Page 1 of 1

seems plauesable?

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:29 pm
by Scotty C

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:49 pm
by campbell
Has Tut been advising this chap?!

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:10 pm
by woody
campbell wrote:Has Tut been advising this chap?!

Smee I think.

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:29 pm
by Rosssco
:lol:

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

"Tarmac expert Shaw, 63"

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:08 am
by Scotty C
campbell wrote:Has Tut been advising this chap?!
:damnfunny

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:13 am
by robin
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 :-)

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:34 am
by Corranga
Sounds like he was pissed in court too.

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

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:42 am
by graeme
I'm not sure that would help his case much. "Were you pissed?" "No, but can I have a retrial because I'm pissed?" :drink

Re: seems plauesable?

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:55 pm
by robin
What? Seems completely reasonable to me ... remember this is the law, not common sense ;-)