Tamplin fined £45,000 for dumping waste

[Auntie Merge]

And Alan - serious question..

What would your reaction be IF in 18, 24 or whatever he has ****** our club over and says he wants to look forward not back. Is that acceptable??

Just asking

Eh? I'm not defending him or it. I'm explaining why it doesn't fall foul of the "fit and proper person test" and predicting what he will say when it's brought up.

An unspent conviction falls foul of the EFL fit and proper person test.
It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the FAs but that doesn't mean they won't take it into consideration.

[Alan]

Dumping such waste cost a lot of money so it's hardly an action a saint is it, you would imagine that choosing to use his own land meant he saved this money there by at a stroke taking part in a dishonest act.

It's not his company, so not his money to save. Did he accept payment to allow it? Did he want to raise the level of the land in an area that floods every winter? Will he say he knew nothing about it? Who knows.

It's not great, but the court found him to be negligent, not dishonest - which is what matters in the fit and proper person test.

I can almost guarantee that he will say we need to look forwards not backwards when asked about it tomorrow.

http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/100000-fi ... operators/
The Court found that Mr Tamplin had acted negligently to a high degree in committing the offences.

I'm not a legal person, but as this fine has just happened, doesn't it get listed as an 'unspent conviction' for a certain period of time?

The fit and proper person test relates to unspent convictions for dishonesty offences, football related offences or where there's a sentence of 12 months of more. This isn't a dishonesty offence, a football offence and no prison sentence of 12 months.

It might seem like a legal technicality, but I think anyone thinking the fit and proper person test will stop the takeover is wrong.

Whether the conviction alters the views of those voting, that's a different matter.

[SUSSEX DAGGER]

Alan I have no axe to grind with the bloke , all I will continue to do is support the team whoever runs it and at what level.

I do however have a bit of a mind about environmental issues and my thoughts on this have nothing to do with him being anything to do with the Team I support.

It is just plain wrong what he has done and sounds a bit selfish with the effect his actions could have had on other Peoples life's.

If it ain't a crime then it really should be and I don't care if it is the Queen of England or Joe Bloggs.

[Auntie Merge]

Alan I have no axe to grind with the bloke , all I will continue to do is support the team whoever runs it and at what level.

I do however have a bit of a mind about environmental issues and my thoughts on this have nothing to do with him being anything to do with the Team I support.

It is just plain wrong what he has done and sounds a bit selfish with the effect his actions could have had on other Peoples life's.

If it ain't a crime then it really should be and I don't care if it is the Queen of England or Joe Bloggs.

As I understand it, because this case was tried in a Crown Court, it is a criminal conviction.
I agree; it is appalling what he did. The risks to flooding, other people and wildlife was huge.
The Enviroment Agency are quoted below

Emma Viner, EA enforcement team leader, said: “The sentences in this case reflect the seriousness with which the EA and the courts view this type of criminal offending and will hopefully act as a deterrent to others.”

[NBDag]

If what he has done is a criminal act. Then where is his criminal record? Simple as that. Everyone from fly tippers to public urinators will get threatened with a prison sentence if they refuse the fine. Because otherwise, what's stopping them from turning around and saying "no I won't pay"?? Crazy this sort of stuff. Almost as if it makes sense

[Auntie Merge]

If what he has done is a criminal act. Then where is his criminal record? Simple as that. Everyone from fly tippers to public urinators will get threatened with a prison sentence if they refuse the fine. Because otherwise, what's stopping them from turning around and saying "no I won't pay"?? Crazy this sort of stuff. Almost as if it makes sense

As I understand it, the fact he has been tried and found guilty in a Crown Court gives him a criminal record. It doesn't matter that it's a fine or a prison sentence.

It is referred to as an unspent conviction for a period of time afterwards, meaning he has to declare it.

