Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Chris Huhne: Harsh?

+8
NickFazer
Mr Magoo
Reebok_Rebel
Reebok Trotter
xmiles
Hipster_Nebula
Bernard Dennis Park
Natasha Whittam
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

21Chris Huhne: Harsh? - Page 2 Empty Re: Chris Huhne: Harsh? Mon Mar 11 2013, 22:24

Reebok Trotter

Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

rammywhite wrote:8 months- halved so they'll be out in 4. Probably out in 2 months and tagged with a curfew.
Is it worth it? Who will benefit from locking them away for a couple of months. They're both ruined,careers in tatters,their kids hate them,they're held in complee contempt by the public. I would have put them on probation and made them do 180 hours community service- picking up dog shit in public parks. .
I really don't see that asking your missus to take your points when he was on 9 points and about to get banned is that bad. I wonder how many millions of people out there have done or would have done the same thing.

Most people would go for it if their licence was at risk and they thought they could get away with it.

There was a case a few years ago involving a wealthy Cheshire businessman who got his Swedish Au Pair to take his points for a speeding offence. Things were fine until her 12 month contract was up and she returned to Sweden and had a change of heart. She contacted the authorities and the businessman ended up getting six months in prison.

Mind how you go.

22Chris Huhne: Harsh? - Page 2 Empty Re: Chris Huhne: Harsh? Mon Mar 11 2013, 22:35

bwfc71

bwfc71
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

Firstly it serves her right for getting time for what basically was revenge to her ex husband for cheating on her

Secondly it serves him right for trying to hide something very minor - but his case is not harsh enough.

23Chris Huhne: Harsh? - Page 2 Empty Re: Chris Huhne: Harsh? Mon Mar 11 2013, 22:41

Reebok Trotter

Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

bwfc71 wrote:Firstly it serves her right for getting time for what basically was revenge to her ex husband for cheating on her

Secondly it serves him right for trying to hide something very minor - but his case is not harsh enough.

What I find particularly harsh is that he seems to have swapped one fcuking munter for another. There is no shame in being celibate. Stevie ' French ' Fry has made a bloody good living out of it. The court never took Huhne's partiality to strange looking birds into account and if I had been representing him, I would certainly have put it forward in mitigation.

Out of the frying pan into the fire etc etc..

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum