- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,831
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country


That would still not justify acquitting him. The law is the law and supposedly applies to everyone, regardless. The sentence, however, is a different matter and does seem unduly harsh in the light of the scant published details.You can argue against it if you believe, as medical specialists do, that he was unaware of owning it.
D'Oh. Of courseLuckily the judge can see that that is a lie. He's trying it on - won't work. He's like a diving footballer - and the ref has sussed him.

Squaddies have this drummed into them never to bring anything like this back its a really basic thing that is not an over sight or mistake . All ammunition even blanks have to be accounted for this is something they learn in the first few weeks so experienced sqaddies should know better unless?
You can argue against it if you believe, as medical specialists do, that he was unaware of owning it.

You can argue against it if you believe, as medical specialists do, that he was unaware of owning it.
Guns are illegal.
Drugs are illegal.
"oh, I forgot I had it guvner"
If you agree with gun laws, you should agree with this sentence, or you are just being a hypocrite.
Luckily the judge can see that that is a lie. He's trying it on - won't work. He's like a diving footballer - and the ref has sussed him.
he could have forgotten about it.