jsslatic Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This doesn't/shouldn't affect people's views, but saw this on a Swindon forum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGIlUUsh0cU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 He is no worse than Lee Hughes and basically none of them meant to do it, they both made very stupid mistakes! HOWEVER, anyone who drinks and drives is a :censored: and you need the book throwing at you if you do it............... I dont put other people's lives at risk for my own selfish needs, simple as! Anyone who is stupid enough to do so, you do not have a valid argument! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This doesn't/shouldn't affect people's views, but saw this on a Swindon forum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGIlUUsh0cU Completely off-topic and probably not entirely appropriate to the thread but you'd fancy your chances of outrunning that woman copper, wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 He is no worse than Lee Hughes and basically none of them meant to do it, they both made very stupid mistakes! HOWEVER, anyone who drinks and drives is a :censored: and you need the book throwing at you if you do it............... I dont put other people's lives at risk for my own selfish needs, simple as! Anyone who is stupid enough to do so, you do not have a valid argument! Most people get pulled the drink driving the morning after e.g. work doo on the Wednesday night, turn up for work on the Thursday. Not saying its an excuse, but its an interesting fact nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) 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. According to Wikipedia - Intention in UK Criminal Law: In criminal law, Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the consequences. Therefore in McCormicks case, the result was due to his reckless actions, though he intended to break the law in regards to the drink driving/dangerous driving. In the other case, the driver intended to cause halm and perhaps intended to kill, therefore he desired to produced the final consequence. Edited May 24, 2012 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 According to Wikipedia - Intention in UK Criminal Law: In criminal law, Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the consequences. Therefore in McCormicks case, the result was due to his reckless actions, though he intended to break the law in regards to the drink driving/dangerous driving. In the other case, the driver intended to cause halm and perhaps intended to kill, therefore he desired to produced the final consequence. A team of armed robbers go out to rob a bank, they don't intend to kill anyone and have planned not to. They accidentally kill someone, they still get charged with murder- in some states that boosts their murder to death penalty severity. In the UK they would still get charged with murder. Why is it any different to deliberately getting in your car when drunk, driving dangerously, and accidentally killing someone? If you intend to commit a crime and consequences mean you commit a more serious crime unintentionally you get charged with the more serious crime. Intent to commit a crime doesn't automatically stop if you accidentally commit a more serious crime, I would argue that McCormick failed to stop himself from driving when drunk and the consequence was that he killed two boys- pertinent to the bit in bold Its one the of the areas where despite the law supposedly being blind it has rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to driving. IMO either the armed robbers should get charged with manslaughter or the drunken dangerous driver should get charged with murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 A team of armed robbers go out to rob a bank, they don't intend to kill anyone and have planned not to. They accidentally kill someone, they still get charged with murder- in some states that boosts their murder to death penalty severity. In the UK they would still get charged with murder. Why is it any different to deliberately getting in your car when drunk, driving dangerously, and accidentally killing someone? If you intend to commit a crime and consequences mean you commit a more serious crime unintentionally you get charged with the more serious crime. Intent to commit a crime doesn't automatically stop if you accidentally commit a more serious crime, I would argue that McCormick failed to stop himself from driving when drunk and the consequence was that he killed two boys- pertinent to the bit in bold Its one the of the areas where despite the law supposedly being blind it has rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to driving. IMO either the armed robbers should get charged with manslaughter or the drunken dangerous driver should get charged with murder. Nobody gets charged with murder for accidentally killing someone. Jesus, can you really not see the difference between a drink driver and an armed robber? The only function of a loaded gun is to shoot someone (if it's only meant to cause fear then why load it?). The purpose of the car to a drunk driver is to get from A to B, albeit they are not fit to use it for that purpose and it carries a grave risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 A team of armed robbers go out to rob a bank, they don't intend to kill anyone and have planned not to. They accidentally kill someone, they still get charged with murder- in some states that boosts their murder to death penalty severity. In the UK they would still