This will come as no surprise to those who have been on the receiving end of joint and several liability, but it seems like The Telegraph would like to hold Beckham jointly and severally liable for the demise of England at the World Cup and Andy Murray’s defeat in Wimbledon.
And why? Because David Beckham (a sportsman) happened to be there (at a major sporting event). How fucking dare he?
Forget the blindingly obvious facts that
a) Germany scored 4 goals and England scored 1. (ok 2). I thought that this was the reason that they lost?
b) Murray was beaten by a better opponent Nadal. Fair and square. When the big points came, Nadal held his nerve and Murray didnt. I thought that this was the reason that he lost?
Forget about the actual players and the fact that they didn’t play good enough, its all David Beckham’s fault because he was there in person:- (in the crowd, supporting and cheering England) – JSL can be applied to him.
As a sportsman, he should now not be allowed to attend, interfere, have any interest in, do business in any kind or type of sporting activity because he is jointly and severally liable for England’s recent sporting failures.
HMRC apply this JSL scheme to the business world. i.e. if you happen to be connected (even at a long distance) if a trader defaults, then you will also be blamed for their failure. This diseased and irrational concept is spreading. The Telegraph are now suggesting it.
JSL however, is nothing new. It goes all the way back to Adam and Eve when the two of them were held jointly liable because of the serpants temptations.
See the Telegraph article here.