Luke McCormick

But was the sentence heavy enough Merv?

seadog wrote:

But was the sentence heavy enough Merv?

The sentence and time served was an insult to both the family and the poor boys who died I don't think anybody will argue with that point.

Yea Man wrote:

seadog wrote:

But was the sentence heavy enough Merv?

The sentence and time served was an insult to both the family and the poor boys who died I don't think anybody will argue with that point.

Im not saying anything is right or rwrong, but, the judge followed sentancing guidelines as he is required to do and the parole service made a correct decision on the facts.

In part thats why these decisions are made independently to try to leave emotion out, however hard that is.

seems set up that we would re-sign him............

Could be your Marquee signing, a quality keeper is a huge advantage at this level.

If you can forget the 'nonfootball' issues, he is a great signing

Football fans are fickle, if he does well all will be forgotten, if he has a mare he will be a kiddie killer again.

There are contributory facts in this case which were never made public...hence the sentence.

If they weren't made public, how do you know?

And of course...  What were they?

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

There are contributory facts in this case which were never made public...hence the sentence.

I'm sure I read back then that the boys weren't wearing seatbelts.

Yea Man wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

There are contributory facts in this case which were never made public...hence the sentence.

I'm sure I read back then that the boys weren't wearing seatbelts.

And Luke wasn't the only person with an illegal blood-alcohol level.

Yea Man wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

There are contributory facts in this case which were never made public...hence the sentence.

I'm sure I read back then that the boys weren't wearing seatbelts.

I believe that is so........although it didn't seem to register for much comment at the time.....wouldn't that have been the difference between what happened and maybe surviving ?

ZYPH wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

There are contributory facts in this case which were never made public...hence the sentence.

I'm sure I read back then that the boys weren't wearing seatbelts.

I believe that is so........although it didn't seem to register for much comment at the time.....wouldn't that have been the difference between what happened and maybe surviving ?

Could have made all the difference I imagine.

It explains the lenient sentence being given.

It still doesn't excuse him for driving while over the limit or driving like an idiot but it puts a whole different side on it.

Guest wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

seadog wrote:

But was the sentence heavy enough Merv?

The sentence and time served was an insult to both the family and the poor boys who died I don't think anybody will argue with that point.  

Im not saying anything is right or rwrong, but, the judge followed sentancing guidelines as he is required to do and the parole service made a correct decision on the facts.

In part thats why these decisions are made independently to try to leave emotion out, however hard that is.

It is right that sentencing is carried out in this way otherwise if the victims had a hand in it everybody would get a maximum sentence.

As a Dad I could never condone Luke's actions - in 36 years motoring have I done it....yes I have. But I know Luke, I know what this episode has done to him. I know how he regrets it and will always regret it. Would it have been the same outcome if the boys had seat belts on? Would it have been the same outcome if the other driver didn't have alcohol in his blood? Maybe, but I don't think anyone can either doubt that or accept a more lenient custodial sentence because of that.

7 and a half years was not a lenient sentence, it was the appropriate sentence, just because our legal system is predicated upon the need to make the Screw's lives easier and save money is no reason to knock either the judge or the perp. Had he served the full tariff then this issue would have been unlikely to arise, it would have been a long way back aged over 30, but the system dictates that 7 and a half really means 2 and a bit, that is the fault of all of us who choose to quietly accept a forked up criminal justice system.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

As a Dad I could never condone Luke's actions - in 36 years motoring have I done it....yes I have. But I know Luke, I know what this episode has done to him. I know how he regrets it and will always regret it. Would it have been the same outcome if the boys had seat belts on? Would it have been the same outcome if the other driver didn't have alcohol in his blood? Maybe, but I don't think anyone can either doubt that or accept a more lenient custodial sentence because of that.

Not quite the cold blooded murderer the press want you to believe he is.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

As a Dad I could never condone Luke's actions - in 36 years motoring have I done it....yes I have. But I know Luke, I know what this episode has done to him. I know how he regrets it and will always regret it. Would it have been the same outcome if the boys had seat belts on? Would it have been the same outcome if the other driver didn't have alcohol in his blood? Maybe, but I don't think anyone can either doubt that or accept a more lenient custodial sentence because of that.

Lots of innuendo here, any links please???

All the Presidents Men wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

As a Dad I could never condone Luke's actions - in 36 years motoring have I done it....yes I have. But I know Luke, I know what this episode has done to him. I know how he regrets it and will always regret it. Would it have been the same outcome if the boys had seat belts on? Would it have been the same outcome if the other driver didn't have alcohol in his blood? Maybe, but I don't think anyone can either doubt that or accept a more lenient custodial sentence because of that.

Lots of innuendo here, any links please???

There's never been a public release of the full facts from the court case.

But I imagine Damon of all people would know the true facts seeing as I imagine he was a personal friend of Luke's from the time they shared at the club.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

7 and a half years was not a lenient sentence, it was the appropriate sentence, just because our legal system is predicated upon the need to make the Screw's lives easier and save money is no reason to knock either the judge or the perp. Had he served the full tariff then this issue would have been unlikely to arise, it would have been a long way back aged over 30, but the system dictates that 7 and a half really means 2 and a bit, that is the fault of all of us who choose to quietly accept a forked up criminal justice system.

Agree with this.

The sentence was appropriate but he got out early. Why sentence someone for a crime committed then let them out early for good behaviour? Never quite understood that. Surely it was the bad behaviour in the first place that caused a crime to be committed.

McCormick will get grief from away support at probably every ground and your fans will defend him, that is the nature of football. I think at times it may get ugly, with obsenities hurled every time he makes a save and ridicule every time he makes a mistake, how he reacts will be key. I think these boards next season will be full of tales of McCormick abuse (easy and obvious target for away fans), but eventually it will fade away. Crowds are not normally known for compassion or forgiveness and there will be plenty of sad fecks who will shout abuse (from the back) at McCormick...I think it at some grounds it will be relentless...but for me McCormick is not a murderer per se, he just fecked up major league and but for the grace of God, go I and many others.

Is he a good keeper? Without doubt.

Would City want him in their team? I think so

Will I be abusing McCormick? No, however I am not sure he should play against us.

The Red Star wrote:

McCormick will get grief from away support at probably every ground.

I'm not so shore.

Lee Hughes gets it because he is a total cnut, I think McCormick has shown enough contrition for all but the most twisted to leave it lie.

Time will tell.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

The Red Star wrote:

McCormick will get grief from away support at probably every ground.

I'm not so shore.

Lee Hughes gets it because he is a total cnut, I think McCormick has shown enough contrition for all but the most twisted to leave it lie.

Time will tell.

Not often I agree with Tis, but I do here.

GreenSam wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

The Red Star wrote:

McCormick will get grief from away support at probably every ground.

I'm not so shore.

Lee Hughes gets it because he is a total cnut, I think McCormick has shown enough contrition for all but the most twisted to leave it lie.

Time will tell.

Not often I agree with Tis, but I do here.

Yep that's pretty much how I reckon it will pan out. From his time down here before, there are a lot of people who know him and the type of person he is. I think you'd struggle to find too many that would have a bad word to say about him.

In a way that deepens the tragedy and adds to the horrific nature of the whole episode. If he was an utter cock in the mould of a 'Hughes' it'd be very easy to despise him for what he did. But he's not. Even the good guys can monumentally fcuk up, occasionally.

Will I clap if Luke makes a save?

I'd like to think I'll manage to hold it back...

I outright refuse to chant his name or sing super luke.