http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...tempts-5730594
Sad to see her like that in that photo
She was one of my favourite Series 2 candidates!
Sad to see her like that in that photo
She was one of my favourite Series 2 candidates!
Sharon McAllister Jailed for 3 months
Originally Posted by sveknu:
“It doesn't surprise me one bit, as she came across as a sulky bitch when she was on the show.”
“It doesn't surprise me one bit, as she came across as a sulky bitch when she was on the show.”
Why does someone being sulky mean it wouldn't surprise you if they were jailed?
It just shows that for every Katie Hopkins and Luisa who went on to fame and fortune, there is someone at the complete opposite end from their experience .
She has obviously been through some rough times
She has obviously been through some rough times
I really liked Sharon as well, and it's very sad to see her in jail.
I think that we should avoid judging her, we don't know all the facts. She may have committed an offence in the legal sense of the word, but for all we know she had a very good reason for not wanting the child to see his father. Maybe the child didn't want to, and she was trying to do the right thing.
I think that we should avoid judging her, we don't know all the facts. She may have committed an offence in the legal sense of the word, but for all we know she had a very good reason for not wanting the child to see his father. Maybe the child didn't want to, and she was trying to do the right thing.
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“Why does someone being sulky mean it wouldn't surprise you if they were jailed?”
“Why does someone being sulky mean it wouldn't surprise you if they were jailed?
”
I guess they meant no surprise in as much as she's the sort of person who would deny the child's father any access, and then go on to ignore a court access order to the point of eventually being jailed for contempt of court.
Originally Posted by Paul_DNAP:
“I guess they meant no surprise in as much as she's the sort of person who would deny the child's father any access, and then go on to ignore a court access order to the point of eventually being jailed for contempt of court.”
“I guess they meant no surprise in as much as she's the sort of person who would deny the child's father any access, and then go on to ignore a court access order to the point of eventually being jailed for contempt of court.”
I don't think she came across as nasty or unpleasant. She did seem very irritated for a considerable period of time, but I'd argue that she had reason to be. In fact, she was fired for being too nice and not cut-throat enough.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I really liked Sharon as well, and it's very sad to see her in jail.
I think that we should avoid judging her, we don't know all the facts. She may have committed an offence in the legal sense of the word, but for all we know she had a very good reason for not wanting the child to see his father. Maybe the child didn't want to, and she was trying to do the right thing.”
“I really liked Sharon as well, and it's very sad to see her in jail.
I think that we should avoid judging her, we don't know all the facts. She may have committed an offence in the legal sense of the word, but for all we know she had a very good reason for not wanting the child to see his father. Maybe the child didn't want to, and she was trying to do the right thing.”
We may not know the facts, but the court would have known the facts. I don't believe that she would have been convicted had there not been strong evidence that what she did is wrong.
Originally Posted by WinterFire:
“We may not know the facts, but the court would have known the facts. I don't believe that she would have been convicted had there not been strong evidence that what she did is wrong.”
“We may not know the facts, but the court would have known the facts. I don't believe that she would have been convicted had there not been strong evidence that what she did is wrong.”
I mean, yes she broke the law, but it may not have been with malicious intent. Sometimes the law treats people unfairly that I would have some sympathy for, I prefer not to pass judgment myself.
Anyway, this thread started two months ago, so she'll be out soon. She might be out already, often people are let out early if they don't cause trouble inside.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I mean, yes she broke the law, but it may not have been with malicious intent. Sometimes the law treats people unfairly that I would have some sympathy for, I prefer not to pass judgment myself.”
“I mean, yes she broke the law, but it may not have been with malicious intent. Sometimes the law treats people unfairly that I would have some sympathy for, I prefer not to pass judgment myself.”
Again, this would have all come up at her court case. I've had a look into the case, and see no sign of any justification. The reason that we have judges and courts is so that they can pass judgement in a fair manner given an appropriate understanding of the facts. So, none of us need to pass judgement, as it has been done already by the proper authorities. I see no reason to doubt the decision that the court made.
Many people, female and male, have been causing enormous hurt and emotional damage to children by acting in the way that she did. In my opinion it is entirely appropriate that she was given a custodial sentence given her actions.
It says here she was released on appeal and it gives some of her side of the story:
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views...tence-1.886998
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views...tence-1.886998
