in fairness to sirdj that fact alone must be of substantial probative value in the fraud trial
 
sirdj

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
So you two still think he did not commit fraud? OK lets see how long you hold on to that position.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
sirdj said:
So you two still think he did not commit fraud? OK lets see how long you hold on to that position.
Click to expand...
Since it appears that you're still struggling to understand, I'll try to explain it for you once again.

1. Neither Fred nor I have ever said that Stanford didn't commit fraud.

2. But both of us have said he deserves a fair trial, and that he is deemed innocent until proven guilty.

3. The mere fact that he's been accused of fraud doesn't mean that he's been proven guilty of it.

Let me know if there's any part of this that you still don't understand, and I will try to spell it out for you in even simpler terms.
 
sirdj

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
zaremba said:
Since it appears that you're still struggling to understand, I'll try to explain it for you once again.

1. Neither Fred nor I have ever said that Stanford didn't commit fraud.

2. But both of us have said he deserves a fair trial, and that he is deemed innocent until proven guilty.

3. The mere fact that he's been accused of fraud doesn't mean that he's been proven guilty of it.

Let me know if there's any part of this that you still don't understand, and I will try to spell it out for you in even simpler terms.
Click to expand...
Firstly cw.net is not a court of law that you need to defend his rights here so vigorously.

Secondly my stating that said douchebag is a fraud is merely my opinion........if you dont agree with it, fine.......haven't seen you produce anything to say that he is not a fraud or a douchebag........while there is plenty of evidence regarding his sleazy behaviour.

Thirdly rich douchebags usually get a fair trial in western countries. So there is no need to cry from the rooftops that he deserves a fair trial. I dont see a mob with tar & feathers and a donkey.

If any of that is not clear to you.....then let me know and I shall spell it out to you in simpler english.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
sirdj said:
Firstly cw.net is not a court of law that you need to defend his rights here so vigorously.
Click to expand...
No, but it is somewhere where happenings on the planet Earth are discussed pretty damn regular like. And most places on Earth are govorned by some court of law. So to disregard the rulings of such things seems rather nonsensical.

If and when Stanford is convicted, then let's deride him as this or that. Until then, there is nought but idle speculation. I know some enjoy this, but personally, I don't. So thus, I find it overwhelmingly more suitable to wait until the verdict is given.
 
Last edited:
sirdj

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
Richard said:
No, but it is somewhere where happenings on the planet Earth are discussed pretty damn regular like. And most places on Earth are govorned by some court of law. So to disregard the rulings of such things seems rather nonsensical.

If and when Stanford is convicted, then let's deride him as this or that. Until then, there is nought but idle speculation. I know some enjoy this, but personally, I don't. So thus, I find it overwhelmingly more suitable to wait until the verdict is given.
Click to expand...
This is an international webforum.........that laws that apply to you don't apply to someone in Dubai and vice versa.

What is being stated here are opinions. If you feel that someone's opinion in incorrect then you need to give logical arguments and not legal. Nobody is going to believe that Stanford is not a crook just because a court of law has not established that fact as yet. People will base their opinion of said douchebag based on his prior behaviour.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
sirdj said:
This is an international webforum.........that laws that apply to you don't apply to someone in Dubai and vice versa.

What is being stated here are opinions. If you feel that someone's opinion in incorrect then you need to give logical arguments and not legal. Nobody is going to believe that Stanford is not a crook just because a court of law has not established that fact as yet. People will base their opinion of said douchebag based on his prior behaviour.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I agree with you on that!

 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
sirdj said:
This is an international webforum.........that laws that apply to you don't apply to someone in Dubai and vice versa.
Click to expand...
There's plenty that apply to a large number of different countries, same way there's plenty that don't.
What is being stated here are opinions. If you feel that someone's opinion in incorrect then you need to give logical arguments and not legal. Nobody is going to believe that Stanford is not a crook just because a court of law has not established that fact as yet. People will base their opinion of said douchebag based on his prior behaviour.
Click to expand...
My logical opinion is that I'll wait until the courts have given their evidence before deciding anything about Stanford. TBH, I couldn't really care less what he is or isn't if he wasn't involved with cricket. There's hundreds of despicable moghuls out there - I doubt Stanford is the worst of the worst.
 
sirdj

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
Stop cribbing, all the douchebag has lost so far is his 'honourary' title. Compare that to what the investors in his bank have lost.

The thing about honorary titles is that it is associated with honour. And Stanford had very little of it to begin with.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not exactly Stanford's biggest fan. But in the free world we like to punish people after they're tried. Not before.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not going to get sucked into another weird debate with sirdj about the merits of the criminal justice systems of the free world. He's not open to persuasion on the matter, and I don't think it's worth engaging with.

Anyway the astonishing thing is how reluctant the UK usually is to strip wrongdoers of their honours. Romanian dictator Nikolae Ceaucescu was given an honorary knighthood in 1978 which he wasn't stripped of until the day before his execution in 1989 (at around the same time he was also stripped of the Danish Order of the Elephant).

And convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer still clings onto his Peerage.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
zaremba said:
I'm not going to get sucked into another weird debate with sirdj about the merits of the criminal justice systems of the free world. He's not open to persuasion on the matter, and I don't think it's worth engaging with.

Anyway the astonishing thing is how reluctant the UK usually is to strip wrongdoers of their honours. Romanian dictator Nikolae Ceaucescu was given an honorary knighthood in 1978 which he wasn't stripped of until the day before his execution in 1989 (at around the same time he was also stripped of the Danish Order of the Elephant).

And convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer still clings onto his Peerage.
Click to expand...
Think it's a West Indies version of the knighthood. Easy come easy go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top