Plymouth Goalie

[Ivan Drago]

Charged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7442783.stm

Hope he rots. :agree:

[CalgaryHibs]

Hate too say it, hope they throw the book at him

What ae bloody shame

Thoughts are with family

[CropleyWasGod]

Innocent until proven guilty?

[sammy7]

Innocent until proven guilty?

he's been caught drink driving. they wont say that unless hes had a breathaliser so i'd say he's guilty.

[matty_f]

Innocent until proven guilty?

That's what I thought - the one thing I was astonished about though was that one of his charges was for driving without insurance. How the hell could someone on a Championship player's wages possibly justify not having car insurance?:grr:

[bigstu]

he's been caught drink driving. they wont say that unless hes had a breathaliser so i'd say he's guilty.

i'm not defending the guy but just because he's failed a breath test doesn't mean the accident was his fault. If he's found guilty then what an idiot he is!

[sammy7]

i'm not defending the guy but just because he's failed a breath test doesn't mean the accident was his fault. If he's found guilty then what an idiot he is!

the accident may not have been his fault but if hes failed a breath test then hes guilty of drink driving

[500miles]

It was in the early morning, so perhaps McCormick was still over the limit from the night before - a more than likely scenario, which is still very common, and probably a situation people on this board have found themselves in, with or without even suspecting. It's stupid, but it doesn't make the guy despicable. It's tragic enough that these kids have died, there's no need to prejudge this young man, especailly when I'm 99.9% certain the people on this board know nothing aout the incident apart from the little that has been reported.

[CropleyWasGod]

he's been caught drink driving. they wont say that unless hes had a breathaliser so i'd say he's guilty.

"Charged with". Big difference.

Not arguing with sentiments expressed here, but allow the law to take its course, please.

[lapsedhibee]

i'm not defending the guy but just because he's failed a breath test doesn't mean the accident was his fault. If he's found guilty then what an idiot he is!Totally correct. :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

That's what I thought - the one thing I was astonished about though was that one of his charges was for driving without insurance. How the hell could someone on a Championship player's wages possibly justify not having car insurance?:grr:

Someone else's car?

[matty_f]

Someone else's car?

Well, if you're offering - yes please!:greengrin


Point taken, but even still - nae excuse for that one, it's a basic. (assuming that he did indeed have no insurance, of course).


Edit - also, most (as far as I know) comprehensive car insurance policies cover you to drive another car with third party insurance level only.

[lapsedhibee]

It was in the early morning, so perhaps McCormick was still over the limit from the night before - a more than likely scenario, which is still very common, and probably a situation people on this board have found themselves in, with or without even suspecting. It's stupid, but it doesn't make the guy despicable. It's tragic enough that these kids have died, there's no need to prejudge this young man, especailly when I'm 99.9% certain the people on this board know nothing aout the incident apart from the little that has been reported.
Good point and we should all remember that before he became the top journalist that he is now, K Jackshun probably reported on traffic accidents and the like. :hmmm:

[steviehfc]

How ironic that the guy in question fronted a road safety campaign last season aimed at folk driving dangerously while using their mobiles.
Thoughts are with the family of the children who have lost their life.

[sleeping giant]

Very sad indeed.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Well, if you're offering - yes please!:greengrin


Point taken, but even still - nae excuse for that one, it's a basic. (assuming that he did indeed have no insurance, of course).


Edit - also, most (as far as I know) comprehensive car insurance policies cover you to drive another car with third party insurance level only.

Would being insured have stopped the accident though?

[RyeSloan]

It was in the early morning, so perhaps McCormick was still over the limit from the night before - a more than likely scenario, which is still very common, and probably a situation people on this board have found themselves in, with or without even suspecting. It's stupid, but it doesn't make the guy despicable. It's tragic enough that these kids have died, there's no need to prejudge this young man, especailly when I'm 99.9% certain the people on this board know nothing aout the incident apart from the little that has been reported.

:agree::agree:

[Billie Jo]

:blah::blah::blah: I'm sure :blah::blah: Shut the **** up 2 KIDS have DIED because of sum twat, whether it was the nite before or not he should not have got in his car. If you want to bevy thats upto you, sober up before you get in in your car.

[Ivan Drago]

It was in the early morning, so perhaps McCormick was still over the limit from the night before - a more than likely scenario, which is still very common, and probably a situation people on this board have found themselves in, with or without even suspecting. It's stupid, but it doesn't make the guy despicable. It's tragic enough that these kids have died, there's no need to prejudge this young man, especailly when I'm 99.9% certain the people on this board know nothing aout the incident apart from the little that has been reported.


