Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:52 am  

Seth wrote:

So, weve tales of 'miscalculated drinks' and fear of carjacking as well as his long line of previous discretions. You want to believe him because of the shirt he wears, anyone with a functional frontal lobe isn't buying any of it.

Are you thick? Show me where i have said i believe, or condone any part what he has done? I am only reporting what has happened, and what's been been said in court, and the club are supporting him going forward. If you're not happy with this situation........Tough $hit.

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:58 am  

Ok cokey, putting the unnecessary personal insults aside, your messages seemed to do a good job of portraying someone who; thinks the club are right to support him/keep him in the squad and thinks his tales are believable. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

For clarity then, do you believe his 'excuses'?

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:29 pm  

Most rational people can't put themselves into the minds of addicts and their grossly irresponsible behaviour.

You'd hope Zak might have chilled out for the sake of his youngest if nothing else but this appears not to be the case.

Leigh have always done well with the previous members that had "history" given the statement it would appear the intent is not to fail anyone.

If he can't bunk up at Josh's house then he's going to have to get the train or national express.

In fact his life seems to mirror the service you get from transpennine

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:44 pm  

So cokey is basically saying it’s the fault of the police lol

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm  

Seth wrote:

Ok cokey, putting the unnecessary personal insults aside, your messages seemed to do a good job of portraying someone who; thinks the club are right to support him/keep him in the squad and thinks his tales are believable. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

For clarity then, do you believe his 'excuses'?

You are asking me whether i believe (what you call excuses) that what has been sworn upon,and then what determined the outcome in court. I haven't seen where the judge has deemed Zak's statement on the incident to be an excuse.

So..........

For clarity, are they excuses? If so, could you please provide proof of this?

Once again i don't condone any part of what he's done but, I don't, unlike some who would want him sine die.

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:00 pm  

Cokey wrote:

You are asking me whether i believe (what you call excuses) that what has been sworn upon,and then what determined the outcome in court. I haven't seen where the judge has deemed Zak's statement on the incident to be an excuse.

So..........

For clarity, are they excuses? If so, could you please provide proof of this?

Ill take that as you do believe him then, which kind of renders your previous rant as pointless. He miscalculated his drinks and thought he was going to be carjacked, hardly things you can disprove as theyre going on entirely between his ears but if youre not 'thick', sound like an addict (for which i am empathetic) grasping for some sort of fictional rationale, i dont care where he said it, its BS.

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:05 pm  

Seth wrote:

Ill take that as you do believe him then, which kind of renders your previous rant as pointless.

NO! Take it as that you can't answer the question.

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:09 pm  

Cokey wrote:

NO! Take it as that you can't answer the question.

errm, you didnt answer mine about whether you believed him.

on your 'proof' question ive answered above.

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:12 pm  

ill rephrase then. Regardless of where hes said it, do you believe him that he a) thought he was going to be carjacked and b) miscalculated his drinks? or do both sound like a desperate addict with previous grasping for credibility?

Re: Bad Boy Zak : Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:25 pm  

Seth wrote:

ill rephrase then. Regardless of where hes said it, do you believe him that he a) thought he was going to be carjacked and b) miscalculated his drinks? or do both sound like a desperate addict with previous grasping for credibility?

I can only believe what the outcome of the verdict was in court. There should've been no sort of miscalculation of drinks, he simply shouldn't have even had a sip of alcohol before getting behind the wheel, hence why i keep saying i don't condone any part of what he's done. Whether anyone believes the carjacking, i'm only reporting that it was used as mitigation in court. I can't comment whether it's true or not, and can't believe it either way. You did say it was an excuse, so can you please provide that evidence?