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

[eastlondonseagull]

Exactly (see my post above). I think a poll is required...

.

Done

.

 

[Skint Gull]

Never driven with a hangover ??

This issue for me here is that the bloke must have set off at 5am after drinking the night before, totally inexcusable.

I would suggest that probably half of the posters on this board have driven at 9am or 10am after a heavy session and feared they might be close to/over the limit. 5am is BLOODY OBVIOUS!

 

[tip top]

Oh yeah, sounds pretty unjustified doesn't it!

Bloke who is unisured (FACT, whether deliberate of not he would not be charged otherwise) drives back from a wedding at 5am having had some drinks the night before (FACT - it's bloody obvious you don't need to have had too many to still be over the limit at 5am) and 2 innocent lads are dead because of an accident with his vehicle!

I actually hope its proven to NOT be his fault but that they lock him up for 10 years anyway because he should not have been on the road in the first place. That might make the people who think 'well i'm a good driver, i'll be alright' think twice if they know they'll get locked up even if it's proven to be someone elses fault!

The words PROVEN and FAULT spring to mind in your gibberish !!

 

[Skint Gull]

The words PROVEN and FAULT spring to mind in your gibberish !!

The FACTS which are PROVEN even before it goes to court are:

1 He was drink driving

2 He was uninsured



That is 2 reasons why he shouldn't have been on the road and if he wasn't on the road we wouldn't be here talking about this now

 

[tip top]

The FACTS which are PROVEN even before it goes to court are:

1 He was drink driving

2 He was uninsured



That is 2 reasons why he shouldn't have been on the road and if he wasn't on the road we wouldn't be here talking about this now

NO.

He's been CHARGED.

That DOES NOT make him guilty of those offences.

This was my whole point of stating people are quick to jump to, more often than not, the wrong conclusions without knowing f*** all about the case.

 

[Sheebo]

Never driven with a hangover ??

Yes but not till the afternoon and i'm pretty sure never over the limit. this case aside there's a HUGE difference in driving 10 hrs after your last drink (and feeling bit rough but not over limit, to driving 10 mins after your last drink. Have u been done urself then? pretty strange thing for you to come up with if you havent... ?

 

[glasfryn]

f*** me backwards you lot -- you've convicted this bloke on the basis of some sketchy details on bloody TalkSPORT or something (oh, Ok, the BBC news website, but still...!)

Jury trial or due process anyone?
Magna Carta! Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?

no insurance and under the influence you might just as well given him a gun.

deserves everything they throw at him
he has been charged so obviously someone thinks he done it and just what sort of mitigating circumstance might he have.

no excuse for this does he not earn enough money to be able to afford insurance.
should be a banker for a life sentence but I am sure he will give some weak excuse.

 

[Box of Frogs]

NO.

He's been CHARGED.

That DOES NOT make him guilty of those offences.

This was my whole point of stating people are quick to jump to, more often than not, the wrong conclusions without knowing f*** all about the case.

1 - he HAS been charged with Drink Driving which means the relevant breath/blood/urine test have PROVEN that there was excess alcohol in his blood

2 - as I said earlier, the Police can check at the roadside whether someone hs insurance or not.

The Police won't charge you for these offences until they are 100% certain he is guilty. Have you ever heard of a drunk driver getting found not guilty because of anything other than a technicality?

 

[tip top]

1 - he HAS been charged with Drink Driving which means the relevant breath/blood/urine test have PROVEN that there was excess alcohol in his blood

2 - as I said earlier, the Police can check at the roadside whether someone hs insurance or not.

The Police won't charge you for these offences until they are 100% certain he is guilty. Have you ever heard of a drunk driver getting found not guilty because of anything other than a technicality?

1. Nothing is proven until in a court of law.

2. Police do check insurance at the roadside but that is not always accurate.

Police often think they are 100% certain. It does not make them 100% correct.

Depends what you regard as a technicality. That's a broad spectrum.

 

[Skint Gull]

1. Nothing is proven until in a court of law.

2. Police do check insurance at the roadside but that is not always accurate.

Police often think they are 100% certain. It does not make them 100% correct.

