observer Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 All he knows is football ??? Is he beyond retraining in another occupation ? It's not the fact he's a footballer that get's me, it's the fact he has the temerity to think he can return to a priviledged occupation in the spotlight and think his actions will not further affect the family of the bereaved and injured. I think this says more about McCormick's self indulgence than anything, I hope he get's pelters wherever he plays. but this is my point why should he if you were a builder and thats all you knew why would you retrain?? I understand what you are saying, but again you are saying your not bothered about him being a football and then saying returning to a privililedged occupation. Simple facts are in football if you are good enough you make the grade its not something that you can train to be, he certainly isnt going to have an easy time and nor should he.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 but this is my point why should he if you were a builder and thats all you knew why would you retrain?? I understand what you are saying, but again you are saying your not bothered about him being a football and then saying returning to a privililedged occupation. Simple facts are in football if you are good enough you make the grade its not something that you can train to be, he certainly isnt going to have an easy time and nor should he.... How many builders, plumbers or painters get on the telly on Saturday nights ? In the papers most Monday mornings ?, should any of them do anything to incur a custodial sentence, they can serve their time and then go about their business in relative annonimity, McCormick is choosing to put himself back in the spotlight. What about the countless hundred's of footballers that retire after doing nothing wrong throughout their careers ? should posts in football be created especially for them because after all, football is all they know ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 exactly HE IS choosing to do that he could go and have annonmity , but he is choosing to face the wrath of 1000s of people every week, as I have said all along how he conducts himself time will tell. My only point is that he should be allowed to do it, The point about retired footballers, isnt relevant I see the point you are trying to make but dont think it applies.... If you were in his situation what would you do, if he was your son what would you tell him to do!!! The family of the victims, would they prefer to have him not heard about and the only legacy of their sons be a lower league goalkeeper made a grave mistake and caused a seriously accident in which they died. Or would it be better for him to stay in the limelight and draw light on the effects of drink driving every week to 10,000 of football fans!! If he acts like oh well served my time get back to normal, then I think that will be wrong, like I said he should use this as a real opportunity to shine a light on the issues of drink driving. its the 18-21 year olds that need to be educated on the consequences of there actions! When people have had a couple of beers and the believe of 'getting caught' go, then they dont see the issue!! Thats why a blanket life ban should be in place, and exactly the reason he should be doing interviews saying look at how I messed up etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Look, that b******d robbed a lady of possibly two weddings of her sons, who knows how many grandchildren, and the pleasure of just enjoying her boys growing up. Her husband is now disabled, I honestly believe the very least the price he should pay is the loss of a career I believe is a priviledge. We will never find common ground on this issue so I will refrain from further posts, I respect your opinion but disagree with your points with every fibre of my being. And for what it's worth, I can promise you if it were me that did what he did, I would not attempt to reserect my career, maybe I've just got a stronger sense of shame than McCormick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Okay agree to disagree ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Okay agree to disagree ? http://knifewallpapers.com/smilies/thumbs_up_smiley (And that really is my last contribution to this thread, I only answered out of politeness.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Going over 70mph on the motorway - Strike one Being twice over the legal limit - Strike two Crashing and killing two kids - Strike three - fook off, do not pass go, fooking rot in hell cant read the first page - stupid filter think it's ....not sure how it works when i can read the second though.. How long did he get? if he went and crashed killing two kids then **** off especially should be 15 years minimum and no more football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 cant read the first page - stupid filter think it's ....not sure how it works when i can read the second though.. How long did he get? if he went and crashed killing two kids then **** off especially should be 15 years minimum and no more football. Sentance was just over 7 years, released just under 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Sentance was just over 7 years, released just under 4 How the **** does that work? shall i go out now and kill two kids and only get 4 years? i dont think so... surely this is murder x2? he should be getting far more the justice system in this country i think is really ****** up....a while ago someone who was commiting piracy on a large scale got 50 odd years i think.....yet you can murder two little kids and get only 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Footballers live their lives in the window. Whether we want to know or not, the press do a job of making sure we know as much as possible. For the rest of his football career MCormick will be known by this, if he can handle that, then that is good for him. But it is not about just him. Whilstever he is in the spotlight, he brings publicity and to the family that can never be good. To think he can walk back out playing, is selfish, yet again. What he should do is find himself another career, quietly do some good for the world and thank himself lucky he still has a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I'm not arguing with you YR, I agree our penal system is designed to fail - we have enough evidence in the state of the country to support that - the point is you cannot expect the family to forgive and forget. If the guy became a self employed tradesman or summat like that no one would ever know. The fact that, potentially, his name will appear in sports pages, results sections and on TV highlights, will make it even harder for the family. I know it must be awful for the family but if they continue like this the hatred will swallow them up. They were moaning when he was on day release and was working in a charity shop, they were going crazy at swindon despite them not even offering the lad a contract and clearly stating he was going to be working with a community role at the club. They were