get charged with murder. Why is it any different to deliberately getting in your car when drunk, driving dangerously, and accidentally killing someone? If you intend to commit a crime and consequences mean you commit a more serious crime unintentionally you get charged with the more serious crime. Intent to commit a crime doesn't automatically stop if you accidentally commit a more serious crime, I would argue that McCormick failed to stop himself from driving when drunk and the consequence was that he killed two boys- pertinent to the bit in bold Its one the of the areas where despite the law supposedly being blind it has rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to driving. IMO either the armed robbers should get charged with manslaughter or the drunken dangerous driver should get charged with murder. Because they went there with a gun, they took a weapon designed for killing. How can you compare the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 A team of armed robbers go out to rob a bank, they don't intend to kill anyone and have planned not to. They accidentally kill someone, they still get charged with murder- in some states that boosts their murder to death penalty severity. In the UK they would still get charged with murder. Why is it any different to deliberately getting in your car when drunk, driving dangerously, and accidentally killing someone? If you intend to commit a crime and consequences mean you commit a more serious crime unintentionally you get charged with the more serious crime. Intent to commit a crime doesn't automatically stop if you accidentally commit a more serious crime, I would argue that McCormick failed to stop himself from driving when drunk and the consequence was that he killed two boys- pertinent to the bit in bold Its one the of the areas where despite the law supposedly being blind it has rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to driving. IMO either the armed robbers should get charged with manslaughter or the drunken dangerous driver should get charged with murder. Hmmm I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether you wish to up the sentencing for drink drivers is one thing, but trying to say that an armed robber who goes into a bank and then uses it, is somehow accidental, is laughable. Having the gun shows intent to harm, using it concludes that. Lets put in another way: A drink driver gets into a car and drives it into a crowd on purpose, resulting in a death A drink driver gets into a car, drives it and accidently crashes into another car and kills someone. Should the driver recieve the same punishment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 A team of armed robbers go out to rob a bank, they don't intend to kill anyone and have planned not to. They accidentally kill someone, they still get charged with murder- in some states that boosts their murder to death penalty severity. In the UK they would still get charged with murder. Why is it any different to deliberately getting in your car when drunk, driving dangerously, and accidentally killing someone? If you intend to commit a crime and consequences mean you commit a more serious crime unintentionally you get charged with the more serious crime. Intent to commit a crime doesn't automatically stop if you accidentally commit a more serious crime, I would argue that McCormick failed to stop himself from driving when drunk and the consequence was that he killed two boys- pertinent to the bit in bold Its one the of the areas where despite the law supposedly being blind it has rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to driving. IMO either the armed robbers should get charged with manslaughter or the drunken dangerous driver should get charged with murder. Glad you are not in charge of making up the laws of the land I couldnt disagree more. Jim puts it very well above. Like it or not I would say 100% of drink drivers are not showing intent to kill despite their very stupid actions it shouldnt be comparable to armed robbers with lethal weapons. You also have to remember that drink driving is again, like it or not, slightly ingrained in society even if it does have horrible consequences and armed robbery is not. I would guess that 99.9% of drink driving ends up in the driver returning to the destination safely without anyone ever knowing what has just happened. Maybe they should look at upping the penalty for drink driving (with no consequences) to put more people off getting behind the wheel? It is a tough one to call! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Completely off-topic and probably not entirely appropriate to the thread but you'd fancy your chances of outrunning that woman copper, wouldn't you? Defo. Why isnt he handcuffed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Presumably because he's compliabt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Hmmm I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether you wish to up the sentencing for drink drivers is one thing, but trying to say that an armed robber who goes into a bank and then uses it, is somehow accidental, is laughable. Having the gun shows intent to harm, using it concludes that. Lets put in another way: A drink driver gets into a car and drives it into a crowd on purpose, resulting in a death A drink driver gets into a car, drives it and accidently crashes into another car and kills someone. Should the driver recieve the same punishment? What happens if after 15 pints he "accidentally" kills someone? Death by dangerous driving thankfully carries