Depends what you regard as a technicality. That's a broad spectrum.

As I and others have said, he has been charged with Drink Driving because he was over the limit. Even if he has a miracle lawyer who gets him off on a technicality the fact is you don't fail a breath test by accident, see Edna's post for the reason as to why, because you would have to have failed THREE seperate breath tests!

 

[Chesney Christ]

Dunno mate. Me dad was killed by a drunk driver, and me mum put in hospital for a long period, when I was eighteen. The kiddie that did it was about the same age as me, not long passed his test and just over the limit. Everybody was traumatised; our family, his family, his mum was horrifically distraught in court (my mum was still in hospital at the time). Lad got six months inside. I think that was about right. People have to live with the consequences of their actions for a very long time, and that's maybe more of a punishment than any arbitrary prison sentence. IMHO like.

What a forgiving person you are. Thats actually quite a heart-warming post in a strange kinda way. Good for you.

 

[Captain Haddock]

Dunno mate. Me dad was killed by a drunk driver, and me mum put in hospital for a long period, when I was eighteen. The kiddie that did it was about the same age as me, not long passed his test and just over the limit. Everybody was traumatised; our family, his family, his mum was horrifically distraught in court (my mum was still in hospital at the time). Lad got six months inside. I think that was about right. People have to live with the consequences of their actions for a very long time, and that's maybe more of a punishment than any arbitrary prison sentence. IMHO like.

Blimey Ross! That's awful. To be so forgiving after that, well I just don't know if I'd have been able to be the same in your position, but fair play to yer.

 

[algie]

NO.

He's been CHARGED.

That DOES NOT make him guilty of those offences.

This was my whole point of stating people are quick to jump to, more often than not, the wrong conclusions without knowing f*** all about the case.[/QUOT

Sorry Simon but your wrong.He failed a breath test and that makes him guilty of drink driving.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

NO.

He's been CHARGED.

That DOES NOT make him guilty of those offences.

This was my whole point of stating people are quick to jump to, more often than not, the wrong conclusions without knowing f*** all about the case.[/QUOT

Sorry Simon but your wrong.He failed a breath test and that makes him guilty of drink driving.

No, no it doesnt. He could have drunk a litre of mouthwash that is not alcohol free. That would provide a positive specimen. Having smoke on your breath also influences it and can give false readings, hence the reason questions pertaining to smoking and drinking are asked at the time both specimens are given. Just because you fail a breath test does not CATEGORICALLY mean you have been drink driving.

With regards to insurance, not all insurance providers subscribe to the police database therefore it is not possible to prove it at the road side. Also by driving whilst drunk it technically invalidates your insurance police so he may well have been charged with no insurance for that reason. Similarly a learner driver has to drive with L plates and a fully qualified driver with them. If not then they are also in breach of their insurance T's & C's and COULD also be charged with driving without insurance.

Besides that you are not GUILTY of an offence until you are convicted at court-you are never guilty at the point of charge.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Also by driving whilst drunk it technically invalidates your insurance police so he may well have been charged with no insurance for that reason. Similarly a learner driver has to drive with L plates and a fully qualified driver with them. If not then they are also in breach of their insurance T's & C's and COULD also be charged with driving without insurance.

NO IT DOESN'T!!! It does not even necessarily stop you from claiming for damage caused to your vehicle by you when you hit another vehicle (if you have comp cover obviously). I have dealt with plenty of motor claims where out policyholder has gone out in his car whilst pissed and smashed into either another car or a wall or something and we still have to pay out for the damage he caused to his own car whilst driving it pissed!

