Now he can't run a UK biz
But he can get someone else to front one for him...
A company boss whose business was fined £260,000 for making 16.7 million automated marketing calls has been banned from holding directorships for six years. Shaun Harkin, 48, from Coventry and the sole director at Easyleads Ltd, was pulled over hot coals by the Information Commissioner's Office on 21 September last year for …
But he can get someone else to front one for him
Maybe, but:
The marketing menace was banned in July from directly or indirectly being involved, without the permission of the court, in the promotion, formation or management of a company for six years
Hopefully this means his name can't be on any paper work. Like a letter or a wage slip. So the named person doing his bidding would have to be someone he can totally trust.
"But he can get someone else to front one for him..."
From TFA (my emphasis) banned in July from directly or indirectly being involved. Getting someone to front for him becomes a criminal offence with time as a guest of HMQ as a distinct possibility. I suppose that would also apply to whoever did front for him if they did so knowingly.
I'm not saying he wouldn't do it but he would be heading into progressively deeper shit if he did.
"I'm not saying he wouldn't do it but he would be heading into progressively deeper shit if he did."
Part of me is hoping that he's both stupid enough to try and thick enough not to realise that a lot of people are going to make a hobby out of keeping an eye on his activities.(*)
Personally I thin the ban should be 6 years or until the fine is paid, whichever is longer.
(*) Bearing in mind that a lot of criminals of this kind believe they're too clever to get caught, that they have an infallible scheme and tend to have a tendency to gloat about their moneymakers or simply flaunt the unexplained wealth.
Well, its an interesting point. Presumably his family have benefited from a considerably enhanced lifestyle as a result of his activities, and one might argue that a partner at least might well have some awareness and responsibility for encouraging or discouraging the business practices. There's a whole spectrum from partner completely unaware of all illegal activity and not benefiting because the bad guy gambles away all his ill gotten gains, right through to a partner who actively participates and encourages in all the crooked dealings.
And its well established that enhanced education and other privileged circumstances bring a considerable leg up in society *at the expense of those who haven't had such privilege*. Is it so very unjust if that privilege is lost if it was the result of unlawful activity? If a legitimate businessman becomes bankrupt and loses everything his offspring will lose all the privilege he can no longer afford to buy them, is it necessarily wrong that the same should happen to the offspring of a crook?
I'm not sure to what extent "what happens if I'm caught" really deters the average criminal, but if it does deter would "and my family will suffer too" add as an extra deterrent?
There are not actually easy answers to this.
not suffer, no.
if they knew of or were party to his crimes then they should be dealth with by the law.
otherwise, if they were good law abiding citizens, unknowingly benefitting from ill gotten gains then those gains should surely be removed and let them survive like all other good law abiding citizens that fall upon hard times - by joining the dole queue and visiting food banks
So a modest proposal. He can be free to go about any lawful business, once he's answered 16.7m automated calls. Borrow BT's voice recognition IVR to make sure each call is answered with variations on "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" and combine with home detention for a form of justice.
I was thinking one swift kick in the bollocks for each of those calls, but then I realized he'd probably die before all of them were delivered.
Then I wondered if making him listen to an hour of Vogon poetry for each call might not be more fun for the rest of us.
Damn the Geneva Convention, full Vogon ahead! /s
Pathetic and toothless. The law really isnt that bothered about the abuses of these scum, it just plays lip service to the notion of justice. Banned for 6 years is a joke.
He is required to pay a FINE, if it remains unpaid then JAIL him. Its the only way to deter this scum class who know they can flout the law with little or no consequences. The same goes for liquidating businesses that are under investigation. sorry the finances should be frozen along with both the business and personal assets of the director(s) at the outset of any investigation.
If the statute doesnt exist then it needs to be enacted. They've been tinkering with this for years - and its not like the exchequer doesnt need the cash.
Getting so sick of hearing how the new regulations have real teeth - only to find the "teeth" are papier mache - made out of the useless fine notices served by an ineffective regulatory body
I wish I could upvote this to infinity & beyond. I am sick & fekkin tired of "justice" that does nothing to make the crims think twice before doing it, merely shove a paper warning in their hands if it does anything at all, & proving that crime does indeed pay & rather well at that.
If vigilante justice is so bad then why does it so often seem to be the only kind that might ACTUALLY get the crims to consider before doing? Sure a howling angry mob of pitchforks & burning pitch brandishing townsfolk might be a bad thing, but if The Law is only going to waggle a stern finger at the crims & tut "Don't do it again!", then the mob is obviously the greater deterrent to crims.
I'll get my coat, it's the one with the pitchfork & pot of tar in the pockets...
Because the fine isn't imposed by the court, which makes enforcement difficult.
Legislation needs adjusting, which is unlikely to happen - take a look at the "friends" networks of these scumbags and you'll find a lot of politicians involved and handwringing about gummit innerferrance in legidemute biznutz