seems plauesable?

Scotty C · Post by **Scotty C** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:29 pm

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... le-whisky/

Post by **campbell** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:49 pm

Has Tut been advising this chap?!

woody · Post by **woody** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:10 pm

campbell wrote:Has Tut been advising this chap?!

Smee I think.

Rosssco · Post by **Rosssco** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:29 pm

You'd think he'd be half-decent at staying on the road..

"Tarmac expert Shaw, 63"

Scotty C · Post by **Scotty C** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:08 am

campbell wrote:Has Tut been advising this chap?!

robin · Post by **robin** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:13 am

Given that he vanished and the police couldn't find him at the time he should have remained hidden for 48 hours ... they could only convict because of breath/blood sample which they could not have obtained without actually having him! Logically, he must have been pissed

Corranga · Post by **Corranga** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:34 am

Sounds like he was pissed in court too.

Maybe he should request a retrial as he clearly suffers from severe alcoholism.

graeme · Post by **graeme** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:42 am

I'm not sure that would help his case much. "Were you pissed?" "No, but can I have a retrial because I'm pissed?"

robin · Post by **robin** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:55 pm

What? Seems completely reasonable to me ... remember this is the law, not common sense

Scottish Elises

seems plauesable?

seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?

Re: seems plauesable?