Hob Nob Anyone?

Big Foot wrote:Cureton banged the Brizzle chairman's daughter and I still supported him. Nuff said.

So you compare shagging a chairmans daughter to someone who has killed two children thru being drunk,you are on prize prick.Go and tell the mother of those two kids what you think their worth.

Fat Leather Jacket wrote:I'd probably get behind the wheel after downing a pint of Chivas.

So did Kitson and look where he has ended up.

AlexY25 wrote:

Toon Toon Blue army wrote:Pesonaly I dont care what they have done in the past when it comes to football, I would be much more concerned with their footballing ability. Everyone desearves a second chance, even if what they did really is low.

+1

+1 what??

Terry Hurlock is a filthy Pikey who, by all accounts, did some pretty nasty things to people before he joined Reading. Didn't stop us chanting "Terry's gonna get ya.."

Patrick Kliuvert is another good example as already raised.

I think on the whole us football fans are pretty shallow morally, its what the players do on the pitch that counts. Not right really, but thats the way it is.

Ive always seen 3pm on a Saturday as an escape from everything else in life. Maybe that inlcudes the players as well.

Depends whether he'd drive to work or not

brendywendy wrote:but if you take the premeditated action of drinking when you know youll be driving, and then kill someone, i do see that as comparable to murder

its certainly more than killing someone in any other accidental way, because you know you arent safe to be in control of a vehicle, but you still do it

agreed though, fred west is a little much

But it isn't comparable to murder though is it? McCormick didn't get in the car and think "who am I going to mow down today then?" did he? To murder someone is to deliberately take someone's life, for example to deliberately shoot someone, or stab someone. Luke McCormick didn't deliberately drive his car into the family's did he? It's this that makes what happened an accident. A reckless action to get in his car in his state, but an accident nonetheless. It's certainly not more than killing someone any other way. If someone rolled up to work drunk, working machinery for example, and ended up killing someone as a result of drunken incompetence, is that murder? I think not. It is the "deliberate" aspect that makes the clear distinction between murder and causing death by dangerous driving. That's not to say I think it was acceptable for him to jump in his car after a skinful, let me make that clear, he clearly wasn't.

I maintain I would happily accept any player with a criminal record provided that they improve the team, because as I said before, a person in Luke McCormick's position will have served their punishment, have the opportunity to rebuild their life, and have to learn to live with two dead children on their conscience.

But one of the effects of alcohol is to massively impair your judgement - that same effect that makes you unsafe to drive makes you think you are safe and to not listen to reason.

If anyone this pissed was capable of sensible, rational thought then they'd never get into a car drunk, except for the paradox above.

Incidentally, that's why the hang 'em and flog' em brigade are misguided - no-one who drives drunk is rational enough to think about the consequences, so the severity of the punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. It's really more about a lust for revenge than a deterrent.

Dirk Gently wrote:But one of the effects of alcohol is to massively impair your judgement - that same effect that makes you unsafe to drive makes you think you are safe and to not listen to reason.

If anyone this pissed was capable of sensible, rational thought then they'd never get into a car drunk, except for the paradox above.

Incidentally, that's why the hang 'em and flog' em brigade are misguided - no-one who drives drunk is rational enough to think about the consequences, so the severity of the punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. It's really more about a lust for revenge than a deterrent.

I slightly agree, however i think there is somewhere in between (ie. 2/3 pints even though everyone is obv different) where u know what you are doing getting in the car, but arent in a fit state to drive and subsequently blow over the limit. How far over was McCormick?

Shane Long=Legend wrote:

Dirk Gently wrote:But one of the effects of alcohol is to massively impair your judgement - that same effect that makes you unsafe to drive makes you think you are safe and to not listen to reason.

If anyone this pissed was capable of sensible, rational thought then they'd never get into a car drunk, except for the paradox above.

Incidentally, that's why the hang 'em and flog' em brigade are misguided - no-one who drives drunk is rational enough to think about the consequences, so the severity of the punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. It's really more about a lust for revenge than a deterrent.

