Lee Hughes

[bhaexpress]

Hughes has done his time. Whilst you cannot ignore what he did he has just gone back to his job, just like every other person who has committed and been punished for the same offences.

 

[Gerbil]

Lee Hughes, Marlon King, and Luke McCormic :yahoo:
Now that is a dream team.

 

[Brian Potter]

Hughes has done his time. Whilst you cannot ignore what he did he has just gone back to his job, just like every other person who has committed and been punished for the same offences.

Not stictly like "every other person". There are a great deal of jobs (mine included), where his criminal record would preclude him from even getting an interview. Fact is, he is in a profession that has no qualms about your past behaviour and will tolerate a great deal of indiscretions that many employers would regard as bringing your company into disreprute.

 

[seggers]

Every one has a past now give the guy a break he has done his time in jail just let him get on with his life.

 

[BensGrandad]

If you wish to be moralistic why did we have Codnor back after he did his time is drug taking notas serious, in my mind it is and should be punished as such.

Not wishing to get too involved in the rights or wrongs of his offence but I was told by an inspector at Ember Court if you have an accident and have been drinking 2 things to do if possible get away from the scene and lie low for 3 days and claim you couldnt remember anything they cannot back track sufficiently to prosecute. If stopped and asked to take a breatherlyser when asked if you have been drinking say NO. If you say yes they must breatherlyse you if you say no they may or may not bother it is 50/50. I am not for one minute saying that I agree with it but he may have heard that and that may have been in his mind and he not realised somebody was injured.

 

[Silent Bob]

If you wish to be moralistic why did we have Codnor back after he did his time is drug taking notas serious, in my mind it is and should be punished as such.

In your mind it may be, but your mind is obviously wrong.

 

[HseagullsH]

We should definately be looking at league two strikers.

Le Fondre would be my first choice, brilliant striker who is still very young.

If we couldn't get him, Hughes would be a brilliant signing.

Hughes or Le Fondre alongside Murray next season and we should have a very good strikeforce

 

[BensGrandad]

I am 150% anti drugs and would willingly report anybody I knew, irrespective of who they were, to be in possession or dealing them end of story.

 

[Silent Bob]

It's still not as bad as killing people though is it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Debatable because that is the end product in most cases, and quite often at a young age.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Not wishing to get too involved in the rights or wrongs of his offence but I was told by an inspector at Ember Court if you have an accident and have been drinking 2 things to do if possible get away from the scene and lie low for 3 days and claim you couldnt remember anything they cannot back track sufficiently to prosecute. If stopped and asked to take a breatherlyser when asked if you have been drinking say NO. If you say yes they must breatherlyse you if you say no they may or may not bother it is 50/50. I am not for one minute saying that I agree with it but he may have heard that and that may have been in his mind and he not realised somebody was injured.

You claim to be very 'anti-drugs' and then write as though you are on them.

 

[Mackenzie]

We've got Forster, why do we need Hughes?

 

[Silent Bob]

Debatable because that is the end product in most cases, and quite often at a young age.

Go on then, debate it. How is getting pissed, smashing into someone and then running away morally the same as choosing to take, or even sell, drugs?

 

[Mellotron]

If you wish to be moralistic why did we have Codnor back after he did his time is drug taking notas serious, in my mind it is and should be punished as such.

Are you COMPLETELY INSANE?

 

[Mellotron]

You claim to be very 'anti-drugs' and then write as though you are on them.

 

[BensGrandad]

You claim to be very 'anti-drugs' and then write as though you are on them.

Could you please explain, perhaps I am simple but I dont get your meaning as what I wrote is what I was told by a Police Inspector. In all case law there is usually a standard get out that can be used and going missing for 3 days is one such example for a breatherlyser. The police cannot track alco/blood for 3 days and they cannot prove leaving the scene if you dont remember what you did so cannot defend it.

The answering no to the question again gives you the chance to avoid it as the law states that if you say yes but I have only had 1/2 of shandy the fact you said yes means the officer is obliged to give a breatherlyser if he is doing his duty. If you so No he can then choose whether he believes you or not, he may well not and give you a breatherlyser, but he could believe you and not test you and you will have 'got away with it'.

So where does talking like being on drugs come into it.

 

[HseagullsH]

We've got Forster, why do we need Hughes?

1) Poyet and Forster don't seem to see eye to eye and I'd be surprised if Forster is here next year.

2) I think Hughes is a better striker than Forster.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Could you please explain, perhaps I am simple but I dont get your meaning as what I wrote is what I was told by a Police Inspector. In all case law there is usually a standard get out that can be used and going missing for 3 days is one such example for a breatherlyser. The police cannot track alco/blood for 3 days and they cannot prove leaving the scene if you dont remember what you did so cannot defend it.

Hmm. In this particular case, I think that what with the police finding your car embedded in the back of the victims' vehicle, might just make hiding for three days, then pretending you were not there, a little difficult.

Regardless of any of that, are you seriously suggesting that this kind of 'advice' would in any way justify Hughes actions in fleeing the scene?

 

[drew]

If you wish to be moralistic why did we have Codnor back after he did his time is drug taking notas serious, in my mind it is and should be punished as such.

Not wishing to get too involved in the rights or wrongs of his offence but I was told by an inspector at Ember Court if you have an accident and have been drinking 2 things to do if possible get away from the scene and lie low for 3 days and claim you couldnt remember anything they cannot back track sufficiently to prosecute. If stopped and asked to take a breatherlyser when asked if you have been drinking say NO. If you say yes they must breatherlyse you if you say no they may or may not bother it is 50/50. I am not for one minute saying that I agree with it but he may have heard that and that may have been in his mind and he not realised somebody was injured.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00749/SNN0915W_380_749784a.jpg

Now tell me he thought no one was injured. I am sure that if you are involved in an accident and the police suspect you have been drinking they can request a breathtest or take you to the nick for a blood test. If you don't you can be charged with failing to provide a breath test. I don't think it is a case of they may or may not bother! As for comparing drug taking with killing someone, exactly where did you get your moral compass from and I'll avoid the place like the plague. I can't fully remember what Codner had done, whether it was taking or supplying but if the former then it is a long way from killing someone but if the later, serious but not the same as what Hughes did.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would think that had he been picked up and taken to a friends house rather than his own, the accident would have given substance to his story that he had lost his memory.

No I do not agree that it justifys his action anymore than it does many other people who escape the law through a legal loophole.