even complaining that he was allowed to see his son and train at the prison. I know it must be awful and being angry is so easy, but it isn't like McCormick will be playing in the premiership, he will probably never be mentioned outside of the town of the team he plays for. If the family continue in this vein, complaining at everything the lad does then it will never leave them. All he can do is try and get on with his life and so must the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 How the **** does that work? shall i go out now and kill two kids and only get 4 years? i dont think so... surely this is murder x2? he should be getting far more the justice system in this country i think is really ****** up....a while ago someone who was commiting piracy on a large scale got 50 odd years i think.....yet you can murder two little kids and get only 4 years? it clearly wasn't murder under any definition of the law, the piracy case was in America not here as far as I am aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 cant read the first page - stupid filter think it's ....not sure how it works when i can read the second though.. How long did he get? if he went and crashed killing two kids then **** off especially should be 15 years minimum and no more football. he stayed after the crash and made no attempt to cover up his involvement unlike Lee Hughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 it clearly wasn't murder under any definition of the law that's precisely the problem with our justice system.....i'll make a note if i ever want to kill someone to get pissed out my face and run them over 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> i'll be out in a few years 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 that's precisely the problem with our justice system.....i'll make a note if i ever want to kill someone to get pissed out my face and run them over 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> i'll be out in a few years 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> It really is not the problem with our justice system, how can it be murder when it wasn't premeditated? Are you saying he deserves to serve the same sentence as someone who planned to kill 2 children and executed the plan in cold blood? It was clearly an accident and he was devastated as well. 1/3 of young men admit they have gone drink driving, all of those 1/3 could have done exactly what McCormick did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It really is not the problem with our justice system, how can it be murder when it wasn't premeditated? Are you saying he deserves to serve the same sentence as someone who planned to kill 2 children and executed the plan in cold blood? It was clearly an accident and he was devastated as well. 1/3 of young men admit they have gone drink driving, all of those 1/3 could have done exactly what McCormick did. No i think each sentence needs to be relative, yes they could of done that but thing is they didnt, whether lucky or not is not the question. i think if you go drink driving and something like this does happen well i expect a dam site more than a mere 2 years a child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No i think each sentence needs to be relative, yes they could of done that but thing is they didnt, whether lucky or not is not the question. i think if you go drink driving and something like this does happen well i expect a dam site more than a mere 2 years a child But it is morally arbitrary that they didn't hit anyone. They were taking exactly the same risk as he did, he was simply unlucky in that sense. I think the sentence is fair as it was a first offense, he was distressed at the time, he didn't coverup his participation, it was an accident and it could have happened to anyone who goes drink driving. The fact you see it as "2 years a child" shows how wrong in my opinion your thinking is on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 But it is morally arbitrary that they didn't hit anyone. They were taking exactly the same risk as he did, he was simply unlucky in that sense. I think the sentence is fair as it was a first offense, he was distressed at the time, he didn't coverup his participation, it was an accident and it could have happened to anyone who goes drink driving. The fact you see it as "2 years a child" shows how wrong in my opinion your thinking is on this issue. Actually stats show that over 95% of drink drive accidents happen at around 30mph and its usually into stationary objects, or shunts with other motors. Most are just over the limit (90%) and think that they where just about safe. In this case, he was twice the limit, on a motorway recorded at doing in excess of 100mph in places. So the risk is significantly greater than in other cases. Again you cannot make sweeping generalisations that all drink drivers have the same risk exposure, it kinda invaludates your arguement. Anyway to answer the title of the post, yes he should be allowed to play again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Actually stats show that over 95% of drink drive accidents happen at around 30mph and its usually into stationary objects, or shunts with other motors. Most are just over the limit (90%) and think that they where just about safe. In this case, he was twice the limit, on a motorway recorded at doing in excess of 100mph in places. So the risk is significantly greater than in other cases. Again you cannot make sweeping generalisations that all drink drivers have the same risk exposure, it kinda invaludates your arguement. Anyway to answer the title of the post, yes he should be allowed to play again. well the fact they crashed kind of proves my point, that could have been a car with 3 children in or it could have been a lamppost. Of course people drive at different speeds when drunk and often the different speeds do account to different risks e.g. driving 90 or 30, however driving drunk at whatever speed impairs the driver significantly and carries a great risk crashing while endangering peoples lives and it is only luck that they didn't kill 2 kids like McCormick. Also do you have any evidence to back up the assertion? along with how the statistics were took, e.g. if they were self reported then people would say they were thought they were safe and would have a lack of validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 But it is morally arbitrary that they didn't hit anyone. They were taking exactly the same risk as he did, he was simply unlucky in that sense. I think the sentence is fair as it was a first offense, he was distressed at the time, he didn't coverup his participation, it was an accident and it could have happened to anyone who goes drink driving. The fact you see it as "2 years a child" shows how wrong in my opinion your thinking is on this issue. All i see is a drink driver who killed 2 children....it shouldnt be pandered over and claimed to be accident. Well i know now if i want kill anyone now i'll be sure to be drinking and driving to do it 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.