I slightly agree, however i think there is somewhere in between (ie. 2/3 pints even though everyone is obv different) where u know what you are doing getting in the car, but arent in a fit state to drive and subsequently blow over the limit. How far over was McCormick?

Massively, massively, over.

Well in that case your point about not being to think rationally is obviously relevant. I doubt any of us will really know whether he went to that wedding intending to drink and drive back, but if he did as far as im concerned thats murder. I can go out any night and not drink happily, so i dont agree with any arguement about intending not to drink and then getting carried away.

I also wonder whether anyone there (norris etc.) knew he had driven up, when banned in the first place, and noticed him drinking etc. Unfortunately, the reputation of modern footballer is so poor, it wouldnt surprise me if some/many were encouraging him to 'have a good time' etc.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that he went there intending to drink and drive. As I understand it there was an argument with his wife/Girlfriend and he went zooming off after her - either that or he went home in a huff after she'd dumped him or similar. So it certainly wasn't pre-meditated. That doesn't make it any excusable - that just explains how it happened.

But I agree with you about the friends - they certainly share some of the responsibility for him being in a car that night. I've certainly forcibly taken the car keys off someone who wasn't fit to drive in the past, and I'd happily do it again. The fact that McCormick's "friends" didn't/couldn't stop him driving off suggests they're not particularly good friends!

Shane Long=Legend wrote:Well in that case your point about not being to think rationally is obviously relevant. I doubt any of us will really know whether he went to that wedding intending to drink and drive back, but if he did as far as im concerned thats murder. I can go out any night and not drink happily, so i dont agree with any arguement about intending not to drink and then getting carried away.

I refer you to my previous post. Regardless of whether he intended to drink and drive, it does not add up to murder because he did not deliberately drive into the car with that family in. Simply getting into the drivers seat of a car drunk and driving in the eyes of the law is dangerous and the law recognises that, so having an accident which causes the death of someone is "causing death by dangerous driving". He killed two children whilst driving drunk, and as a result he is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving which carries a maximum 14 year prison sentence (it was inevitable he went to prison, there has only ever been one conviction for causing death by dangerous driving in which the convicted was not given a prison sentence).

SL=L, by your standards it seems that there are a hell of a lot of potential murderers in this country. How many people have jumped into the drivers seat of a car knowing that they are drunk/over the limit? I would hazard a guess at millions. I find it sad really because the majority of those millions will probably look upon the likes of McCormick with distain, blissfully ignorant of the fact that it could so easily be them in a similar position.

brendywendy wrote:but if you take the premeditated action of drinking when you know youll be driving, and then kill someone, i do see that as comparable to murder

Although, of course, alcohol stops you actually being able to reason straight.

Dirk Gently wrote:I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that he went there intending to drink and drive. As I understand it there was an argument with his wife/Girlfriend and he went zooming off after her - either that or he went home in a huff after she'd dumped him or similar. So it certainly wasn't pre-meditated. That doesn't make it any excusable - that just explains how it happened.

But I agree with you about the friends - they certainly share some of the responsibility for him being in a car that night. I've certainly forcibly taken the car keys off someone who wasn't fit to drive in the past, and I'd happily do it again. The fact that McCormick's "friends" didn't/couldn't stop him driving off suggests they're not particularly good friends!

Or they were too drunk themselves to care!

Im certain that when he gets released in around 3 years time, he will sign for another team (maybe oldham!) and this arguement will be revisited anyway. It would imagine its easier for a goalkeeper to retain his fitness and skills than an outfield player without actually playing (you wouldnt 'lose' your reactions would you?) and hes a pretty decent keeper anyway. What really p*sses me off about things like this is how people like this ever get behind the wheel again.

handbags_harris wrote:

Shane Long=Legend wrote:Well in that case your point about not being to think rationally is obviously relevant. I doubt any of us will really know whether he went to that wedding intending to drink and drive back, but if he did as far as im concerned thats murder. I can go out any night and not drink happily, so i dont agree with any arguement about intending not to drink and then getting carried away.