[diggerdagger1]

Well said Sussex and auntie merge. What he did was a disgrace. Wonder how you would feel n b Dag if you lived next to him. This should have been declared by tamplin or the board at the members egm. That's if the board knew about it. Still think he would have got a majority vote in favour of his consortium. Will he get the 75 per cent needed to change the constitution too close to call. 37 to 11 last time only needs 2 to do a David ward and that's him scuppered. Still as he loves the club so much his words apparently he could always serve on the board and invest with no overall control. What donyoubreckon to that then mr tamplin . N b Dag have a word with him and let us know please. Boring bit now go go merge you are a star!!!!!!

[Alan]

If what he has done is a criminal act. Then where is his criminal record? Simple as that. Everyone from fly tippers to public urinators will get threatened with a prison sentence if they refuse the fine. Because otherwise, what's stopping them from turning around and saying "no I won't pay"?? Crazy this sort of stuff. Almost as if it makes sense

As I understand it, the fact he has been tried and found guilty in a Crown Court gives him a criminal record. It doesn't matter that it's a fine or a prison sentence.

It is referred to as an unspent conviction for a period of time afterwards, meaning he has to declare it.

No, it doesn't. You only have to declare an unspent conviction if it is one that falls within the list of offences set out in the FA Declaration. To quote the FA Declaration:

"I have not been convicted of any of the following off ences, or where I have, this conviction
is now considered spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974:
(a) an offence involving a Dishonest Act;
(b) corruption;
(c) perverting the course of justice;
(d) committing a serious breach of any requirement under the Companies Act 1985 or 2006 or any statutory modi cation or re-enactment thereof;
(e) dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment under Section 297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; (f) admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises under
Section 9 of the Football Spectators Act 1989;
(g) ticket touting under Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; (h) conspiracy to commit any of the o ences set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) above; (i) any conviction for a like o ence to any of the above o ences by a competent court
having jurisdiction outside England and Wales.
(j) I am not currently the subject of any current criminal proceedings for any of the
o ences detailed at items (a) to (i) above;
(iv) I am not a Registered O ender and am not required to notify personal information pursuant
to Part 2 of the Sexual O ences Act 2003;
(v) I am not subject to a banning order in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators
Act 2000 (or any equivalent provision in any jurisdiction that has a substantially similar
effect);

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thef ... ctors.ashx

[Auntie Merge]

But in legal terminology he has an unspent conviction.

Whether the FA take that into account, regardless of the exact rules of the fit and proper person test, who knows.

[SUSSEX DAGGER]

Well looking at events on America over night , having a few Companies go belly up don't stop you from becoming anything.

[Alan]

But in legal terminology he has an unspent conviction.

Whether the FA take that into account, regardless of the exact rules of the fit and proper person test, who knows.

Well, we do though, don't we? If it's not on the list, they can't use it and he doesn't have to declare it. We might think it's wrong, but I'm afraid it's not an issue that the FA are entitled to take into account - doesn't mean the members cannot or should not consider it though.

[Auntie Merge]

But in legal terminology he has an unspent conviction.

Whether the FA take that into account, regardless of the exact rules of the fit and proper person test, who knows.

Well, we do though, don't we? If it's not on the list, they can't use it and he doesn't have to declare it. We might think it's wrong, but I'm afraid it's not an issue that the FA are entitled to take into account - doesn't mean the members cannot or should not consider it though.

Do you know if he has any other convictions, unspent or otherwise?

But I can't see the members giving him over 75% of the vote now.

[diggerdagger1]

Depends what the rules on the vote are? Does he need 75percent of all members or just those voting? I understand there will be 3 choices for against or abstain. Do the people who abstain count in the vote? Or is it just 75percentbof the for and against voters? Any views Alan?

[Voice of reason]

I haven't seen Daggers specific rules but usually it's 75% of those present at the EGM/AGM. All members have to be notified of the meeting and the full details well I advance and there are strict rules on the conduct of the meeting. They will need 75% to vote in favour the change

[Alan]

I have no idea if he has any other convictions!?!

As for the 75% that is what the club and their lawyers have been grappling with as the transfer from a company limited by guarantee to a company with shares is a novel concept. I've been told that it's 75% of all members, not just those voting, but I don't know if that's correct.