Allen Stanford Arrested and Charged with Fraud

[marc71178]

The thing about honorary titles is that it is associated with honour.

I'm not sure that's true actually - it's honorary because the person doesn't meet the nationality qualification to be properly knighted (in the same way that Bob Geldof has one)

 

[sirdj]

I'm not exactly Stanford's biggest fan. But in the free world we like to punish people after they're tried. Not before.

He isn't being punished as yet.

 

[sirdj]

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.

I think all crooks, charlatans and criminals should lose their knighthood.

 

[Richard]

He isn't being punished as yet.

Although being stripped of a knighthood isn't exactly a punishment that too many people are going to be concerned with compared to what he'll get if he's found guilty, there's no two ways about the fact that it's a consequence of the affair. And in effect it's a consequence of the fact he's been charged, not convicted.

 

[sirdj]

Although being stripped of a knighthood isn't exactly a punishment that too many people are going to be concerned with compared to what he'll get if he's found guilty, there's no two ways about the fact that it's a consequence of the affair. And in effect it's a consequence of the fact he's been charged, not convicted.

He's lost the knighthood because of the disrepute he brings onto the title and consequently to the government who gave it to him. Bad reputation need not depend on legal guilt/innocence.

 

[Sanz]

sirdj, Who conferred the order of knighthood upon you ? Just wondering.

 

[Sanz]

With sirdj on the discussion, don't know what people are trying to argue with him in this case.

 

[sirdj]

sirdj, Who conferred the order of knighthood upon you ? Just wondering.

I got it via bribing a certain Antiguan politician by creating a couple of untraceable multis for him on Cricketweb.

 

[Athlai]

I got it via bribing a certain Antiguan politician by creating a couple of untraceable multis for him on Cricketweb.

 

[Richard]

He's lost the knighthood because of the disrepute he brings onto the title and consequently to the government who gave it to him. Bad reputation need not depend on legal guilt/innocence.

So if - and let's stress I don't think it's likely - he should be found completely innocent of any wrongdoing and all the disrepute is the fault of those making unfounded accusations, then it should still have been stripped?

 

[fredfertang]

I find myself agreeing with sirdj for once - whether he's guilty or innocent of what he's been indicted for Stanford is certainly guilty of being a **** and quite properly lost the title he should never have been sold, I mean given.

 

[sirdj]

So if - and let's stress I don't think it's likely - he should be found completely innocent of any wrongdoing and all the disrepute is the fault of those making unfounded accusations, then it should still have been stripped?

Firstly, I don't see how someone can be found "completely innocent" in this situation, I can see a lack of evidence to convict him, I can see some other person made the scapegoat. In both the above, he still brings disrepute to the title and hence should be stripped of it.

I mean this person has been a douchebag in more ways than just this ponzi scheme.

In fact I am of the opinion that the guy who sold it to him in the first place should be kicked in the nuts too. Because selling a knighthood is cheapening in the first place.

 

[Richard]

Firstly, I don't see how someone can be found "completely innocent" in this situation, I can see a lack of evidence to convict him, I can see some other person made the scapegoat. In both the above, he still brings disrepute to the title and hence should be stripped of it.

Personally I'd prefer to wait for the trial and then see what comes of things. I don't really know a thing about the accusations or the specifics of his case, so I'd prefer to let those who do come to a judgement.

I mean this person has been a douchebag in more ways than just this ponzi scheme.

In fact I am of the opinion that the guy who sold it to him in the first place should be kicked in the nuts too. Because selling a knighthood is cheapening in the first place.

Separate issue. Knighthoods (and, worse, peerages) have often been given for dubious reasons and this is something that has long required closer scrutiny than it gets.

 

[fredfertang]

... and found guilty

so what's your view on that Rich?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah just heard it in the news. Good decision.

 

[CWB304]

Just what is it about modern cricket that attracts these shady characters?

Stanford is now safely behind bars, but Lalit Modi is not only free, but stinking rich and one of the most powerful figures in the cricket world despite a past which includes US convictions (he pleaded guilty, btw) on charges of kidnapping, cocaine trafficking and assault, and a present comprising a number of IPL-related dubious transactions that would most certainly not meet the standards of transparency that are de rigeur in more developed countries.

And to the best of my knowledge not a single one of the hordes of Indian bookmakers behind the recent match-fixing scandals has been brought to book.

Cricket needs to clean out the Augean stables, or the pictures of the England WAGs giggling and posing as they bounce up and down on Stanford's knees like wannabe porn stars will be the least worst images in a future highlight reel of embarrassing moments.

 

[nexxus]

Why would Modi be in jail? Despite his US history, he's not a fugitive, he hasn't been charged with anything criminally wrt. his IPL dealings.

Stanford on the other hand perpetrated a giant swindle, defrauding hundreds of people most of whom are probably in the most vulnerable category. I don't think there's a comparison.

 

[CWB304]

Why would Modi be in jail? Despite his US history, he's not a fugitive, he hasn't been charged with anything criminally wrt. his IPL dealings.

Stanford on the other hand perpetrated a giant swindle, defrauding hundreds of people most of whom are probably in the most vulnerable category. I don't think there's a comparison.

You've just made my point for me. The guy represents all the worst aspects of the corruption that has recently taken hold of the game. Now I'm sorry to say this, but just because somebody has not been charged with wrongdoing in India, a country in which perhaps two dozen families (of which Modi's is one) hold the fate of over a billion people in their hands, does not mean he has done no wrong.

There is publicly available information to suggest that plenty of IPL-related deals were highly dodgy and that Modi and others were placed in and allowed to benefit from conflict of interest situations that simply would not have been acceptable in say the UK (not a corruption-free paradise I know).

Yet imagine if someone like the current head of the ECB became immensely rich on the back of a new cricket spin-off? The links between Modi and all sorts of Indian cricket administrative nabobs are so extensive and have been so ill-investigated that one can only surmise that people there are either inured to the shenanigans of the Modis of the world or have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by them.

One thing is certain: Modi and the nexus of crooked bookies and corrupt administrators surrounding him have changed cricket in India for the worse, of that there is absolutely no doubt. In fact the present era, in which the Indian team is pretty much guaranteed to quite brazenly and publicly QUIT midway through the Second Test of overseas tours they don't fancy, will perhaps - if Modi and his ilk are allowed to continue to hold sway - in future come be seen as a golden age of heroic windmill tilters who really strove manfully against all odds.

Their Team India successors will either sign contracts specifying that they will only play at home and with the approval of their IPL bosses or, failing that, will send nominees to play on their behalf. (BCCI will do some arm-twisting at ICC-level over the stats).

How ironic that Lalit Modi - kidnapper, violent thug, cocaine trafficker - should be presently engaged in attempting to convince a London court that Chris Cairns is the crook and he the honest man! Modi has the economic power to suborn any number of witnesses who depend upon him for a living, so I suspect he'll win. No doubt Sachin himself would - notwithstanding the unseemly repercussions of his lying to protect a teammate in the 'Monkeygate' business - have been prepared to perjure himself for the IPL god, were the need to have arisen.

 

[Jono]

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Modi is a badass.