I refer you to my previous post. Regardless of whether he intended to drink and drive, it does not add up to murder because he did not deliberately drive into the car with that family in. Simply getting into the drivers seat of a car drunk and driving in the eyes of the law is dangerous and the law recognises that, so having an accident which causes the death of someone is "causing death by dangerous driving". He killed two children whilst driving drunk, and as a result he is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving which carries a maximum 14 year prison sentence (it was inevitable he went to prison, there has only ever been one conviction for causing death by dangerous driving in which the convicted was not given a prison sentence).

SL=L, by your standards it seems that there are a hell of a lot of potential murderers in this country. How many people have jumped into the drivers seat of a car knowing that they are drunk/over the limit? I would hazard a guess at millions. I find it sad really because the majority of those millions will probably look upon the likes of McCormick with distain, blissfully ignorant of the fact that it could so easily be them in a similar position.

I think there are a lot of potential murderers if that definition is taken literally. If you have had a few pints and just think 'f*ck it i'll drive anyway', the likelihood is you cant control the vehicle properly and you know this, this is no different in my eyes to all the people carrying knives who say its for protection and have no intention to use it but do and kill. You are getting into a car , which is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, and i think the privilege to use it should be treated much more seriously than the month bans here and there for fairly serious offences.

Should this be on the Team board?

If Luke McCormick killed my son i'd want to kill him.

Dirk Gently wrote:But one of the effects of alcohol is to massively impair your judgement - that same effect that makes you unsafe to drive makes you think you are safe and to not listen to reason.

If anyone this pissed was capable of sensible, rational thought then they'd never get into a car drunk, except for the paradox above.

Incidentally, that's why the hang 'em and flog' em brigade are misguided - no-one who drives drunk is rational enough to think about the consequences, so the severity of the punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. It's really more about a lust for revenge than a deterrent.

I think you miss the point. The barstewards at some point start off sober and drive their car (a potentially lethal weapon) to where they start drinking. They then make the conscious decision to drink and carry on drinking. They do so knowing that they have a car outside and that drinking does impair their judgement.

IMO it is the shame that our legislators decided to take the reality out of the situation by categorising this particular offence as 'causing death by dangerous driving' when at the very least it should be regarded as manslaughter.

I wonder whether those who leap to this 'death causer's' defence, questioning the fairness of what some are saying, would be quite as supportive if it had been their own kids who had been killed by his 'dangerous driving'?

rabidbee wrote:

brendywendy wrote:but if you take the premeditated action of drinking when you know youll be driving, and then kill someone, i do see that as comparable to murder

Although, of course, alcohol stops you actually being able to reason straight.

But if you get drunk and then kill someone with a knife that you picked up, what do you get done for?

Merely 'Causing death by careless use of a knife'? I think not!!

handbags_harris wrote: I'd be happy for a player with a conviction of some sort to play for the club provided they have enough ability to improve the side. After all, they'll have served their time, and will be back out to rebuild their life. I also don't remember anybody on this thread saying much about sacking Dave Kitson after his drink driving conviction which, if he was indeed over the limit, could have lead to a similar scenario...

If you don't remember it, I would suggest you revisit for a look. I'm pretty sure there were some on here giving him quite a bit of stick and suggesting he got off way too lightly. Then there were the drink drive liberals who were saying things like 'just because he refused a test doesn't mean he had been drinking/was over the limit'.

Didnt we sign Graeme Stack folks??? Cant remember what he was up for at the time... but all I know is it wasnt good

Big Foot wrote:Cureton banged the Brizzle chairman's daughter and I still supported him. Nuff said.

Oh yeah I remember that Rumour ... Apparantly the Chairman whos daughter he was supposed to be with doesnt actually have a daughter strange that really

Not sure how this can be compaired to someone who kills two kids because they were driving pissed tho

Blue_Elm wrote:Didnt we sign Graeme Stack folks??? Cant remember what he was up for at the time... but all I know is it wasnt good

for wotsits worth now, he was accused but never convicted of anyfink.