oakiecokie said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
What gives me 'consternation' is you talking utter shite.
Your 'mate' is a convicted violent thug, whether you like it or not.
You also stated earlier that the victim had never done a day's work in his life - now he's a fucking car salesman all of a sudden.
There is no point in trying to discuss this rationally with you, because you are simply blind to the truth, because Ant is a friend.
Loyalty is an admirable commodity, but in your case it means you can't see the wood for the trees here.
Anyway, I'll leave you to your campaign for 'justice'.
A private car salesman who works from his home.I think you need to look back on the posts because not only once,twice or thrice times I have stated that he admitted his guilt but a denial of striking someone with a bottle that never existed.
I certainly don`t support Ant for what he`s done but talking about being blind is ridiculous but then again you are doing exactly the same and condeming him for something which never actually happened.
As many people have said of you in the past,a dog with a bone with a lot of wummery.Just read back on your posts to the American guys.WOW talk about me being blind,you take the biscuit.
You really are beginning to look increasingly stupid here.
What myself and 99% of the forum have tried to do is look at this case with as detached and objective a view as possible.
Because that is what you can do when you are not personally involved by knowing the accused.
You, on the other hand, have blindly accepted the word of a violent convicted criminal as gospel, and think you know better than both the presiding judge and the legal profession.
I didn't ask some daft sherman to come on and start prattling about guns and reasonable force, but when he did, then I replied, because I thought he was talking bollocks.
Which he was.
That's kind of how this forum thingummy works.
There has been no wummery by me on this thread - just a load of utter baloney from you trying to make out that some dickhead who launched a premeditated attack on someone is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, which is utter drivel.
You even lied about the victims employment status - initially he 'didn't have a day's work in him', then all of a sudden he was a used car salesman who works from home.
Most folk on here think he is bang to rights - the fact that he has decided not to appeal shows that he does too, yet still you won't let it go, so you move the goalposts instead.
But you carry on blaming me and an unfair criminal justice system if it makes you happy.