He has been CHARGED with DANGEROUS DRIVING.

That leads people to the conclusions that the accident happened because he was DANGEROUSLY DRIVING. Doesnt matter when the lad was drinking. That just makes it even worse! :agree:

[jgl07]

:blah::blah::blah: I'm sure :blah::blah: Shut the **** up 2 KIDS have DIED because of sum twat, whether it was the nite before or not he should not have got in his car. If you want to bevy thats upto you, sober up before you get in in your car.
How do you know what happened?

Why not wait for a tral before hanging the guy?

PS Mods. This thread should be binned as at best the comments are sub judice and at worst they ould be libelous.

[Ivan Drago]

How do you know what happened?

Why not wait for a tral before hanging the guy?

PS Mods. This thread should be binned as at best the comments are sub judice and at worst they ould be libelous.


There was me thinking the board was here for people to state there opinions. Stop being so PC ffs.

[Owain_1987]

He did an advert earlier in year about being on the mobile while driving so don't think he will just be a radge. Good point so many people have driven in the morning when still over limit. Its a horrible thing to happen just hope the boy gets help and gets over it if he goes to prison it will ruin his life for one mistake what would that solve help the man out and could get some were. It just proves everyone human he is only 21. No defending him for one second but am sure he shocked by what as happened.

[Billie Jo]

How do you know what happened?

Why not wait for a tral before hanging the guy?

PS Mods. This thread should be binned as at best the comments are sub judice and at worst they ould be libelous.


I dont, it's a warning to anybody that thinks they are safe to drive after drinking whether thats the same night or the next morning, get the bus.

[Ivan Drago]

He did an advert earlier in year about being on the mobile while driving so don't think he will just be a radge. Good point so many people have driven in the morning when still over limit. Its a horrible thing to happen just hope the boy gets help and gets over it if he goes to prison it will ruin his life for one mistake what would that solve help the man out and could get some were. It just proves everyone human he is only 21. No defending him for one second but am sure he shocked by what as happened.


Him being an idiot destroyed more than 1 life :agree:

[matty_f]

Would being insured have stopped the accident though?

Obviously not. I was just amazed that someone with, I would imagine, a very comfortable income would have decided not to pay insurance.

[Billie Jo]

He did an advert earlier in year about being on the mobile while driving so don't think he will just be a radge. Good point so many people have driven in the morning when still over limit. Its a horrible thing to happen just hope the boy gets help and gets over it if he goes to prison it will ruin his life for one mistake what would that solve help the man out and could get some were. It just proves everyone human he is only 21. No defending him for one second but am sure he shocked by what as happened.

I'm sure he is shocked. God help the 2 boys mother.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

He did an advert earlier in year about being on the mobile while driving so don't think he will just be a radge. Good point so many people have driven in the morning when still over limit. Its a horrible thing to happen just hope the boy gets help and gets over it if he goes to prison it will ruin his life for one mistake what would that solve help the man out and could get some were. It just proves everyone human he is only 21. No defending him for one second but am sure he shocked by what as happened.

If the guy is over the limit, regardless of whether it was the morning after, AND has been done with dangerous driving which has killed 2 people then he deserves to go to jail, as would anybody else in that position.

His life may have been ruined, but at least he still has a life, unlike the two innocent kids who have died.

[Toaods]

That's what I thought - the one thing I was astonished about though was that one of his charges was for driving without insurance. How the hell could someone on a Championship player's wages possibly justify not having car insurance?:grr:


.... previous conviction.......:dunno:


Would being insured have stopped the accident though?


No but the fact he isn't then he shouldn't have been on the road in control of any vehicle.....pissed or not.

[Steve-O]

He has been CHARGED with DANGEROUS DRIVING.

That leads people to the conclusions that the accident happened because he was DANGEROUSLY DRIVING. Doesnt matter when the lad was drinking. That just makes it even worse! :agree:

That doesn't mean he will be found GUILTY of dangerous driving FFS. What part of that don't you understand?

I'm sure quite a few of us have, in the eyes of the law at least, driven 'dangerously' at one stage or another, it's just very unfortunate that on this occasion a bad accident has occured.

Too many judges, juries, and executioners on this site.

