But was sentenced to 6 years and released under license. I'm talking sentence not actual time inside. These days you can murder someone and be out in less than 5 years!
Goalie charged
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
But was sentenced to 6 years and released under license. I'm talking sentence not actual time inside. These days you can murder someone and be out in less than 5 years!
Yeah sorry I think we had our wires crossed, I was thinking more of actual jail time rather than the sentence.
I beg your pardon? What the hell are you on about?
Play ignorant if you like but Since you got Sussed you have followed my posts around having Digs, Grow up Sonny.
My Point & my post stands on its own. I did Not mention the Goalie or excuse what he had done i merely related something that ACTUALLY happened to me, Get out of your bedroom once in a while & things may happen in your life as well.
Sorry, can you give me examples of these digs please? I remember posting in a thread that you couldn't afford stamps to apply for a job yet you can afford broadband and premium cable TV but I wasn't the only one in that thread. I don't remember anything else as far as I know?
You're paranoid mate.
I'll ignore your last sentence due to the major irony factor of it.
Shall we club him with dead badgers and burn his bones, too?
I could imagine many possibilities where this is not 100% his fault.
So you take this light hearted attitude in the defence of other drivers too, not just you?
Your attitude towards incompetancy on the roads is bewildering.
He was driving, under the influence of alcohol, without insurance, AND was involved in a crash resulting in two deaths and one serious injury.
In my eyes, he can be burnt at the stake, sod the badgers.
But 90% his fault?
Get over yourself.
Im not even going to dignify that comment by rising to the bait.
Just think for one minute how you would feel if it was your two children who had been killed by a drunk, uninsured driver at quarter to six in the morning. It can hardly be blamed on the sheer weight of traffic.
I'm not sure the insurance is a relevant factor in the causation of this, certainly not a wise idea to be bombing about without it but its not like any uninsured driver instantly kills the nearest child when they get behind the wheel and I am not entirely sure how people think its relevant to the outcome (aside from it being its own seperate offence)
Driving whilst that drunk is inexcusable and he should rightly be punished for the deaths he has caused.
Driving whilst that drunk is inexcusable and he should rightly be punished for the deaths he has caused.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Such as? - bearing in mind he's drunk and driving without insurance.
This should be good.
The state of his insurance has zero bearing on his driving. The fact he was under the influence does, but we don't know how much by. The fact that he was involved in a crash resulting in two, twenty or twenty thousand deaths does not prove that he was at fault. I'm not saying that he categorically isn't, just I don't see why we should all jump the gun before we get better facts than the sensantionalist headlines that we seem to have thus far. Knip seemed to think the facts may be irrelevant.
I'm sure I'd be devastated, but this is the thing: they may not have been actively killed by the drunk, uninsured driver. He may have been the bullet, but he may not have made them the target.
Again, my nan could be driving around without insurance, but that doesn't change anything. The drunk thing is of course a concern, but again there's a big difference between 5x the limit and a tiny bit over.
It's quite likely that he is completely at fault, but everyone seems to be making a snap judgement.
He quite simply should not have been there. He was not insured and was over the limit and was breaking the law being at that spot, at that time. A collision occured and 2 kids are dead and a father in critical, this wouldn't have happened if the footballing cretin hadn't been on the road.
Who gives a stuff whos fault the collision was, McCormick lost the benefit of the doubt the moment he picked up his car keys.
Who gives a stuff whos fault the collision was, McCormick lost the benefit of the doubt the moment he picked up his car keys.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm concerned about what you're spouting.
Last edited:
He has been charged with drink driving & causing death of two people, some pretty good clues there.
Shoot the ******* tbh.
You can't see that driving whilst returning ****** from a Wedding bash (& quite a good one I'd imagine) is not 100% his fault? - He got into a car after drinking and drove. All the fault you need, no iffs no buts.
I know that stretch of road well, and at a guess - Emphasis on the word guess! -, something has left keele services causing one vehicle to move into lane two for the other to join the motorway, alas, ****** Football Chav is approaching in his Range Sport, consumed by that all so important match he was probably due to play a few hours later.....
I wonder (as I don't generally follow footie ) was he due to play for Plymouth Argyle on Saturday?
Last edited:
Not having insurance is actually quite hard to do these days, I get about 1 insurance letter a month offering me cheaper insurance and when my year is up it renews if I don't change, prior to that I get plenty of letters telling me it will auto renew. It's blooming hard to NOT have insurance these days if you own a car.
The drink/drive think I can see how he could be slightly over the limit but I think most of us know just how strict the limit is, I rarely if ever go driving after I've drunk anything at all, fact that he's managed to do that whilst having no insurance isn't exactly bad luck on his part it's plain stupidity.
Still lets wait and see what happens in the case. If he's guilty I hope he's put away for a long time, although nothing will bring back those kids.
