• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

June to July 2020 - NUFC

Status
Not open for further replies.

4everredandwhite said:
Don’t get too carried away. It also adds “it is still the authors opinion”. Read that full paragraph and don’t be too cocksure is all I would suggest to you. I think your precision might just be a tad too random
Click to expand...

I think that because the author is a professional barrister it perhaps carries a bit of clout. Of course it’s not his decision but we can’t simply dismiss his findings on this.
The paragraph I find most interesting is

“There was no finding or identification that the KSA govt or any individual was responsible for the broadcasting of beoutQ’s piracy but Quatar merely ‘established a prima facie that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of KSA”

Interesting stuff.
 
Random Precision said:
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Basically says that PIF were not responsible for the piracy, most people know that’s fairly obvious. It’s a bit like saying someone’s ISA was not responsible for the owner of the ISA watching a dodgy stream. I wouldn’t build your hopes up on the strength of that.
mad cyril said:
I think that because the author is a professional barrister it perhaps carries a bit of clout. Of course it’s not his decision but we can’t simply dismiss his findings on this.
The paragraph I find most interesting is

“There was no finding or identification that the KSA govt or any individual was responsible for the broadcasting of beoutQ’s piracy but Quatar merely ‘established a prima facie that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of KSA”

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
It also simply ignores the fact that KSA prevented legal action being taken to stop the piracy, which is against the rules of the WTO.
 
Last edited:
mad cyril said:
I think that because the author is a professional barrister it perhaps carries a bit of clout. Of course it’s not his decision but we can’t simply dismiss his findings on this.
The paragraph I find most interesting is

“There was no finding or identification that the KSA govt or any individual was responsible for the broadcasting of beoutQ’s piracy but Quatar merely ‘established a prima facie that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of KSA”

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
I’m not dismissing anything, merely pointing out that it isn’t done ‘til it’s done. RP is a bit too full of himself imho
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top