[CropleyWasGod]

There was me thinking the board was here for people to state there opinions. Stop being so PC ffs.

"PC" is always used these days as a criticism. I would prefer to use the terms "balanced, rational, respectful and open-minded".

[toaosi]

That doesn't mean he will be found GUILTY of dangerous driving FFS. What part of that don't you understand?

I'm sure quite a few of us have, in the eyes of the law at least, driven 'dangerously' at one stage or another, it's just very unfortunate that on this occasion a bad accident has occured.

Too many judges, juries, and executioners on this site.

I think we've all probably driven "dangerously" at some point in our lives and got away with it thank goodness, but hey, not when i've been bevvying :grr:

Time will tell, but if he's over the limit and been taking chances, then he gets all that's coming and **** him. 2 young boys dead and the dad's got a brocken neck and spine, awful.

[capitals_finest]

What a shame for the family involved. Very very sad.

[New Corrie]

Only in ths country can you get in a car drunk, uninsured, kill 2 children and then get bail.:brickwall

[CropleyWasGod]

Only in ths country can you get in a car drunk, uninsured, kill 2 children and then get bail.:brickwall

Is that what he did?

[MSK]

Only in ths country can you get in a car drunk, uninsured, kill 2 children and then get bail.:brickwallWas Luke McCormick drunk at the wheel ?...sorry i aint been keeping up wi this ..

[CropleyWasGod]

Was Luke McCormick drunk at the wheel ?...sorry i aint been keeping up wi this ..

Looks like it, according to this Board. Tried, convicted and executed within a day or so. British justice, eh?

[New Corrie]

Is that what he did?

Yes

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes

Gonny tell the CPS that, then? It'll save us all the expense of an investigation and a trial.

[Pretty Boy]

There was me thinking the board was here for people to state there opinions. Stop being so PC ffs.

What exactly PC about using the innocent until proven guilty argument?

PC is an easy criticism for reactionary lock them up and throw away the key types.

As of yet in the eyes of the law McCormick is guilty of nothing, when he is found guilty then it is fair to say he deserves to rot, until then i'm keeping my view odf him to myself as i have no hard facts and no insider knowledge to back up any claims or comments i make about him.

[New Corrie]

Looks like it, according to this Board. Tried, convicted and executed within a day or so. British justice, eh?

So what are you saying? It wasn't him who failed the breath test and crashed the uninsured car killing two children? If it's not him who was it?

[Pretty Boy]

Only in ths country can you get in a car drunk, uninsured, kill 2 children and then get bail.:brickwall

I think you will find you missed out the word allegedly in that staement. If he is found guilty after a fair trial then fine he deserves a lengthy jail sentence until then you have made up a story based on limited comments made to the media by the police.

[toaosi]

Was Luke McCormick drunk at the wheel ?...sorry i aint been keeping up wi this ..

I would guess the fact that he has been charged with drink driving does mean that he failed a breathaliser test. If so, yes he was drunk at the wheel. In which case, guilty.

[CropleyWasGod]

So what are you saying? It wasn't him who failed the breath test and crashed the uninsured car killing two children? If it's not him who was it?

I am saying let the legal process run its course.

[New Corrie]

I am saying let the legal process run its course.

It's failed already as bail has been granted. Amazing that you can kill 2 children and still be allowed to walk the streets.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's failed already as bail has been granted. Amazing that you can kill 2 children and still be allowed to walk the streets.

Is that what he did? :greengrin

[New Corrie]

Is that what he did? :greengrin

Of course it is, unless as I said it was someone else driving the uninsured Range Rover whilst drunk.

[CropleyWasGod]

Of course it is, unless as I said it was someone else driving the uninsured Range Rover whilst drunk.

Have you considered the possibility of the breath machine being faulty, the insurance company's records being wrong, the kids' father falling asleep at the wheel, their mother leaning over to give them a scud and knocking the wheel?

And don't forget the one-armed man....

[New Corrie]

Have you considered the possibility of the breath machine being faulty, the insurance company's records being wrong, the kids' father falling asleep at the wheel, their mother leaning over to give them a scud and knocking the wheel?

And don't forget the one-armed man....

Yeah, like any of that's happened.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Yeah, like any of that's happened.

How do you know what happened? What difference does it make if the car was insured or not?

[New Corrie]

How do you know what happened? What difference does it make if the car was insured or not?


Please tell me you're not being serious.

[Danderhall Hibs]

[/B]


Please tell me you're not being serious.