 

[saltash seagull]

i have just got back from a stag weekend in poland with a load of argyle fans who are all both shocked and stunned by this,we got wind of this but very sketchy info over the weekend and only discovered the true facts of this when we got back to bristol airport

can i say that luke mccormick maybe a very stupid young man who i obviously can't stand up for and will be serving a longtime inside for this but he is a genuine, nice guy.i have meet him a couple of timesaround plymouth and feel very sad that it has come to this ! all argyle fans love the bloke he has been my little brother's favourite player for years and i have never meet anyone with a bad word to say about him.

when i got back i went round to see my little brother who is quite upset about the way luke is being made to be this animal which he isn't he is a young man who has made a stupid mistake and will pay for this but that doesn't make him an animal and he has now not only got to face the probable 10 year sentence he is facing he has also got to face up to the fact he has killed 2 young boys.

when we were away one of the first things that was said by the argyle lot was what the hell was he doing driving with no insurance for when he earns 4k a week but since getting back i've been told by a couple of people he has a personalised number plate so the car might have been someone else's which obviously doesn't excuse being un insured but may be more to the story than we know

but after saying all that i dont know how the boys mum is getting through at the moment

 

[saltash seagull]

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=181429&command=displayContent&sourceNode=229968&home=yes&more_nodeId1=133174&contentPK=20817182

was twice the legal limit

 

[drew]

With regards to insurance, not all insurance providers subscribe to the police database therefore it is not possible to prove it at the road side. Also by driving whilst drunk it technically invalidates your insurance police so he may well have been charged with no insurance for that reason. Similarly a learner driver has to drive with L plates and a fully qualified driver with them. If not then they are also in breach of their insurance T's & C's and COULD also be charged with driving without insurance.


You obviously base your comments on what?
Having worked in insurance for 28 years, all Uk motor insurers subscribe to the motor insurance database (it is not a Police database, they just have access to it ) which by law, must include details of the insurance for all cars on the road. In respect of fleet insurance, if an insured company fails to notify permanent changes to it's fleet within 14 days, they can be liable for a £5,000 fine. With regard to private policies, it is the insurer who has to update the database.

The database is not infallible and if he had a new car within the last two weeks the policy might not have been registered on the database. Having said that, the Police would subsequently contact his insurers to see whether he has any cover and at what level. So the fact they have charged him would suggest they have made further enquires and are certain he has no adequate cover.

With regard to driving whilst drunk you are talking crap about it invalidating any policy. What it would do is allow insurers to exclude any claim for your own losses but they would, by law, still be obliged to settle any third party claim. They could subsequently then seek to recover any monies paid out from the policyholder.

Not sure why you make reference to learner drivers but as you did, you should have pointed out that the qualified driver must be over 21.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Blimey Ross! That's awful. To be so forgiving after that, well I just don't know if I'd have been able to be the same in your position, but fair play to yer.

Wasn't as cut'n'tried as that at the time mate. It was the Seventies, the anti drink-driving campaigns hadn't really kicked in, and I was eighteen, living in a shithole village in Kent. There was no bus service worthy of the name, I didn't drive, but a couple of me mates had not long passed their test. In time-honoured fashion we all bundled in any available car and went out to clubs (albeit before they were called clubs, well maybe apart from Maidstone Country Club) and there was no such thing as a 'designated driver'. Just a mate with a car. He either got mildly pissed or very pissed, or on rare occasions not pissed at all. So it never crossed my mind to turn all evangelistic overnight when another kiddie driver, much the same as the mates I relied on to ferry me around of a weekend, just happened to randomly intersect with my parents. I still feel the same today.

 

[tip top]

No, no it doesnt. He could have drunk a litre of mouthwash that is not alcohol free. That would provide a positive specimen. Having smoke on your breath also influences it and can give false readings, hence the reason questions pertaining to smoking and drinking are asked at the time both specimens are given. Just because you fail a breath test does not CATEGORICALLY mean you have been drink driving.

With regards to insurance, not all insurance providers subscribe to the police database therefore it is not possible to prove it at the road side. Also by driving whilst drunk it technically invalidates your insurance police so he may well have been charged with no insurance for that reason. Similarly a learner driver has to drive with L plates and a fully qualified driver with them. If not then they are also in breach of their insurance T's & C's and COULD also be charged with driving without insurance.

Besides that you are not GUILTY of an offence until you are convicted at court-you are never guilty at the point of charge.

Ahh... some sense at last !!