Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nugget
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.
Sorry if you disagree Kronas †“ Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not trying to start an argument and, as ever, this is purely IMHO.
|
i understand your point but no 'safe house' will be safe for her when she is released.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nugget
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).
|
i knew what he said, but these are tabloid newspapers they want the best information to put towards the public to sell papers, so what better way to uncover her location.....