Asking a question - what's your answer? Are you saying the crash wouldn't have happened if he'd been insured? :dunno:

[Scouse Hibee]

It's failed already as bail has been granted. Amazing that you can kill 2 children and still be allowed to walk the streets.

Agree it sounds pretty unbelievable, but he would only be remanded in custody if he posed a serious threat to the public. Now let's be clear I am in no way defending his actions that may or may not have caused this terrible accident. If the accident is proved to be as a result of his dangerous driving whether alcohol was a factor or not then I hope he gets the punishment that he deserves.

The great thing about our justice system is that he is still innocent until either proven guilty or pleading guilty and that's the way it should always be. I am sure he did not get in his car with the intention of causing the death of two small children. Many drivers especially on motorways do silly things that go unnoticed and escape collisions by the skin of their teeth on many occasions even if they haven't realised it. So there but for the grace of god....................

The alcohol is a different matter which can't really be defended but the morning after the night before is so easy to get caught out.

My thoughts go out to the family of the boys and Luke McCormack.

[New Corrie]

Asking a question - what's your answer? Are you saying the crash wouldn't have happened if he'd been insured? :dunno:

No, it just adds to the irresponsibility. Wrecklessness, alcohol and no insurance....great combination.

[Steve-O]

It's failed already as bail has been granted. Amazing that you can kill 2 children and still be allowed to walk the streets.

Yes, truly amazing. I am sure he plans to kill a few more people while on bail...:rolleyes:

Additionally, I would say that there is a clear difference between "drunk" (as some people are saying here), and "over the limit", so let's not go totally overboard until facts are known.

[Toaods]

Have you considered the possibility of the breath machine being faulty, the insurance company's records being wrong, the kids' father falling asleep at the wheel, their mother leaning over to give them a scud and knocking the wheel?

And don't forget the one-armed man....

This possible faulty machine you hypothesise over would not have a bearing on the fact he has been charged with two counts of dangerous driving, which may tell a story in itself. The mother would need to have some length of arms to have caused the accident as she was not even in the vehicle, but back in her bed.

The likelyhood of the injured father being pissed or falling asleep is literally nil as they had not long set off for a day trip to Silverstone to watch some motor sport, ie get there early as parking is notoriously horrendous there. They had also picked up another bloke with his two kids, which would make the chances of him speeding when not required and with 4 kids in the motor very marginal.


Yes, truly amazing. I am sure he plans to kill a few more people while on bail...:rolleyes:

Additionally, I would say that there is a clear difference between "drunk" (as some people are saying here), and "over the limit", so let's not go totally overboard until facts are known.


Not really much doubt the guy over the limit, aka "drunk" in terms of driving. I always find a strange attitude in the way some people jump on the PC/Innocent until proven guilty bandwagon in such cases. In your own case Steve-O .......I don't recall you being so defensive and understanding of some of our own players when they had been spotted by yourself or any random poster who posted that these bad guys had been spotted out armed with a 'drink'....:wink:

[Steve-O]

This possible faulty machine you hypothesise over would not have a bearing on the fact he has been charged with two counts of dangerous driving, which may tell a story in itself. The mother would need to have some length of arms to have caused the accident as she was not even in the vehicle, but back in her bed.

The likelyhood of the injured father being pissed or falling asleep is literally nil as they had not long set off for a day trip to Silverstone to watch some motor sport, ie get there early as parking is notoriously horrendous there. They had also picked up another bloke with his two kids, which would make the chances of him speeding when not required and with 4 kids in the motor very marginal.




Not really much doubt the guy over the limit, aka "drunk" in terms of driving. I always find a strange attitude in the way some people jump on the PC/Innocent until proven guilty bandwagon in such cases. In your own case Steve-O .......I don't recall you being so defensive and understanding of some of our own players when they had been spotted by yourself or any random poster who posted that these bad guys had been spotted out armed with a 'drink'....:wink:

My views on how much professional athletes should be out on the bevvy are really not that relevant here. Additionally, the season is now over and the players are all apparently on holiday so it's not the same as me complaining that some players were apparently out on the last twice a week during the season.

Also, my argument has nothing to with being PC. It's just that there are probably as many cases where people are cleared of dangerous driving charges, as there are prosecutions. I simply think it's over the top to say 'I hope he rots' etc etc. I'm pretty sure the guy will be feeling bad enough about it without every football fan in the country sitting in judgement of him.