a hefty sentence, and rightly so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) 1.) You don't have to be drunk to drive dangerously, I'm not saying someone that drives drunk is and kills someone is automatically driving dangerously. Let me put it another way, with McCormick, if he had been driving faster (say well over 100mph) whilst tired ("he fell asleep") but was under the legal limit for alcohol and then had the same sort of crash that would have been causing death by dangerous driving, he might not have been punished as severely but it is essentially the same offence (with similar maximum punishments) as causing death by careless driving whilst intoxicated- which is what he went to prison for. What I was saying is that driving dangerously, not carelessly, when drunk is a lot more serious and this should be reflected in the minimum and maximum sentences, it might not have been applicable to McCormick's case as he wasn't driving excessively fast. As manslaughter can carry a life sentence perhaps it should be manslaughter (vehicular) so the sentencing could be more severe depending on the nature of the actual driving taking place. 2.) With the armed robbery thing that wasn't as good of an example as I first thought (in fact on reflection it was shockingly awful), and maybe I should have made it clear that the killing wasn't a deliberate shooting of someone more a ricochet or even one that didn't involve the gun, but even then its still not a good example. Having looked it up there's some poor teenager in the states doing 30 years for felony murder because he lent his car to his mate and then went to sleep, whilst his mate and 3 of his mates went out and killed someone using his car as a mode of transport. 3.) Like kitchen or Stanley knives, cars are very effective "murder" weapons, they aren't designed as such but it doesn't make them any less effective. 4.) As someone who sort of works in a profession where one mistake or one bad judgement decision can mean a possible manslaughter charge and who has seen the consequences of drink driving maybe my previous experience and my fear of getting something wrong with similar consequences has made me more indignant over what I perceive to be lax sentencing. Edited May 24, 2012 by rudemedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I ran over a pigeon last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 1.) You don't have to be drunk to drive dangerously, I'm not saying someone that drives drunk is and kills someone is automatically driving dangerously. Let me put it another way, with McCormick, if he had been driving faster (say well over 100mph) whilst tired ("he fell asleep") but was under the legal limit for alcohol and then had the same sort of crash that would have been causing death by dangerous driving, he might not have been punished as severely but it is essentially the same offence (with similar maximum punishments) as causing death by careless driving whilst intoxicated- which is what he went to prison for. What I was saying is that driving dangerously, not carelessly, when drunk is a lot more serious and this should be reflected in the minimum and maximum sentences, it might not have been applicable to McCormick's case as he wasn't driving excessively fast. As manslaughter can carry a life sentence perhaps it should be manslaughter (vehicular) so the sentencing could be more severe depending on the nature of the actual driving taking place. 2.) With the armed robbery thing that wasn't as good of an example as I first thought (in fact on reflection it was shockingly awful), and maybe I should have made it clear that the killing wasn't a deliberate shooting of someone more a ricochet or even one that didn't involve the gun, but even then its still not a good example. Having looked it up there's some poor teenager in the states doing 30 years for felony murder because he lent his car to his mate and then went to sleep, whilst his mate and 3 of his mates went out and killed someone using his car as a mode of transport. 3.) Like kitchen or Stanley knives, cars are very effective "murder" weapons, they aren't designed as such but it doesn't make them any less effective. 4.) As someone who sort of works in a profession where one mistake or one bad judgement decision can mean a possible manslaughter charge and who has seen the consequences of drink driving maybe my previous experience and my fear of getting something wrong with similar consequences has made me more indignant over what I perceive to be lax sentencing. US law has no bearing whatsoever, so I'll not get into that. The difference is that, in the cases you're talking about, e.g. taking out a kitchen knife, the primary purpose of it is as a weapon (even if there is no initial intent to use it). McCormick didnt use his car as a weapon, nor did he have any intention of doing so. In fact, the point I think you're making now illustrates the point I made earlier in relation to the difference with that Rochdale case - that it was far more serious because of the intent to use the far as a weapon. I shouldn't worry yourself too much about manslaughter charges; judges have been extremely reluctant to convict medical professionals even where there is clear negligence. Only a small number of the most serious cases have ended with a conviction. Still, try not to kill anyone! I hope your medical perspective is better than your legal perspective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Its a topic that polarises opinion but no excuse for drink driving, none, zero. I just dont get