singe Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 We cannot throw stones due to the glass house we lived in, but thank goodness we don;t have to deal with all that again. No doubt some numpties will start when we play them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18164015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Hughes is a cnut, this scumbag is a notch below - he caused the deaths of kids….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 He didnt run away either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Too pissed to run probably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 He is only on trial there. Once they see the uproar, I can't imagine Di Canio (who himself has suffered personal tragedy this season) going for it. That said, he has served his time that the justice system deemed he should serve. Who are we to say he doesn't deserve a second chance? He's made a horrific mistake, and one that will live with him till the day he dies. Added to that, maybe he wasn't the only person at fault for the accident........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Hughes is a cnut, this scumbag is a notch below - he caused the deaths of kids….. I can't see that this makes a difference. Hughes, McCormack and anyone who drives under the influence but didn't have an accident all did exactly the same thing, just with a different outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm 50/50 on cases like this, being a liberal mindset you look at it and say he served his time. What he did, though, was terrible. For me the he should be able to have a career for one reason, he didn't do it on purpose. I know that might not mean anything to some, but he didn't go out to hurt anyone. What he did was something many have done and will continue to do, he caused an accident that on another day may not have killed anyone. Now the family of the kids won't want him to play, I'm sure, but he is out of prison and has a right to earn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 He's served his time. He has a right to pursue his trade. Better than being a sponger. People have a right to dislike him for what he did. It's just a shame he is looking to work in the public eye. The impact on the parents that creates. Hopefully we won't be seeing him at Boundary Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Hughes is a cnut, this scumbag is a notch below - he caused the deaths of kids….. That is under the assumption he knew there were kids in the car. Neither he or Hughes knew who was in the other car. Kids, adults - all the same.The outcome of a child dying may be worse admittedly, but what they did cannot be graded on who was in the other car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Also, McCormack was at a wedding with everyone telling him his missus was cheating on him, so jumped in the car to go back and find out! This obviously doesn't excuse him, but for me, he's nowhere near as low as Hughes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 well thats made my mind up for me! I will not be getting a season ticket at Swindon this season! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Agree with a lot of what has been said. Glad he hasn't joined Barry's probation squad at BP but the man has served his time according to the British judicial system, if he was a plasterer he would be able to carry on with that if he could convince an employer to give him a chance. Just because he kicks a bag a wind for a living doesn't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm in 2 minds about this, the first is that he has done his time and once criminals have completed their sentence then they should be free to earn money in any legal form they want. On the other hand, I think the system needs changing so the law no longer looks at causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink +/- drugs as a different crime to murder but in doing so recognise that murder should have varying levels to it, like in the states. I find it quite strange that the bloke who ran people over on purpose in Rochdale a few years back but didn't kill anyone got a minimum of 6 years, whereas Luke McCormick who knowingly got into his car after a heavy night and not enough sleep killed 2 kids only got a minimum of 3.5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I think death by dangerous driving should be treated as manslaughter. However, I find it strange that you find it strange that someone who deliberately drives a car at a group of people should get a lengthier sentence than someone who was reckless (albeit with far worse consequences). Which one poses the greater danger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snookmeister Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If it was my kids he'd killed, I wouldn't want the despicable :censored: breathing, let alone playing football. Just shows how different our opinions can be when it happens to "someone else"....