[Toaods]

My views on how much professional athletes should be out on the bevvy are really not that relevant here. Additionally, the season is now over and the players are all apparently on holiday so it's not the same as me complaining that some players were apparently out on the last twice a week during the season.

Also, my argument has nothing to with being PC. It's just that there are probably as many cases where people are cleared of dangerous driving charges, as there are prosecutions. I simply think it's over the top to say 'I hope he rots' etc etc. I'm pretty sure the guy will be feeling bad enough about it without every football fan in the country sitting in judgement of him.


there are indeed many cases where people are cleared of dangerous driving, however this will not be one of them. You can bet your bottom NZ dollar on that. You'll be backing Donald Finlay to defend him next with an appeal for an unfair trial(not that I doubt we'll need to get to that stage)...:greengrin

[Steve-O]

there are indeed many cases where people are cleared of dangerous driving, however this will not be one of them. You can bet your bottom NZ dollar on that. You'll be backing Donald Finlay to defend him next with an appeal for an unfair trial(not that I doubt we'll need to get to that stage)...:greengrin

How do you know? It could be downgraded to careless driving or he could be cleared altogether of that particular charge? Or, he may plead guilty and that will be that.

Just because people died does not automatically mean it's a stick on that he will definitely be prosecuted on the charges laid.

[toaosi]

Yes, truly amazing. I am sure he plans to kill a few more people while on bail...:rolleyes:

Additionally, I would say that there is a clear difference between "drunk" (as some people are saying here), and "over the limit", so let's not go totally overboard until facts are known.

The difference between being drunk and over the limit...none.

2 pints for example and you are over the limit, maybe not drunk, but over the limit. I would notice a difference in my driving abilities after 2 pints, hence the reason I wouldn't touch my car, especially if I was going to a night out. IF he was over the limit, never mind dangerous driving(which may be a result of said over the limit driving) or no insurance he should not have been driving and as I said already, he deserves all that is coming to him.

Also apart from my heart going out to the mother and father of the 2 boys, my heart also goes out to the goalie as I can't imagine what he is going through.

[Steve-O]

The difference between being drunk and over the limit...none.

2 pints for example and you are over the limit, maybe not drunk, but over the limit. I would notice a difference in my driving abilities after 2 pints, hence the reason I wouldn't touch my car, especially if I was going to a night out. IF he was over the limit, never mind dangerous driving(which may be a result of said over the limit driving) or no insurance he should not have been driving and as I said already, he deserves all that is coming to him.

Also apart from my heart going out to the mother and father of the 2 boys, my heart also goes out to the goalie as I can't imagine what he is going through.

You have just contradicted yourself in your first 2 lines.

Over the limit is over the limit and he shouldn't have driven if he knew he was. I am simply saying there is a difference between being JUST over the limit, and being completely drunk. That is why people are sentenced accordingly in terms of how much over the limit they are.

I am in no way saying he doesn't deserve punishment, just that I don't think he deserves the same vitriol as some kind of child murderer.

[Toaods]

I am in no way saying he doesn't deserve punishment, just that I don't think he deserves the same vitriol as some kind of child murderer.

but he is.......:dunno:

[Steve-O]

but he is.......:dunno:

A murderer? Nonsense.

If he was, he'd have been charged with MURDER. He also would have deliberately killed the children.

[toaosi]

You have just contradicted yourself in your first 2 lines.

Over the limit is over the limit and he shouldn't have driven if he knew he was. I am simply saying there is a difference between being JUST over the limit, and being completely drunk. That is why people are sentenced accordingly in terms of how much over the limit they are.

I am in no way saying he doesn't deserve punishment, just that I don't think he deserves the same vitriol as some kind of child murderer.

Contradiction? OK, let me make what I am saying a bit clearer.

The difference between being over the limit and being drunk, none. I was putting that across from a legal point of view when it comes to driving a car. Fact.

There might be a difference between JUST being over the limit, and being completely drunk, if for example your are just trying to get into a football match, but when you get behind the wheel and cause an accident such as this it makes NO difference, he deserves everything that is coming.

You should not be sentenced in accordance with how much over the limit you are in a case like this as you can't kill someone in proportion to how much you have had to drink.:confused:

He knew he had been drinking, Guilty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not when a grieving mother shows up clutching two teddy bears, and the likes of News at Ten broadcast tearful interviews from the survivors.

