Since the "fake sheikh"

was subsequently imprisoned for falsifying evidence than why wouldn't Higgin's contest his suspension and fine if in fact the tape of him was possibly edited to misrepresent what was discussed in that meeting?

As he hasn't then I can only presume that it was an accurate presentation of what was said and by whom, in that context and in that order.

The only account that he ever gave publicly was along the lines of "I thought it was the Russian Mafia" I would have thought that the Russian mafia would have bigger operations going on than targeting a Snooker player but there you go.

And why has his manager who was there never had anything to say on the matter ever?

My understanding was that it was a "fake Sheikh" NOTW sting, I just thought that he might have been able to clear his name completely, unless in fact the way the tape was presented was exactly how everything went down, in that case I guess you can't blame his for not wanting to get into it ever again as he was banged to rights and got to go on and earn plenty more money for a further 10 years +

Just get over it already for god's sake

LDS wrote:Just get over it already for god's sake

LDS wrote:Just get over it already for god's sake

I didn't realise that being offended by corruption had a time limit? how long before you should stop being offended by it?

Probably because Higgins was already cleared of any match fixing or intent to match fix based in the investigation which had access to the full unedited footage. He was found guilty of failing to report the approach, which he has admitted to and for which the character of Mahmood has no bearing.

HappyCamper wrote:Probably because Higgins was already cleared of any match fixing or intent to match fix based in the investigation which had access to the full unedited footage. He was found guilty of failing to report the approach, which he has admitted to and for which the character of Mahmood has no bearing.

From the tape I can't see how he wasn't guilty of showing intent to match fix? bearing in mind he literally agreed to lose frames for £100,000 per frame, then turned to his manager and wondered how he would "swallow 300 grand" it was then decided between himself and his manager that he could re mortgage a property he owned in Spain, so he seemed to be planning how he was going to hide the proceeds, didn't seem very panicked did he as if you are in a genuine panic you wouldn't be calm enough to have a good think about that sort of thing.

shanew48 wrote:I didn't realise that being offended by corruption had a time limit? how long before you should stop being offended by it?

As in why are you still bleating on about it after all this time? What are you hoping to achieve by constantly picking at the scab?

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:I didn't realise that being offended by corruption had a time limit? how long before you should stop being offended by it?

As in why are you still bleating on about it after all this time? What are you hoping to achieve by constantly picking at the scab?

Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

The funny part is if Stephen Lee had been found guilty today I don't think he would have been punished as severely because when you looked at the size of him it was obviously had phycological issues to become that size in the first place. I'm sure he could have used the mental health card at got a good few years knocked off his ban and would be back playing by now.

Quite frankly I'd rather watch him have to find ways to lose frames than watch Selby stand there for 6 and a half minutes having a "brain freeze" as it does actually take skill to figure out how to miss pots on purpose believe it or not.

He could have thrown in the "brain freeze" defence as well, why not?

Would Lee still be good enough at 50 to play on tour? I think he probably would you know, Andy Lee plays doesn't he, I would think a 50 year old Stephen Lee would brush him aside without too much trouble?

SnookerFan wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU

I'm hearing you, possibly thinking about it too much, everything about Selby and Lee is fair comment though! lol

shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...

I'd class it as more than simply a "misdemeanour" but everyone is entitled to their opinion on what it was or wasn't of course.

shanew48 wrote:I'd class it as more than simply a "misdemeanour" but everyone is entitled to their opinion on what it was or wasn't of course.

Yes, we know, thanks for repeating your extremism once again.

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:I'd class it as more than simply a "misdemeanour" but everyone is entitled to their opinion on what it was or wasn't of course.

Yes, we know, thanks for repeating your extremism once again.

Don't think it's extreme to despise match fixers personally but I understand everyone has different standards I guess.

I think his rational was that because he would be playing in a newly formed "world series event" he told himself that it wasn't like he was doing it on the proper world snooker sanctioned events so didn't really view it as important throwing frames in a newly formed thing that most people wouldn't really be that bothered or interested in.

Oh look, you said it all again! How exciting!

LDS wrote:Oh look, you said it all again! How exciting!

Salty

LDS wrote:Oh look, you said it all again! How exciting!

Are you flirting with me?