it how anyone contempletes defending it now people are so aware of consequences. Any adult can go and get blind drunk for me if that is what they choose but make other arrangements to get home it isnt that much of a problem. My friends take turns driving if you drive you dont drink anything it aint that hard to work that way. IF your family on receiving end it must hurt like hell and it affects the rest of peoples lives. Driving after a drink is either lazy, to save money or you are just incapable of making a decision. Beyond that you are just a selfish git who doesnt consider it can happen. It should be 15 year sentence to rule out this sort of situation occurring "Death caused by influence of alcohol whilst driving.". then let him rebuild his life. In his case its like having a long tern injury like McGrath had and being out of game. 3 years after and back to normality for him. The family dont have that option so are bound to be devastated. My cousin was hit by a transit van in Scotland and it was touch and go for a long time then likely to lose her leg for last 6 years, and now a horrible scar/skin grafts, one shorter leg and disability for life. Not great for a 22 year old girl who was just walking home. That was not drink but a mobile phone distraction whilst driving at speed. But a very similar effect. Entangled under the axle, Airlifted to hospital, months and months of stress for her in hospital. Driver punished but a completely avoidable incident, not an accident as could have been avoided easily. Drinking and driving like Russian roulette with horrendous outcomes. Being a figure in public gaze comes with a price so no sympathy from me. I was all in favour of giving Hughes a chance and dont think he did any of the community stuff he promissed. Did he? So changed my opinion on it. But what purpose would a longer sentence serve? I've just finished writing a dissertation about deterrent sentencing (increased severity of sentence to deter others from committing the same or similar crimes) and all of the most reliable modern research suggests they don't work. I can appreciate though that such cases are emotive and the idea of hefty sentences makes people feel like the issue is being addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Its a topic that polarises opinion but no excuse for drink driving, none, zero. I just dont get it how anyone contempletes defending it now people are so aware of consequences. Any adult can go and get blind drunk for me if that is what they choose but make other arrangements to get home it isnt that much of a problem. My friends take turns driving if you drive you dont drink anything it aint that hard to work that way. IF your family on receiving end it must hurt like hell and it affects the rest of peoples lives. Driving after a drink is either lazy, to save money or you are just incapable of making a decision. Beyond that you are just a selfish git who doesnt consider it can happen. It should be 15 year sentence to rule out this sort of situation occurring "Death caused by influence of alcohol whilst driving.". then let him rebuild his life. In his case its like having a long tern injury like McGrath had and being out of game. 3 years after and back to normality for him. The family dont have that option so are bound to be devastated. My cousin was hit by a transit van in Scotland and it was touch and go for a long time then likely to lose her leg for last 6 years, and now a horrible scar/skin grafts, one shorter leg and disability for life. Not great for a 22 year old girl who was just walking home. That was not drink but a mobile phone distraction whilst driving at speed. But a very similar effect. Entangled under the axle, Airlifted to hospital, months and months of stress for her in hospital. Driver punished but a completely avoidable incident, not an accident as could have been avoided easily. Drinking and driving like Russian roulette with horrendous outcomes. Being a figure in public gaze comes with a price so no sympathy from me. I was all in favour of giving Hughes a chance and dont think he did any of the community stuff he promissed. Did he? So changed my opinion on it. And the same, I suppose, for someone who carried on using the car to go down the shops despite knowing that the eyesight isn't what it was? Or who goes out knowing that they really should get that part changed, but money is tight until payday? Both create a foreseeable risk for the benefit of the people doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Break The Silence Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 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. That is quite possibly the ONLY thing that you've ever said on here that I agree with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgoo_84 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Defo. Why isnt he handcuffed? Because he was in the police station being booked in. They'll have taken them off when they brought him up to the desk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYLEOAFC Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don’t want to see Luke McCormick have a career in football. In my opinion being a professional footballer is more than a job it’s a privilege. Luke worked as a cleaner on his day release in charity shops etc perhaps if we were to deny him a career as a cleaner my mind set would be different but it’s not the case. The fact he cant kick a ball around professionally is not drastically denying the man a chance to earn a living no more so than a teacher if they fail a CRB check. If he is remorseful then why chose to be in the public eye again and further antagonise a families grief? I don’t think anyone on here can be accused of being hypocritical in terms of supporting Oldham Athletic and our club offering Lee hughes employment that’s not our fault as fans but the directors and chairmans dilemma etc. There are many aspects of Lukes case and others that are wrong and if we were to discuss the failings of the British justice system we would need a web forum dedicated to it 24/7! That said as soon as the system classifies the use of a motor vehicle when drunk and causing harm as an attack or assault with a deadly weapon which it is we won’t see any change in sentencing. Swindon won’t sign Mccormick. P.S A bit casual dress when being at a wedding??