Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kronas
not a paper reader here but in my book a good 10 years inside would have been good for her, she has been uncovered as a habitual lier, she protected a murderer, yes she did not commit the crime, but i still think because of her track record (now uncovered) she should have been kept inside longer...
yes im harsh, but the laws in this country do no justice.
|
A little
too harsh I think.
Whilst I understand your opinion that sheââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s an habitual liar (as a result of the Benefit fraud charges etc), it still doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t change the fact that she was (at the time) †˜onlyâÃà ‚¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ found guilty of perverting the course of justice and, as a result, was sentenced appropriately †“ you canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t use the argument of a now uncovered track record to say that she should be locked up for years, as it had no relevance to the case in point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kronas
the quote does indeed incite negative behaviour towards her but its deserved, i personally think where ever she goes she will be uncovered to be there by the tabloids.
|
I think this is why Julian is saying about a court order - if the papers are bound by the law not to reveal where she is, then they can't (whether this happens or not though remains to be seen).
Sorry if you disagree Kronas †“ Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not trying to start an argument and, as ever, this is purely IMHO.