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Spot on Snook - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Not really, that's why you don't have victims' families on the jury or in the Magistrate's seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Done crime, done time. He's a :censored: because he drank and then drove and in doing so put other people's lives on the line. The difference between him, Sean Gregan and Clarke Carlisle is that the latter two didn't drive into a car with children in it. It's a case of luck or bad luck depending on how you look at it, but the risk run is the same. If you're over the limit then you're playing with fire. Just because you don't get burned doesn't make it right or any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If it was my kids he'd killed, I wouldn't want the despicable :censored: breathing, let alone playing football. Just shows how different our opinions can be when it happens to "someone else"....... Me neither but the criminal justice system has to take an objective stance, otherwise how would it function? It's obviously easier to see that when it is someone else and damn near impossible if it's your family that's effected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I have driven when over the limit. (I should imagine most of us have) Fortunately I didn't have an accident . Does driving when I knew I shouldn't have make me the same as someone who killed another through drink driving? I think it probably does , just luckier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 There are worst people in the world to worry about than him. He's not evil he made a very stupid mistake. I'm in 2 minds about this, the first is that he has done his time and once criminals have completed their sentence then they should be free to earn money in any legal form they want. On the other hand, I think the system needs changing so the law no longer looks at causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink +/- drugs as a different crime to murder but in doing so recognise that murder should have varying levels to it, like in the states. I find it quite strange that the bloke who ran people over on purpose in Rochdale a few years back but didn't kill anyone got a minimum of 6 years, whereas Luke McCormick who knowingly got into his car after a heavy night and not enough sleep killed 2 kids only got a minimum of 3.5 years. Intent!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If we all followed the 'eye for an eye' principle, we would all be blind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I think death by dangerous driving should be treated as manslaughter. However, I find it strange that you find it strange that someone who deliberately drives a car at a group of people should get a lengthier sentence than someone who was reckless (albeit with far worse consequences). Which one poses the greater danger? Death by dangerous driving should be manslaughter, if the person is not under the influence of drugs and within the legal limit for alcohol. I think if you drive dangerously and are intoxicated then it becomes slightly more serious. Basically McCormick made a conscious decision to get in his car whilst still drunk. He then drove in a dangerous matter and killed 2 people. I suppose it depends where you start the intent, personally I'd start it from the moment he starts his car not the time later when he runs into the back of a people carrier. He had sometime to pull over and had a good friend pleading with him on a phone to do just that but deliberately chose not to. The bloke in Rochdale was very lucky he didn't kill anyone and I wouldn't have any qualms about him being charged with attempted murder, he wasn't. I'm not saying that his sentence was harsh or wrong in fact if anything it was a bit lenient. Especially considering his previous which I forgot to factor in. However, I firmly believe drink driving and causing a fatality sentences are too lenient. I'm not saying they need to spend their life in prison but they should spend more than 40 months inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Death by dangerous driving should be manslaughter, if the person is not under the influence of drugs and within the legal limit for alcohol. I think if you drive dangerously and are intoxicated then it becomes slightly more serious. Basically McCormick made a conscious decision to get in his car whilst still drunk. He then drove in a dangerous matter and killed 2 people. I suppose it depends where you start the intent, personally I'd start it from the moment he starts his car not the time later when he runs into the back of a people carrier. He had sometime to pull over and had a good friend pleading with him on a phone to do just that but deliberately chose not to. The bloke in Rochdale was very lucky he didn't kill anyone and I wouldn't have any qualms about him being charged with attempted murder, he wasn't. I'm not saying that his sentence was harsh or wrong in fact if anything it was a bit lenient. Especially considering his previous which I forgot to factor in. However, I firmly believe drink driving and causing a fatality sentences are too lenient. I'm not saying they need to spend their life in prison but they should spend more than 40 months inside. No, it's about the nature of the intent; one intended to drive when not fit to do so, the other intended to cause harm to a group of people. I'm not saying the justice system has got it all right though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) I have driven when over the limit. (I should imagine most of us have) Fortunately I didn't have an accident . Does driving when I knew I shouldn't have make me the same as someone who killed another through drink driving? I think it probably does , just luckier. I am not so sure about this, I think there is a distinction If you extrapolate it to speeding around a school or speeding on the motorway both are dangerous. Almost 100% of the population has knowingly done it. Just because people speed, does not mean they should all be up for a possible manslaughter charge and are lucky not to be if they don;t get caught. The difference with alcohol is that your judgement is impaired and you do not think as rationally. But neitherrdo you if you are driving aggresively, someone might still tell you to slow you and you may ignore them. Tricky area this. Edited May 24, 2012 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.