Martin Aspinwall jailed

[gillysmyhero]

Aspinwall is trouble when hes drunk.From what ive heard that is why he was shown the door at both Wigan & Hudds.A member of my family has seen him in action when drunk & it wasnt a pretty sight.Its been a long time coming for him.Hope he does learn & change.

[jobo]

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?

Fair point but people in a normal frame of mind don't do the mental things he's done. He is truly ill and needs help. Maybe he'll get some treatment with his problem whilst he's inside.

[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!

It does if you then go and drive your car!

But he didn't. Did he!

[Matthew]

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes

[cpwigan]

To make a mistake is human, to repeat the same mistake again is the sign of a fool.

Therein lies a fundamental difference between Aspinwall and Hock. Aspinwall got off very luck with the suspended sentence and failed to act accordingly thereafter. Hock has spent 2 years reacting to his wake up call and acting impeccably. Chalk and cheese

[DaveO]

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.

No they are not and I was not suggesting Hock drove his car at 90mph under the influence of drugs.

However "drug driving" whether speeding or not is a real problem.

[DaveO]

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 he didn't. Did he!

How do you know? Because he wasn't caught?

I think it's a bit naive to think anyone daft enough to do drugs is sensible enough not to drive when under the influence.

That is whether they think they are capable or not, just like people can get done for drink driving the morning after a heavy session.

[gpartin]

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!

Dave, just as not every drinker chooses to get behind the wheel of a car, not every coke user does too. Its not the first time that you have come up with this farcical argument. As far as I am aware there is no suggestion that Gaz Hock is guilty of driving under the influence of drugs and this idea that he took drugs so he might have done therefore it's just as bad, is quite frankly, absurd and I'm sure that someone as literate and intelligent as yourself would be able to see it but for the fact it doesn't suit your agenda. I think its funny that in your quest to get your point across about Hock, by the use of what he may have done or probably done, you became the most vocal person in defence of another person who on balance of probabilities has had as much involvement in drugs as Hock anyway. Of course in your eyes we are only allowed to use speculation against people when it suits aren't we?

"A little too ironic, yeah I really do think"

[Kittwazzer]

My understanding of the law is that a person is presumed innocent until found guilty. Dave's interpretation appears to presume that everyone is guilty. Just that most of us have not yet been caught!

[Sutty]

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!

Dave, just as not every drinker chooses to get behind the wheel of a car, not every coke user does too. Its not the first time that you have come up with this farcical argument. As far as I am aware there is no suggestion that Gaz Hock is guilty of driving under the influence of drugs and this idea that he took drugs so he might have done therefore it's just as bad, is quite frankly, absurd and I'm sure that someone as literate and intelligent as yourself would be able to see it but for the fact it doesn't suit your agenda. I think its funny that in your quest to get your point across about Hock, by the use of what he may have done or probably done, you became the most vocal person in defence of another person who on balance of probabilities has had as much involvement in drugs as Hock anyway. Of course in your eyes we are only allowed to use speculation against people when it suits aren't we?

"A little too ironic, yeah I really do think"

:eusa2: Excellent post Gaz. Why Dave feels the need to make these sorts of comments is totally beyond me. Like you said, he's literate and intelligent enough to, surely, realise that the two incidents aren't in the slightest bit related. Yet, he feels the need to try and stoke the flames with what is a truly bizarre statement.