I understand your point notdistant and I also don't think he intended any harm to anyone albeit he did some. I would take issue with the "ruined his life" bit though. Ruined part of his life no doubt but to come out and get paid a high wage again and carry on his career in the limelight isn't exactly ruining all of it is it. No doubt there will be people out there who will drink then drive tonight and every night and they are as wrong as he was and potentially could cause the same outcome. But, there are many who won't be and he is going to get some stick and a half and it is understandable. You only have to read the comments on the Swindon site to see that loads of them aren't happy with it right now.
Everything is relative Sensible: His trade is goalkeeping, I don't know what else he might be able to earn a living at. I suppose he might have aspired to Premier League football; he was pretty useful after all. I don't suppose that will happen now that he's had a long period out of the game. But my point was more that he will carry the burden of what he did to his dying day. That can't be pleasant. I saw someone with some inside knowledge remark that had indeed been scarred by the tragedy - as of course any decent person would be.
It is interesting to note that the majority of those who say 'give him a second chance' are either Plymouth supporters or Swindon supporters. The two clubs directly involved (with him), either side of the driving horror that ruined many lifes. Meanwhile, an overwhelming amount of football supporters will consider him to be right up there alongside the Lee Hughes' of this world & rightly so.
You need to understand Jenny that before the fateful day he was highly thought of by Plymouth supporters and was known to be a real Gent and very likable person. Definately not one of the "up one's own" brigade. The incident was a shock to many and was thought to be completely out of character. When the news broke he was condemned by everyone that I can recall and when sentenced after the trial a great many thought the sentence was not enough. In my view that was spot on by the Plymouth fans. None would welcome him back so the chances of him resuming any career here went long ago. Most of the support posts are not saying he did anything right due to his actions, they are saying he has served his sentence given by a Judge and like any other person who has done the time he should be allowed to resume his life. They are certainly not condoning anything but merely trotting out the man's legal right. There are very few wishing him well. I can't speak for Swindon fans but some of the posts I have read are not very polite and a good deal of them don't want him near their club. It is different for clubs not involved who can give a more out there opinion. Even then some are not that unsupportive and have said the same thing about him being entitled to resume life on the outside. This topic is always going to be very emotive given that it cost the lives of two young boys, disabled the father and left the mother to pick up a lot of the pieces her life had been left with. On this thread the majority think he should fade away and find another occupation. The others again don't condone but recognise he has served the sentence. Nobody, whichever side their views fall on is forgetting the tragic circumstances.
To amplify what you said Sensible, nobody is condoning what McCormick did and I doubt there are many Argyle fans that would ever want to see him back at Home Park. However, as with all these things, we have to look at ourselves before we condemn others. My 3rd hand and unsubstantiated understanding is that McCormick was away from home at a [wedding?] celebration without his wife/girlfriend. That's odd in itself and it appears that he was wound up by other guests to the effect that her absence was allowing her to engage in extra curricular activities, shall we say. It was that that provoked him to set off on the road when he'd been drinking. That may be just a story cooked up by a lawyer but assuming there is some truth in it, which one of us can state categorically that we wouldn't have done the same thing, wrong as it is? McCormick had twice the legal blood alcohol content, which is equivalent to no more than about 4 pints I think, so it's not as if it was a particularly extreme case, even if the consequences were the worst imaginable. The news is full of ordinary people being prosecuted for having 4 and 5 times the limit. Clearly breaking the law is breaking the law but as I've said before, only those that can say they've never driven under the influence can have much to say. If you have, then but for the grace of God, you might well be where McCormick is now.
I can vouch for what you have said Notdistantgreen but the story I heard was that his girlfriend wouldn't attend the wedding because Luke's ex fiancee was there. She supposedly rang Luke and told him if he didnt get back down they were finished .... how much truth there is to that version I don't know but I was told that within days of the accident ... I am not condoning his actions but I for one am guilty of going to a party the night before, having a few hours sleep and driving to work the following day .... in hindsight I was probably still over the limit and it was a case of ..... there but for the grace go I !!!! Compassion is a word that seems to be sadly going out of fashion these days ! Isn't two glasses of wine or champagne twice the legal limit ?
A large glass of strong [13.5%] wine is about the same as 1 pint of strong lager. http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/tips-and-tools/drink-diary/?gclid=CNaVjoa6orACFU4lfAodrxCGXw I totally agree with you about the "morning after" syndrome and that's what worries me about the pressure for a "zero tolerance" approach. When for example England do crash out of the forthcoming Euros on penalties against some top notch side like Greece or Sweden, 50% of the population are going to over a zero tolerance limit on their way to work the following day. Most of the deaths & injuries are caused by people who are several times over the current limit, not those between zero & 80mg; we need to enforce the current law rather than making a new one.
I do find myself torn, here. Many people are caught drink-driving every year and most have the good fortune not to hurt anyone. The truth, of course, is that driving under the influence is more likely to result in an accident so one could argue those who get away with it are lucky. In Luke McCormick's case it was made worse by the fact that he was also emotionally upset so his levels of concentration were doubly impaired. The result was tragic and he was rightly jailed. Yes, it will be painful for the family of those lads to see him playing again but whatever he did, he would be alive, free and earning a living. I think we attach far too much importance to football in cases like this. Lots of young men do stupid things. In McCormick's case it doesn't appear that he was habitually an idiot. A lot of those shouting loudest for his permanent disappearance from the game will, of course, never have got behind the wheel of a car after having too many drinks... I suspect he might be hounded out of the game by opposition fans baiting him and being on his back each week. It would take a great deal of mental toughness to absorb that every time you went to work.
