'Death Crash' goalkeeper released and playing for Swindon

I wonder what the person who felt no emotion for the two kids that were killed would feel like if it was his kids that had been killed?

 

They would probably demand sympathy.

 

If you drink simple dont drive, but also what about people who still answer their phone and txt while driving ****ing idiots, sorry ladies dont mean to offend.

 

Speaking of, I saw someone doing that yesterday. Sadly, some people are too damn selfish to care. They need the book throwing at them.

 

Just a couple of weeks ago it was on Sky News that some insurance companies were refusing to insure anyone caught using a phone or texting, good move I thought.

 

I saw a guy drinking a cup of coffee when driving when I was out walking the dog yesterday,unbelievable.

 

Good idea.

 

This

 

I'm sorry if I seemed casual about drink driving. I'm not at all.

I haven't for years. I hope I will never do so again. I have been stupid enough to do it several times in the 35 years I have been driving.

I don't think I am unusual in that regard. The point I was trying to make is not that the goalkeeper didn't commit a very serious crime - - - it was that many, probably most, drivers have commited equally serious crimes but been protected by blind luck from suffering the consequences.

 

A good idea, but then again they really don't offer insurance for people starting out who can't haven't had the chance to get caught doing something yet! Age-ism with insurance is rife and nobody gives a **** about that.

Anyway...

Criminal activity is culturally, socially and economically defined, and therefore so is our reaction to it. Pick up any anthropology work and you'd notice just how complicated (not civilized) our society has made punishment and reward. Often tribute is paid in tribes as token gesture for murder, then everyone gets on with their lives. Our token is, however, intertwined with economic and social success (career). The "life" sentence is more a human rights metaphor for having to deal with this act mentally, socially and economically for life, than any span of time in prison. Therefore this consideration permeates our view of punishment and temporary isolation and moral guilt is the result.

I have to agree with Freddd that this thread is a bit hypocritcal... Not for what he went on to describe though! I'm talking Joey Barton, Woodgate, Bowyer... etc etc

Racism, assault (and just generally being Joey Barton) on the rap sheet between them. I fecking hated Joey Barton playing for our club when everyone around me was singing "there's only one Joey Barton"... Felt the need to shout back "thank ****ing god for that", but didn't. After a couple of seasons, though, he was keeping himself out of trouble and I started to appreciate the bullshit of reintegration into society. But he's back doing the same old **** again. But you know what, I reckon it's good having them around as public examples. "There is a dickhead playing for Swindon today who you don't want to end up like, son"... The penance is not as important as the ability to be despised, society needs them otherwise we'd lock away all the criminals and end up with an existence where we were having to throw people downloading pirate films in the stocks.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18270234

Good idea. If this had been implemented five years ago those kids would still be alive and McCormick's career wouldn't be in tatters.

 

As always there is a sensible and reasonable solution to every problem. Of course the costs would be an issue but there are plenty of more useless gadgets on our cars that would have cost more. As long as some rigourous testing of any system is done I'd be an advocate of this.

Fredd - You're not alone on the drink driving front. Whereas I think we all know its wrong, many have done it at some time or other. I cringe when I think back to my 18-23 period and some of the drug/drink induced states I got behind the wheel. Its selfish and stupid but when you're in those states, rational thinking goes out of the window. This sort of measure would take the decision out of the drivers hands which is always better. Human beings are fallible unfortunately.

 

The price would probably be negligible in comparison to the cost of the entire car. There'd obviously be a transitional period between the technology becoming available and becoming compulsory, during this period insurance companies would probably lower the premiums of people who have the device fitted which would offset the cost for the driver, and eventually it would become so common that the government would make it compulsory.

I've never driven while drunk but I'd welcome having the decision taken out of my hands. I'd feel more comfortable drinking knowing that there's one less potentially life changing mistake I could make in a moment of drunken stupidity.

 

Indeed I'm just playing devils advocate and the issue the car companies would pinpoint is always cost. To me this seems like an excellent idea. Imagine the police time that would be freed up also not having to track vehicles under suspicion, or do the resultant paperwork. I see no drawback at all with this system.

 

That is the trouble.

I am not stupid enough to get behind a wheel when I think I am drunk. I have, however, several times been stupid enough to think that I wasn't drunk when I was. A device which told me what I should already know would have been a benefit.

 

I can assure you I wouldn't.