I agree, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he didnāt really understand the sentencing guidelines when he wrote the letter.
No, I believe he was stupid cunt for writing the letter. The sentencing guidelines were already too lenient, no need to be asking for further leniency.
ah fuck this shit. Muting
So youāre now defending his right to act as a character reference, yes? Is this so?
I only ask because you seem to be all over the place here.
Of course he has the ārightā to write the letter. I am saying he was wrong to write the letter, as most sane people conclude, including himself after reflection. Only you appear to have sympathy for Humpheries around here, and believe he should have had a lesser sentence.
I donāt have any sympathy for Humphries, I never said he should have got a lesser sentence, and the fact that you again have to lyingly claim such shows how thin your argument is here. Lies, as always, are all you have.
You now admit Cusack had the right to act as a character reference.
I thought you were big on free speech?
That appears to not be so at all - youāre only big on free speech when it suits you, or when it doesnāt offend your CTMO (compulsory temporary moral outrage) - Ā© J. Brolly.
Imitation flattery etcā¦
There is only one reason to give a character reference in a criminal case and thatās to ask for a more lenient sentence. Donal Og admitted he was wrong, you seem to be obsessed with arguing he was right.
Interesting that Ramos makes these tweets on the day that Zidane returns
1 Like
I didnāt argue whether he was wrong or right.
I argued that he had the right to be a character reference, which he absolutely had, as character references are an integral part of the justice system.
The most integral part of the justice system of all is the right to defend oneās self.
There are numerous factors at play which can lead to more lenient sentencing. I suppose we should just get rid of those too based on a whim.
At least I imagine a lot of pub bores think so.
Are you claiming he was fully aware of Humphries acts & guilt before making his statement?
He was aware wasnāt he? He pleaded guilty and thatās when the character reference came in
He was aware but not to the full extent I thinkā¦ You dont know what version Humphries fed himā¦ Not excusing his actions, but if a close friend/ family member asked you and sold you a limited version of the story youād be torn.
1 Like
I personally donāt think character references should be used at all for offences of this kind. It should be only for spur of the moment type offences in my opinion and not in premeditated stuff
1 Like
Agreed 100%
If a close friend told me he was pleading guilty to grooming a child Iād like to think I wouldnāt give him a character reference
Wouldnt we all ā¦ I dont think heād use the term āgroomingā tho ā¦ Like I said, Iām not sure what version of the truth Donal Og knew ā¦ He may have know the full lot or a version that made it look like Humphries made 1 silly mistake and was truly sorry for itā¦ Neither scenario is ok but if it was the latter and it was someone you cared about, youād be very tempted to see the best in them and help them.
1 Like
As I said bro, thereās a lot of variables at play ā¦ people love to try and make issues black and white when life is nearly always full grey.
Anyway, @Horsebox wouldnt need meā¦ the rubby set would close ranks around one of their own.