The case of Luke v. Peter

spoiler alert: this post makes reference to the March 17 episode on CBC

If it please the court, I would like to present the case of Luke v. Peter, a landmark legal precedent wherein the plaintiff, the very sexy Ms. Michelle Sinéad Connor of Coronation Street, was placed in an unfortunate dilemma based on the affections of two suitors who shall be known forthwith as 'Lucky Luke' and 'Peter the not-so-Great'.

I submit, your honour, that the right and proper individual to engage in a serious relationship with Ms. Connor leading up to and including leg-over privileges -- is none other than Luke Strong. I make this case based on the following evidence:

Luke is fit
Luke is an entrepreneur
Luke saved a rabbit from a fire
Luke is not an alcoholic
Luke is not a bigamist
Luke's idea of a fun date is fun

Upon cross-examination and, in light of evidence and eye-witness testimony, I further submit that Peter Barlow is singularly unqualified and unsuited to enjoy the longterm affections and legover privileges of Ms Connor based on the undisputed facts which show that:

Peter is somewhat fit but smokes like a chimney
Peter is a bookie
Peter almost killed a rabbit by starting a fire
Peter is an alcoholic
Peter is a bigamist
Peter's idea of a fun date is pizza with Blanche

No further questions, your honour. I rest my case.