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don’t want to see Luke McCormick have a career in football. In my opinion being a professional footballer is more than a job it’s a privilege. Luke worked as a cleaner on his day release in charity shops etc perhaps if we were to deny him a career as a cleaner my mind set would be different but it’s not the case. The fact he cant kick a ball around professionally is not drastically denying the man a chance to earn a living no more so than a teacher if they fail a CRB check. If he is remorseful then why chose to be in the public eye again and further antagonise a families grief? I don’t think anyone on here can be accused of being hypocritical in terms of supporting Oldham Athletic and our club offering Lee hughes employment that’s not our fault as fans but the directors and chairmans dilemma etc. There are many aspects of Lukes case and others that are wrong and if we were to discuss the failings of the British justice system we would need a web forum dedicated to it 24/7! That said as soon as the system classifies the use of a motor vehicle when drunk and causing harm as an attack or assault with a deadly weapon which it is we won’t see any change in sentencing. Swindon won’t sign Mccormick. P.S A bit casual dress when being at a wedding??? I don't think I could disagree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don’t want to see Luke McCormick have a career in football. In my opinion being a professional footballer is more than a job it’s a privilege. Luke worked as a cleaner on his day release in charity shops etc perhaps if we were to deny him a career as a cleaner my mind set would be different but it’s not the case. The fact he cant kick a ball around professionally is not drastically denying the man a chance to earn a living no more so than a teacher if they fail a CRB check. If he is remorseful then why chose to be in the public eye again and further antagonise a families grief? I don’t think anyone on here can be accused of being hypocritical in terms of supporting Oldham Athletic and our club offering Lee hughes employment that’s not our fault as fans but the directors and chairmans dilemma etc. There are many aspects of Lukes case and others that are wrong and if we were to discuss the failings of the British justice system we would need a web forum dedicated to it 24/7! That said as soon as the system classifies the use of a motor vehicle when drunk and causing harm as an attack or assault with a deadly weapon which it is we won’t see any change in sentencing. Swindon won’t sign Mccormick. P.S A bit casual dress when being at a wedding??? Pro footballer is a job. Privilege? Really? Aint no privilege when half the time your getting thousands of people abuse you. Some even receive death threats etc. Just lucky to have a talent. He's doing what he's best at, and probably his only job so far - being between some white posts on a field 46 games a season. Alright, maybe a privilege in Prem and Championship where you can earn ridiculous amounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I don’t want to see Luke McCormick have a career in football. In my opinion being a professional footballer is more than a job it’s a privilege. Luke worked as a cleaner on his day release in charity shops etc perhaps if we were to deny him a career as a cleaner my mind set would be different but it’s not the case. The fact he cant kick a ball around professionally is not drastically denying the man a chance to earn a living no more so than a teacher if they fail a CRB check. If he is remorseful then why chose to be in the public eye again and further antagonise a families grief? I don’t think anyone on here can be accused of being hypocritical in terms of supporting Oldham Athletic and our club offering Lee hughes employment that’s not our fault as fans but the directors and chairmans dilemma etc. There are many aspects of Lukes case and others that are wrong and if we were to discuss the failings of the British justice system we would need a web forum dedicated to it 24/7! That said as soon as the system classifies the use of a motor vehicle when drunk and causing harm as an attack or assault with a deadly weapon which it is we won’t see any change in sentencing. Swindon won’t sign Mccormick. P.S A bit casual dress when being at a wedding??? Maybe we should have a list of jobs that you can't do after convictions. Any more you care to suggest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Break The Silence Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Maybe we should have a list of jobs that you can't do after convictions. Any more you care to suggest? Doubt the Police would be interested in taking him on 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.