Loc k him up for a long time.....

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Exactly. It's not really disputed that he did that, the death by dangerous driving charges are a different matter though.

In my mind drinking excess alcohol + 2 dead kids = death by dangerous driving!

 

[drew]

Nothing will bring back those two kids but surely we should wait for the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions. He is over the limit and, whilst not condoning this, by what margin. Had he just had a large glass of wine at a friends house that put him a few mgs over or was he paralytic? As for the dangerous driving, do we know how the accident was caused? What manouvre was being carried out, how fast both cars were travelling etc. As for the insurance, again, I suspect there will be some explanation there.

If he is willfully guilty of all charges then I agree, they shouldn't just throw the book at him but the whole bloody library and he shouldn't be free for at least a decade if not longer. But as one of the other posts said, there is due process.

 

[Gully]

As for the moral high ground issue...I would like to think that the majority of people who post on here drive vehicles that satisfy MoT requirements, are correctly taxed and insured and whenever they get behind the wheel are not impeded in their judgement by having consumed either alcohol or drugs (prescribed or otherwise)...as someone who does meet those requirements I reserve the right to castigate those who choose not to and support fully the sterling efforts of the Police and Criminal Justice System to remove them from the road.

 

[Skint Gull]

In my mind drinking excess alcohol + 2 dead kids = death by dangerous driving!

EXACTLY

Nothing will bring back those two kids but surely we should wait for the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions. He is over the limit and, whilst not condoning this, by what margin. Had he just had a large glass of wine at a friends house that put him a few mgs over or was he paralytic? Who cares, if you've been drinking you shouldn't be driving at 5.30am the next day As for the dangerous driving, do we know how the accident was caused? What manouvre was being carried out, how fast both cars were travelling etc. Don't matter does it really? The fact that he was driving when he shouldn't have been and 2 kids are dead is HIS FAULT. He was Driving Dangerously by default because he was on the rorad when he shouldn't have been As for the insurance, again, I suspect there will be some explanation there Yes I expect so, probably that he's insured himself as an 'admisitrator' or something because insurance for a pro footballer costs 10 times more

If he is willfully guilty of all charges then I agree, they shouldn't just throw the book at him but the whole bloody library and he shouldn't be free for at least a decade if not longer. But as one of the other posts said, there is due process.

 

[beorhthelm]

does no one else find it odd that there is such a high profile to this just because a footballer is involved? how many other crashes occur each day, how many other death by drink driving happen that we never hear about. Isnt it slightly perverse that the celebrity cult goes so far as to highlight a sadly every incidence just because it involves a Z-list footballer?

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

does no one else find it odd that there is such a high profile to this just because a footballer is involved? how many other crashes occur each day, how many other death by drink driving happen that we never hear about. Isnt it slightly perverse that the celebrity cult goes so far as to highlight a sadly every incidence just because it involves a Z-list footballer?

The story ws already big before it came out that a footballer had been arrested about it - so i disagree in this case.

 

[Gully]

The story ws already big before it came out that a footballer had been arrested about it - so i disagree in this case.

Very true, anything involving children (in particular the tragic loss of life) will always be a big story, it wasn't until much later that the profession and employment of the driver was revealed.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The story ws already big before it came out that a footballer had been arrested about it - so i disagree in this case.

Hmmm... just because they hadn't released info that he was a footballer doesn't mean they didn't already know hence the making of it into a big story.

I wonder who takes the decision of which accident and which death gets in the news. Are all such accidents given full coverage in the press? I don't think so. So why this one?

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Don't get me wrong Laura... I'mö not defending the bastard but don't want to lock him up and throw away the key UNTIL I know that the drinking and the no insurance is FACT and not just media embellishment.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

People are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the crash was his fault? How many half-asleep drivers are out on the roads at 5.30am? Not just him, I'm sure.

And people are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the sequence of events was that he had been drinking and got into his car to drive on the motorway? How about the possibility that he might have been drinking the night before, had some kip, got up early and set off, thinking that he had slept off the effects of the alcohol?

And getting insurance on a new car? Has it always gone through smoothly when you've done this?