And of course a lot more drink-drive and don't get caught...... Personally I'd be very happy to see a campaign of road blocks & random breath tests on Friday & Saturday nights at closing time. I suspect that would pick up thousands the first week but there's be far fewer problems after that. Of course, I expect that would be infringing someone's human rights even if the police were willing to pay the overtime until 3 am!
Driving the morning after you've had a few drinks is worlds apart from swerving all over the road which is what he was caught doing on cctv. I have little sympathy with him, my sympathy lies with the peak family - what is left of them! Football players seem to think they can do as they like and often they can. I don't think 3.5 years is sufficient sentance that fits this particular crime.
How long IS long enough? I am far more worried by habitually violent offenders being released after next to no time than one person who made a very bad and tragic mistake. His was actually a long sentence for a motoring offence, I don't think the judge could have given him much more unless he'd been charged with manslaughter. Anyway, he did not decide the sentence and I very glad I don't have to do so in such cases. I don't think retribution works here. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind to paraphrase Ghandi. McCormick will have to live with what he did and, no, he doesn't deserve our sympathy; but maybe he does deserve a little compassion?
The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, forgiveness. --H.H. the Dalai Lama
Maybe that's why I'm not religious then. I'd say 10yrs is about right, we are far too concerned with the offender in this country. He will have had all the support he needed whilst inside, every comfort and probably able to ply his trade too - oh yes he may even have got himself better educated. What about the Peaks? My guess is that after the first 6 months or so and the fuss had died down they were left to stew in their own juice.
I think you will find Lala that in one way or the other the Peaks have been having their say in newspapers and magazines nearly every other week, especially in the Sun ! So they haven't been left to stew in their own juices so to speak !
I looked it up - the average term served by a mandatory life sentence murderer is 13.7 years. That includes all the worst cases, including those of child killers, multiple killers etc etc who serve very long terms but not voluntary manslaughter. Aggravating factors such as a rape or robbery, have led to murderers spending 20 or more years in prison, so it's reasonable to assume that at the other end of the spectrum, many serve no more than 10-12 years. All "first degree" murder convictions require an "intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury". Some can convince a jury that merely beating someone up without an intention to kill only or that they were provoked and get away with a manslaughter conviction rather than murder if the victim does die - when they presumably serve less than 10-12 years. On that basis I think 3.5 years for drink-driving with the tragic but completely unintended consequences of killing someone is a proportionate sentence. Whether it's a proper sentence is another thing but you can't change it much without also changing the whole structure of sentencing. Now if you ask me, anyone, everyone, caught carrying a gun or a knife should go to prison as the only possible reason for doing that is to kill or seriously injure someone. Does that happen? No it doesn't and to me that's a far more worrying weakness in the criminal system than sentencing for deaths caused by tragic but unintentional means.
The Peak family have had to suffer beyond the norm......if it is true that the boys were not belted up at the time.....then how do you live with that on your conscious for the rest of your life......if they have been involved with that rag the Sun newspaper.......who will always find stories whatever to sell papers...then my sympathy is with them for getting involved with the gutter press. As for Luke McCormick.....I feel that he will not ever be the player that he was........how do you concentrate on keeping goal with all the snide remarks in your ear continually.....the fans being the twelfth man is very evident in a situation like that..........McCormick being a model professional footballer and a level headed role model for the younger generation has never ever gone so wildly wrong in a few moments of madness......how do you live with that.......certainly by not putting yourself in the shooting gallery every Saturday afternoon.
I now have to spring to the defence of the bereaved family and others like them. Firstly, never trust the tabloid papers who may well be taking advantage of them in the interests of a good headline. Secondly, families bereaved in these sorts of incidents do invariably become intensely interested in road safety in a way they never were before. That's perfectly natural and we'd probably all do the same thing but in terms of writing new laws etc, traumatised people aren't the best advisers. The law needs to deal with what's practical and fair and those aren't the first things on a bereaved person's mind.
If the boys had no seat belts on (had that been confirmed ?).....then wearing seat belts is an obvious area for involvement for the Peaks'. It does amaze me how many people don't wear their belts.........I have seen belted up front seat adults holding young children on their laps....as if that was safe in a crash.......the mind boggles at times.
I will say one more thing and it will be my last word on the subject - which has already received too much attention > to all the do-gooders defending him, it it were YOUR child/children would you still be defending him? Would you still feel that a 3.5 year sentance is justice for your child? Would you feel happy he is about to resume where he left off? Would YOU talk to newspapers because you were grief stricken, angry and hurting? The children may or may not (has this been confirmed?) have been wearing seatbelts but had Luke Mcormick not been on the roads in the state he was in they wouldn't have needed to be wearing them. That is all.
I don't know how I would react if it were my son that was killed, but I hope I would act with dignity, humility and remember that nothing is ever black or white but many shades of gray. The one thing I do know for sure is that the people who have suffered the most throughout life are usually the ones who display compassion. I do feel sorry for the Peaks as I feel they have allowed the media to turn them into professional victims, and that isn't meant in any shape of form in a nasty way !
