egafd.com

Now charged with two counts of causing death by dangerous driving, one count of drink-driving and one count of driving without insurance after 2 young lads (brothers aged 8 and 10) died in a 2-car collision on the M6 in Staffs early on Saturday on their way to a day out at Silverstone with their dad and some friends.

As a direct result of what appears to be nothing less than crass selfishness and recklessness on McCormick's part, two young boys are dead, their dad is lying in hospital with a broken back and neck (and various other injuries) and a family has been devastated.

Come the trial, I fear that his "celebrity status" will have a bearing on the case, and some fancy solicitor will secure a lesser penalty, probably adding insult to injury by trying to portray McCormick as a "victim" as well.

To which I say a resounding BOLLOCKS.

If convicted, he should be made an example of and get the maximum sentence possible and a lifetime driving ban. No fucking about - a clear message needs to be sent out to all those gullible young kids who look up to footballers as heroes and "role models" that such behaviour won't be tolerated.

I usually rail against the compensation culture. But in clearly deserving cases like this, I also hope that - if he's convicted - the family sue the pants off him (which will in any case most likely be their only recourse, seeing as he appears to have been driving without insurance).

- Eric

I'm all for letting the punishment fit the crime. For example, if he was on one of those fuckin' mobiles at the time he should have both hands cut off, whereas if you're merely caught driving whilst using one then you should get the offending hand cut off for endagering other people's lives.

But if he was just drunk whilst driving.....Let me think about that one. I'm sure I can think up something to suit the case of killing people whilst drinking and driving. Maybe tongue cut out?

If convicted, he should be made an example of and get the maximum sentence possible

What, a slap on the wrist?!

and a lifetime driving ban

Hah! Fat chance!

As for footballers. Maybe they should all be paid a suitable rate for kicking a ball around a grass field, like the minimum wage. After all, they obviously would only be on the dole and living on sink estates (or in jail) if it wasn't for their (Hah!!!) "talent". Thugs with money, that's ALL they are. *What makes people think I hate football and especially the over paid yobs who play it?*

Who he is shouldn't come into it - unfortunately it does.

I think it's wrong for any celebrity to get a leaner sentence or be made an example of. The sentence should be solely based on the circumstances of the crime and nothing else.

Jesus, what a society we have become.
I'm sure, whatever the circumstances, McCormick is beyond devasted at having caused this accident and killed this family and that no prison sentence will counter that guilt, and see no point in baying for blood or retribution.

Sam Slater wrote:

>>


Well yes indeed Sam.

But I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that with the trappings of "celebrity" status - especially in the case of people like sports personalities, pop stars and so-called "supermodels" who are regarded by millions of impressionable youngsters as role models - comes an added moral responsibility to set a good example and behave accordingly.

If they shirk that responsibility and commit crimes, then they need to be reminded of it in no uncertain terms, and if that means stiffer sentencing than is meted out to Joe Public then so be it.

Which is why it always irks me when the likes of Pete Docherty, Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell - despite finding themselves up before a beak time and again - always seem to receive what effectively amount to token slaps on the wrist rather than serious time down the river.

What sort of message does that send out?

And to dynatech I'd just say this: If McCormick is indeed "beyond devastated", just imagine how the family of the dead boys and the crippled dad are feeling right now. And I wonder if you'd be so magnanimous and forgiving if it was YOUR kids lying on a slab.

No doubt the full facts are still to come out. But to be honest, if it transpires that he was soley to blame (and given that he's been charged with dangerous driving, drink driving and driving with no insurance it doesn't look too rosy for him right now), then I have no sympathy with him whatsoever.

If he's found guilty, he shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel ever again, and he should do a long stretch inside.

- Eric

My point is actually a lot wider than having any sympathy with McCormick. IMHO the widespread ridiculous assumption that an accident (for that's what it is) caused by reckless behaviour means the person causing the accident doesn't care is absolute nonsense. Logic (as well as many past examples) tell us this is not so, any normal person having caused such an accident is haunted for the rest of their lives, and this McCormick will probably be wrestling with what he has done for 60 years if indeed the guilt doesn't kill him sooner. I personally knew an old bloke who had run over and killed a child back in the 60's, he's still having flashbacks & nightmares about it 40 years later and never drove again. Another point I wish to make in answer to your comment about 'what if it was your kids?' is this; as someone who reads a lot on psychology, psychotherapy etc, baying for blood does nobody any good in the long term. The fact is that nobody would call any aspect of this (drink driving, no insurance) 'socially acceptable' anyway.
Of course the police have charged him with dangerous driving - they always try to do that in any accident, whether it involves fatalities or not. I'll reserve any further judgement until the facts emerge about the collision - how it happened, how far over the limit he was, and why he was not insured (Clerical error? Borrowed car?) cos if someone of his income level was driving uninsured it's beyond reason.
This unforgiving illogical (and ulitmately pointless) baying for blood is indicative of a society that is rotten to the core having been played for fools by politicians, media & solicitors for far too long that media programming is over-ruling human nature & common sense


> And to dynatech I'd just say this: If McCormick is indeed
> "beyond devastated", just imagine how the family of the dead
> boys and the crippled dad are feeling right now. And I wonder
> if you'd be so magnanimous and forgiving if it was YOUR kids
> lying on a slab.
>
> No doubt the full facts are still to come out. But to be
> honest, if it transpires that he was soley to blame (and given
> that he's been charged with dangerous driving, drink driving
> and driving with no insurance it doesn't look too rosy for him
> right now), then I have no sympathy with him whatsoever.

dynatech wrote:

>>


Where am I "baying for blood" or demanding "retribution"?

Since when has saying that the punishment should fit the crime been 'baying for blood'?

You're trying to come across as all 'reasonable', yet you're couching your own argument in such emotive terminology. And from what you write it appears that you have more sympathy with the accused than the victims.

McCormick will be haunted for the rest of his life? Well so he should be if it transpires that he was responsible. And don't you think that this family will be "haunted" as well - only 10 times over?

You also appear to be unaware that the vast majority of "accidents" - certainly traffic accidents - are usually someone's fault.

They don't just "happen" for no reason.

They're usually down to someone driving like a twat (case in point: Naseem Hamed), being over the limit, falling sleep at the wheel, taking unnecessary risks and misjudging the situation etc. etc.

Nothing to do with the media of politicians either - I don't need some newspaper or politician to tell me that that drink-driving, driving without insurance and causing death by dangerous driving is anything less than reckless, selfish, tragic and pointless. And that anyone found guilty of these offences should have the book thrown at them because when all's said and done, someone who's killed by a reckless / drunk driver is just as dead as someone who's been stabbed / beaten to death in a nightclub or shot in a drive-by.

Or is that an "illogical" or "ridiculous" concept to you?

Maybe Mr McCormick should employ you as his brief.

- Eric

If he gets off because of his celebrity status and this bullshit continues with rising oil prices and what not, I wonder how long it will be before civil war breaks out.

As far fetched as that might seem sometimes I wonder if the establishment needs to recognise when they push things too far. There must be a tipping point surely.

Thing is it will never happen because us brits are too complacent and apathetic compounded by being too fat, unfit, high on drugs and desensitised too creature comforts like East Enders and Corrie.

So if he gets off on his celebrity that means we dont mean what we say or say what we mean.

Lets just moan on the good ol BGAFD Off Topic forum. Get it off our chest and move on.

Well. That is the truth really isnt it?

He won't get off with anything - he'll have the book thrown at him, mark my words