I'm waiting for the facts to be considered carefully and emerge in court.

 

[clippedgull]

People are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the crash was his fault? How many half-asleep drivers are out on the roads at 5.30am? Not just him, I'm sure.

And people are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the sequence of events was that he had been drinking and got into his car to drive on the motorway? How about the possibility that he might have been drinking the night before, had some kip, got up early and set off, thinking that he had slept off the effects of the alcohol?

And getting insurance on a new car? Has it always gone through smoothly when you've done this?

I'm waiting for the facts to be considered carefully and emerge in court.

He will have his day in court, no doubt defended by a top lawyer.

This is why there should be a ZERO limit on drink driving. You drink, you don't drive until a certain number of hours (set by experts) has passed. Then no one has ANY excuses.

 

[Gully]

LB, my understanding is that the Police have access to a computer system maintained by motor insurance companies, they can determine within seconds the nature of policy held by any individual. If there is any doubt, or the person comes up as having no insurance but claiming they have arranged a policy but the paperwork has not come through, they will then contact the company concerned directly by telephone to resolve the matter. I am sure that they would not charge someone unnecessarily for driving without insurance, or without exhausting the confirmation process.

 

[pornomagboy]

i am not sticking up for him, but he could have had insurance because if you fail the breath test ur insurance then becomes invalid as no company would cover you for driving whilst over the drink drive limit, hence no insurance

 

[itszamora]

In my mind drinking excess alcohol + 2 dead kids = death by dangerous driving!

I'm inclined to agree, but legally they all have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt individually.

 

[Captain Haddock]

In 2006 over 400 people were found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, 106,000 people driving under the influence and about 600,000 driving with some form of missing documentation.

If these selfish bastards were faced with real criminal sentences and locked away for a very long time perhaps some of those 106,000 morons might just think twice. Imho if you kill someone while driving dangerously and / or under the influence, you should lose your liberty for good (still better off than the innocent victims who lose their liberty quite terminally!).

Lock McCormick up and throw away the key.

 

[Gully]

i am not sticking up for him, but he could have had insurance because if you fail the breath test ur insurance then becomes invalid as no company would cover you for driving whilst over the drink drive limit, hence no insurance

Good point, hadn't thought of that, drinking and driving probably negates any insurance policy...thus automatically invalidating any that is held and rendering the driver uninsured.

 

[beorhthelm]

The story ws already big before it came out that a footballer had been arrested about it - so i disagree in this case.

the first i heard of this was Saturday evening when they stated an unnamed footballer was involved. Sunday, its top news story. unfortunatly ~10 people die everyday on our roads, and im sure this is not a unique incident involving children. sorry but this is cult of celebrity, even an ordinary person was involved it might not have even made the local news.

This is why there should be a ZERO limit on drink driving. You drink, you don't drive until a certain number of hours (set by experts) has passed. Then no one has ANY excuses.

thats ok in theory until you understand different people metabolise alcohol at different rates and it depends on activity too (sleeping is slower than if you are clubbing for example). if you had no limit at all you'd find people being down for driving at 10pm who had a wine at lunch time, or have used a breath freshener. theres an arguement for a lower limit, but no limit would be unworkable.

 

[Easy 10]

Good point, hadn't thought of that, drinking and driving probably negates any insurance policy...thus automatically invalidating any that is held and rendering the driver uninsured.

Whilst his insurance would be negated, a third-party would still be covered in the claim.

 

[London Calling]

Lost a close friend & wife (& the baby to be born in a few weeks)

due to the driver deciding to unwrap a sweet, completely taking hands of the wheel, looking down at the sweet, whilst driving down a motorway doing whatever.

He lost control, went through the central reservation barriers and hit my friends car coming from the other direction.

 

[Skint Gull]

i am not sticking up for him, but he could have had insurance because if you fail the breath test ur insurance then becomes invalid as no company would cover you for driving whilst over the drink drive limit, hence no insurance

No, you do not get any cover for yourself if you are convicted of drink driving but that doesn't stop a third party claiming against you. For the purposed of being legally insured, DD does not invalidate a policy