Running commentary of trial.

comment by Afridi14 (U2805)

I dont, he's an adult, and should have been treated as such.

He's going to a young offenders institute. Playstation/XBox, 5 a side football, sky, pool and the Daily Sport newspaper. Should be a good holiday.

these punishments are joke....a guy who went into greggs after it got looted and helped himself a sandwich and done for 6 months.

english law can be bought.

This under licence decision is a cop out. How can their future behaviour be monitored when they return to Pakistan.

I dont, he's an adult, and should have been treated as such.

____________________________________

Really? why is he going to a young offenders institute then???

comment by Afridi14 (U2805)

Cause the law stinks!

He's 18, thats an adult to me and pretty much everyone else in the world.

He broke the law and should've felt the full force of it.

I hope he never plays international cricket again, i dont like the he's young, he was lead astray talk, he's a great talent......

....he broke the law and he was 18 not 8 for god sake!

Albert,

I couldn't care less what you deem as an adult or not. The fact is, We should stick to the British law, according to that amir is NOT an adult.

Amir is now almost 20 years old and pleaded not guilty at the ICC hearing. His change of heart here was clearly a tactic to get a reduced sentence and it worked. No sympathy is deserved.

Hope - speak for yourself!! He was 18 when he commited the crime and is now 19, its quite clear that he was pressurised in all of this and has obviously been ill advised, hence the not guilty plea. Regards to sympathy, the ICC judges said they would hasve given Amir a less sentence, but werent allowed due to the icc rules...... today, the judge had ample sympathy for the youngster......

Amir is 19 years 8 months old. The Judge was taken in by his barrister and others going on about his age and the fact that he pleaded guilty.
But he pleaded his innocence at the ICC hearing, so not such a good boy then.
I think the Judge was leniet due to the fact that this is a landmark case and didn't want to have his sentences reduced on appeal.
If they appeal the should think carefully because sometimes the court increases sentences if they feel they're too lenient.

Why are you defending these criminals so staunchly, if they had been England players you would be hard-pressed to find anyone feeling sorry for them.