Martin Aspinwall jailed

Got something to discuss about RL in general? Then this is the place to post it.
jobo
Posts: 3675
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 1:33 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by jobo »

Lots of problems this lad. A little bit more understanding wouldn't go wrong.
doc
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:08 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by doc »

He may soon have the company of Mr. Moore as driving while disqualified usually ends in a custodial sentence.
Kittwazzer
Posts: 11307
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by Kittwazzer »

doc wrote:He may soon have the company of Mr. Moore as driving while disqualified usually ends in a custodial sentence.
Especially if you're bladdered!
User avatar
Wigan_forever1985
Posts: 6569
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:50 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by Wigan_forever1985 »

jobo wrote:Lots of problems this lad. A little bit more understanding wouldn't go wrong.
Sorry i disagree, everyone has problems but people have to take resposiblity for their actions.

I wonder how understanding you would be if he had mowed down one of your family during this chase?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
Kittwazzer
Posts: 11307
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by Kittwazzer »

One of the clowns on SLF asks whether the people calling for Cas to sack him are the “same people who congratulated Wigan for standing by a cokehead?”

Totally different scenario. Shoving stuff up the nose does not pose an immediate and very real risk of killing innocent road users!
StarAndy
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:26 am

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by StarAndy »

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:
jobo wrote:Lots of problems this lad. A little bit more understanding wouldn't go wrong.
Sorry i disagree, everyone has problems but people have to take resposiblity for their actions.

I wonder how understanding you would be if he had mowed down one of your family during this chase?
:eusa2: I agree... a little time to sober up clean up and reflect and even Martin will agree that racing through streets such as Bell Green Lane at 90mph hes lucky hes not doing 5 to 10 years for killing a child or anyone for that matter


User avatar
Wigan_forever1985
Posts: 6569
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:50 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by Wigan_forever1985 »

Plus to my knowledge that was Hock's first involvement with the law (although i stand to be corrected) lets not forget this guy was already banned from driving and was on a suspended sentence for assault.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
eccywarrior
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:37 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by eccywarrior »

cant believe hes daft enough to have done that.
as a old school year friend i hope this is a wake up call.
IN WANE WE TRUST
DaveO
Posts: 15910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by DaveO »

Kittwazzer wrote:One of the clowns on SLF asks whether the people calling for Cas to sack him are the “same people who congratulated Wigan for standing by a cokehead?”

Totally different scenario. Shoving stuff up the nose does not pose an immediate and very real risk of killing innocent road users!
It does if you then go and drive your car!
Sutty
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Martin Aspinwall jailed

Post by Sutty »

DaveO wrote:
Kittwazzer wrote:One of the clowns on SLF asks whether the people calling for Cas to sack him are the “same people who congratulated Wigan for standing by a cokehead?”

Totally different scenario. Shoving stuff up the nose does not pose an immediate and very real risk of killing innocent road users!
It does if you then go and drive your car!
But, IIRC Dave, Hock didn't jump in his car and hare round the streets at speeds in excess of 90mph whilst trying to evade the police.

Maybe it's just the way you worded it, but it sounded like you were implying that the two things are related, and they're not.


Post Reply