None of which makes the death of the kids any less sad, but at the same time, we have to remember there is a legal process, otherwise we'll get knee jerk reactions from the death penalty brigade (qv).

[Phil D. Rolls]

he's been caught drink driving. they wont say that unless hes had a breathaliser so i'd say he's guilty.

Who's to say the breathalyser isn't faulty. It's not unknown for the police to make mistakes, and sometimes they even lie.

Remember when they shot Jean Charles de Menezes? In the first 24 hours the chief of the Met, was insisting the guy was one of the terrorists.

Drinking and driving is despicable, but let's get the full story before we hang the guy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Well, if you're offering - yes please!:greengrin


Point taken, but even still - nae excuse for that one, it's a basic. (assuming that he did indeed have no insurance, of course).


Edit - also, most (as far as I know) comprehensive car insurance policies cover you to drive another car with third party insurance level only.

Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving, so if he is guilty of drink driving, the second bit is automatic.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not when a grieving mother shows up clutching two teddy bears, and the likes of News at Ten broadcast tearful interviews from the survivors.

None of which makes the death of the kids any less sad, but at the same time, we have to remember there is a legal process, otherwise we'll get knee jerk reactions from the death penalty brigade (qv).

I sometimes think we are heading the way of the States, where often guilt and innocence are proclaimed in front of the media, before the case gets to Court. There is a balance to be struck, taking into account the rights of the bereaved, the accused, the police, the media and the public, but I am worried that we are getting it wrong. 24 hour news coverage is a factor, but the extreme alternative would be "no coverage" until the case has been decided.

Can of worms smiley....

[northern-hibee]

Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving, so if he is guilty of drink driving, the second bit is automatic.

Eh??? Gosh think of all those uninsured speeders that the police have been letting go, and those with bald tyres, cracked windscreens etc, all with no insurance. Makes ya think eh

[Hanny]

Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving, so if he is guilty of drink driving, the second bit is automatic.

No it's not.

You can't be charged for having no insurance if you have a valid policy at the start of your journey.

I presume if you commit a crime you can't claim on your insurance but it doesn't automatically become a chargeable offence once you commit a driving offence.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving, so if he is guilty of drink driving, the second bit is automatic.

A Cabbie writes....utter twaddle.

[Steve-O]

Contradiction? OK, let me make what I am saying a bit clearer.

The difference between being over the limit and being drunk, none. I was putting that across from a legal point of view when it comes to driving a car. Fact.

There might be a difference between JUST being over the limit, and being completely drunk, if for example your are just trying to get into a football match, but when you get behind the wheel and cause an accident such as this it makes NO difference, he deserves everything that is coming.

You should not be sentenced in accordance with how much over the limit you are in a case like this as you can't kill someone in proportion to how much you have had to drink.:confused:

He knew he had been drinking, Guilty.

Sorry, but your 'FACT' is not actually a FACT. From a legal point of view there IS a difference in being JUST over the limit and completely drunk. If you are over 2.5 times the limit, you face harsher penalties, THAT is a fact. So, in terms of sentencing, there is a clear difference. Under no circumstances will anyone get away with just being over the limit of course, but that's not what I meant.

Additionally, the drink-driving will be dealt with separately and the sentence for the charge of drink-driving will be the same whether he had had an accident or not. The sentence for this will be based on the amount he was over the limit, and any other mitigating factors. Say he was twice the limit, he is probably looking at a 1-2 year ban for that, plus a 3 figure fine.

The deaths of the children come under the charge of 'causing death by dangerous driving' and the evidence gathered will decide whether he is guilty of this, irrelevant of whether he was over the drink-drive limit or not. If guilty of this, then I think the maximum jail time is 10 years (??), and it's possible he could get that for each child. This would also be a driving ban (not sure how long for this though)

Likewise, the driving without insurance charge will also be dealt with as a separate crime. This would likely be a fine.

[toaosi]

Sorry, but your 'FACT' is not actually a FACT. From a legal point of view there IS a difference in being JUST over the limit and completely drunk. If you are over 2.5 times the limit, you face harsher penalties, THAT is a fact. So, in terms of sentencing, there is a clear difference. Under no circumstances will anyone get away with just being over the limit of course, but that's not what I meant.

Additionally, the drink-driving will be dealt with separately and the sentence for the charge of drink-driving will be the same whether he had had an accident or not. The sentence for this will be based on the amount he was over the limit, and any other mitigating factors. Say he was twice the limit, he is probably looking at a 1-2 year ban for that, plus a 3 figure fine.