He didnt fix any matches.

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...

So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?

Dan-cat wrote:He didnt fix any matches.

Nor did Jamie Jones.

SnookerFan wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...

So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?

My personal opinion is the last one. But that's all it was. Opinion. None of us were privvy to all the evidence.

His mafia line was a flat out lie.

It wasn't the best excuse was it, I think he said he thought it was "the Russian mafia or something" maybe I'm badly misinformed on how the Russian mafia operate and raise funds but I'm pretty sure finding a snooker player to fix frames of snooker wouldn't have even entered their head, so all in all one of the poorer excuses I've heard when someone has been caught being corrupt.

SnookerFan wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?

Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...

So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?

My personal opinion is the last one. But that's all it was. Opinion. None of us were privvy to all the evidence.

His mafia line was a flat out lie.

Surely if the evidence showed that it wasn't a serious approach and it was such a laughable approach that he wasn't even taking it seriously then he shouldn't have been banned or fined, he seemed pretty serious when he turned to his manager discussing how he could "swallow" the hundred's of thousands of pounds of ill gotten gains, surely if you thought it wasn't a serious business proposition then you wouldn't even bother getting into an in depth conversation with your manager I wouldn't have thought.

Plus he thought he was talking to a Saudi Prince, I wasn't aware that the Saudi's worked on behalf of the Mafia? quite frankly they don't need to work with any mafia as they already have plenty of resources and money of their own. None of it adds up does it. Jones must be wondering why he couldn't get away with a six month out of season ban!

shanew48 wrote:So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?

I have no idea what the general consensus is or was or could be, it was a case of entrapment where we have no idea if such a situation had ever occurred before nor what reasons were behind the guy not being thrown out the office on his ear.

I think if you entrap people for a living you'd have a better idea, but my 'guess' would be that you'd say anything to get the guy out the room as quick as possible, particularly someone you are uncomfortable being around.

You know, like when you have a double-glazing salesman at the door who looks like he's eyeing up your possessions and generally casing the joint while talking about windows, you just say any old crap don't you, "yes mate, my uncle does windows, he's already going to be doing the job, he just has to finish up no.47 and then he's doing ours" and if they persist "Well, because it's his house, we just rent it from him, would you like me to call him?"

You know, just any old bullocks.

My guess is John's one of those guys who always says "yes yes yes, I'll get right on it" and then you never hear from him again. Cos that's just his defence mechanism that allows him to move away with the least hassle.

LDS wrote:

shanew48 wrote:So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?

I have no idea what the general consensus is or was or could be, it was a case of entrapment where we have no idea if such a situation had ever occurred before nor what reasons were behind the guy not being thrown out the office on his ear.

I think if you entrap people for a living you'd have a better idea, but my 'guess' would be that you'd say anything to get the guy out the room as quick as possible, particularly someone you are uncomfortable being around.

You know, like when you have a double-glazing salesman at the door who looks like he's eyeing up your possessions and generally casing the joint while talking about windows, you just say any old crap don't you, "yes mate, my uncle does windows, he's already going to be doing the job, he just has to finish up no.47 and then he's doing ours" and if they persist "Well, because it's his house, we just rent it from him, would you like me to call him?"

You know, just any old bullocks.

My guess is John's one of those guys who always says "yes yes yes, I'll get right on it" and then you never hear from him again. Cos that's just his defence mechanism that allows him to move away with the least hassle.

The part of your post that I disagree with is saying it was entrapment, you can only end up being entrapped if you are doing something you shouldn't be doing, basically you need to be involved in a questionable situation in the first place for the entrapment defence to be attempted as a defence.

shanew48 wrote:The part of your post that I disagree with is saying it was entrapment, you can only end up being entrapped if you are doing something you shouldn't be doing, basically you need to be involved in a questionable situation in the first place for the entrapment defence to be attempted as a defence.

No, entrapment can get anyone at anytime for any reason completely devoid of any previous thoughts on a subject and is why entrapment is not permissible as a means of prosecution.

The laws on entrapment are very specific for a very good reason, and what you state here is quite literally the opposite of academic knowledge and teaching. For someone who's so obsessed with legality, perhaps you should understand the topic more thoroughly before making stuff up as you go along.