mmmdl said:
I don't understand the comments from people in this thread saying we shouldn't judge until he is proven guilty..............ummmm, he has blown 0.197, almost 4 times the legal limit. This isn't in dispute. He clearly is guilty, what else can he plead?
What's so difficult to understand? It's called a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or admitted guilty.
If you believed News Ltd, you would have believed that Brett was so drunk he couldn't remember anything, that his penis was out of his pants, that people had to pull him off the girl, etc, etc. To a person of intelligence, all these reportings reflected on the credibility of the source - not on the credibility of Brett.
If Tamou admits guilt, which he apparently has, then a strong penalty is warranted. If he didn't, he would have been entitled to argue his case. The exact same right Brett should have been afforded by Gallop - but wasn't. Even Pistorius is entitled to argue his case where key facts are in dispute, and he admits pulling the trigger.