The deaths of the children come under the charge of 'causing death by dangerous driving' and the evidence gathered will decide whether he is guilty of this, irrelevant of whether he was over the drink-drive limit or not. If guilty of this, then I think the maximum jail time is 10 years (??), and it's possible he could get that for each child. This would also be a driving ban (not sure how long for this though)

Likewise, the driving without insurance charge will also be dealt with as a separate crime. This would likely be a fine.

Okay your honour, i'm not going to argue with that for fear of a contempt of court charge:wink:

[lyonhibs]

He has been CHARGED with DANGEROUS DRIVING.

That leads people to the conclusions that the accident happened because he was DANGEROUSLY DRIVING. Doesnt matter when the lad was drinking. That just makes it even worse! :agree:

Absolutely - if he's proven guilty (as everyone is innocent until proven otherwise) of driving like a wannabe Schumacher on public roads and such idiocy directly caused the deaths of those 2 kids, may he rot in hell.

And another point, driving whilst drunk isn't "stupid" - trying to do a back flip on a tricycle would be "stupid". Driving whilst drunk is a incredibly irresponsible thing to do and shows near total disregard for other road-users and any passengers you may be driving.

I've got a good mate who's a Plymouth fan, and the milk of human kindness towards their own goalie is justifiably thin down there as well.

[cabbageandribs1875]

You think most of Leithwalkhibbys posts are amusing ..dearie me :violin:..you are clearly in the minority..



he stopped being amusing when he posted on this thread
http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=105395

LeithWalkHibby
None yet, despite speeding while p*ssed out of my face on many an occasion.


and this one

http://www.hibs.net/message/showpost.php?p=1528931&postcount=3

leithwalkHibby
I fully support using animals to test cosmetic products, but for not medical science.




total fruitloop :agree: and probably loves the attention from being "controversial" :wink: strong candidate for the andrew duncan clinic me thinks

[Steve-O]

Okay your honour, i'm not going to argue with that for fear of a contempt of court charge:wink:

CASE DISMISSED! :judgehittinghammersmiley: :greengrin

[Edinburghlass]

Having lost a member of my family to a drunk driver, my thoughts are immediately with the poor family and friends of the two children and their seriously injured father.

It's been just over a decade since my brother was killed by a drunk driver and it was a horrible, painful and helpless experience watching grief ruin the life of other members of my family who could not come to terms with losing him.

But for the actions of some idiotic, selfish man all those years back, I would still have a brother and not have had to listen to my father cry himself to sleep for years at the loss of him.

If this guy is found guilty, I have no sympathy for the punishment that will befall him or the pathetic excuses he'll undoubtedly reel out to try and lessen his punishment. There really can be no excuse.

[matty_f]

Having lost a member of my family to a drunk driver, my thoughts are immediately with the poor family and friends of the two children and their seriously injured father.

It's been just over a decade since my brother was killed by a drunk driver and it was a horrible, painful and helpless experience watching grief ruin the life of other members of my family who could not come to terms with losing him.

But for the actions of some idiotic, selfish man all those years back, I would still have a brother and not have had to listen to my father cry himself to sleep for years at the loss of him.

If this guy is found guilty, I have no sympathy for the punishment that will befall him or the pathetic excuses he'll undoubtedly reel out to try and lessen his punishment. There really can be no excuse.

:agree: In this day and age where there is such public awareness of the dangers of drink driving it's unthinkable that some people still think it's ok to do it.

As you say, no excuse if he's found guilty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There was me thinking the board was here for people to state there opinions. Stop being so PC ffs.

I think you probably regret humiliating yourself with such a stupid statement now, so I'll go easy.

If we start convicting people on the evidence that has come out on this thread, we might as well give up on any concept of justice. Otherwise I could accuse you of some outrageous crime like rape and we would just lock you up and throw away the key.

That wouldn't be very fair would it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, it just adds to the irresponsibility. Wrecklessness, alcohol and no insurance....great combination.

A technicality - if you have taken alcohol you aren't insured. Two felonies for the price of one (I thought I would develop on the theme of American deep south justice there just to keep the tone appropriate).

[Phil D. Rolls]

A Cabbie writes....utter twaddle.

You may not know this, but I am also an Associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute from a previous life (25 years working in Insurance). Admittedly I worked in Life and Pensions, but did cover the basic principles of insurance in my exams.

So I actually know quite a bit about the subject. And your evidence base is? I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.

[Steve-O]

A technicality - if you have taken alcohol you aren't insured. Two felonies for the price of one (I thought I would develop on the theme of American deep south justice there just to keep the tone appropriate).

But you are not charged with this in the criminal sense.

This only applies from the insurers point of view surely?

[LeithWalkHibby]

You may not know this, but I am also an Associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute from a previous life (25 years working in Insurance). Admittedly I worked in Life and Pensions, but did cover the basic principles of insurance in my exams.

So I actually know quite a bit about the subject. And your evidence base is? I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.

You stated "Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving". This is twaddle. When the police pull you over for committing the crime of speeding, they don't also charge you with the crime of not having valid insurance. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.

[Hanny]

But you are not charged with this in the criminal sense.

This only applies from the insurers point of view surely?

Correct

Being charged with drink driving does not automatically lead to being charged with no insurance.

Certainly not under Scottish law anyway.

[Sergio sledge]

Correct

Being charged with drink driving does not automatically lead to being charged with no insurance.

Certainly not under Scottish law anyway.

It does however void your insurance policy (well it does mine anyway) so I suppose technically you could be done for driving without insurance. It's not common though.

[Hanny]

It does however void your insurance policy (well it does mine anyway) so I suppose technically you could be done for driving without insurance. It's not common though.

Nope.

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 143(1)&(2)

Road Traffic Act 1988 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_1)

You can only get done for driving with no insurance if you don't have a valid insurance policy on the date you are driving (or someone else is driving your car for that matter)

[Phil D. Rolls]

You stated "Any car insurance is invalid if you commit a crime whilst driving". This is twaddle. When the police pull you over for committing the crime of speeding, they don't also charge you with the crime of not having valid insurance. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.


twaddle
Noun
silly, trivial, or pretentious talk or writing
Verb
[-dling, -dled]
to talk or write in a silly or pretentious way [earlier twattle]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/twaddle

It is a basic principle of insurance that it cannot be used to allow someone to commit an illegal act. Most insurance policies will explicitly exclude such cover in the wording - although strictly speaking that is not necessary.

Whether the police chose to follow up on that is a matter for them. I would guess that if the crime committed is a minor one, which need not involve a court appearance then they will turn a blind eye.

I can't say though, as I am not a policeman. I am not a lawyer either, nor am I an Insurance practioner anymore. I was though, and when I studied for the professional exams, I seem to distinctly recall questions like this one being discussed.

I admit though, that motor insurance wasn't my speciality, but I'm sure that I am right on this. Could someone who knows what they are talking about please help?

Here's one policy that doesn't cover drink driving:

http://www.bewiser.co.uk/insurers/car/service/Policy%20Summary/ServiceHireTFPCPS1205.pdf

[northern-hibee]

Happy to put you right on this one Filled Rolls, but you are wrong.

As long as someone has a policy of insurance covering their use of the vehicle at the material time then NO offence has been committed. It may well be that the insurance company refuse to pay out but legally the driver has complied with the law.

If you look at the wording on every motor vehicle policy it states it will cover the driver providing "they hold a valid driving licence and are not disqualified from holding one". Therefore the only offence that automatically attracts the additional "no insurance" charge is when someone is charged with disqualified driving.

Whether the police chose to follow up on that is a matter for them. I would guess that if the crime committed is a minor one, which need not involve a court appearance then they will turn a blind eye.

You don't seriously think this is true? Why on earth would they "turn a blind eye" to an offence such as no insurance which carries the minimum penalty of 6 points and a £60 fine!

Hope this clears this matter up.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Happy to put you right on this one Filled Rolls, but you are wrong.

As long as someone has a policy of insurance covering their use of the vehicle at the material time then NO offence has been committed. It may well be that the insurance company refuse to pay out but legally the driver has complied with the law.

If you look at the wording on every motor vehicle policy it states it will cover the driver providing "they hold a valid driving licence and are not disqualified from holding one". Therefore the only offence that automatically attracts the additional "no insurance" charge is when someone is charged with disqualified driving.

Whether the police chose to follow up on that is a matter for them. I would guess that if the crime committed is a minor one, which need not involve a court appearance then they will turn a blind eye.

You don't seriously think this is true? Why on earth would they "turn a blind eye" to an offence such as no insurance which carries the minimum penalty of 6 points and a £60 fine!

Hope this clears this matter up.

:top marks