Luke McCormick

Nor would I. It's tabloid outrage on here for some people. I don't think I've read a single post or heard a single voice in support of McCormack's actions that led to the deaths of those children. What should the club do? He's already served his sentence - what more do people want?

What the club should have done.. Is not hire him back in the first place!

A morally bankrupt decision.

Pokesdown wrote:

Angry wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Whose saying it never happened?

the club and FV  its a "dont mention the war" type of subject when he is brought up.

If I had committed a crime and served my time I wouldn't want it brought up in a public interview on record by my employer.

He was responsible for the deaths of two children that not as if he did time for fraud or tax evasion is it.

Angry wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Angry wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Whose saying it never happened?

the club and FV  its a "dont mention the war" type of subject when he is brought up.

If I had committed a crime and served my time I wouldn't want it brought up in a public interview on record by my employer.

He was responsible for the deaths of two children that not as if he did time for fraud or tax evasion is it.

I do understand Angry. I think this is one of those threads where you'll never get a consensus of opinion other than the fact that everyone has one.

Yes, he made an awful mistake. Have I ever in my past many moons ago been stupid enough to have driven over the limit - yes. He was convicted and served his sentence. The length of that sentence is not his fault, he can only deal with it and ensure that he never puts himself in that position again. From what I understand there isn't a day goes by when he is not affected by what he did, and that is understandable. He's a man with a spotless record who made a tragic mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong but before the incident Luke was hardly a player who made local headlines with his antics. He seemed, as I'm sure he is, a nice man. If the law is there to punish and rehabilitate then it has certainly done the latter, whether you think he's been punished enough is a different matter.

Would I have signed him? No. It's too raw for some people and I would not have wanted to offend parts of my support base as has clearly happened. Should he have been "interrogated" on Argyle World to feed some sort of wish for additional punishment, or even to give him a platform for sympathy - no.

I saw him in the Aussie walkabout once with Akos. It was very late  . We'd just beaten Fatford 1 - 0 to virtually ensure Championship survival.

Imagine if he went to Exeter I bet people wouldn't forgive him then

Exactly Hugh. A lot of hypocrisy, especially on Pasoti. Doesn't matter which club he plays for he's still committed the crime.

If he was a city player there would be calls for him to be hung and the abuse he would get at derbies would be horrendous.

Greenjock wrote:

Exactly Hugh. A lot of hypocrisy, especially on Pasoti. Doesn't matter which club he plays for he's still committed t at this levelhe crime.

If he was a city player there would be calls for him to be hung and the abuse he would get at derbies would be horrendous.

Jock, you are spot on here mate. There is no hiding the fact he is a very good keeper at this level. Surprised your own fans abused him at Tiverton though, however I am not sure that would happen during a competitive match. I hope he doesnt play against us because of his ability, although Cole is not bad either.

Rickler wrote:

What the club should have done..  Is not hire him back in the first place!

A morally bankrupt decision.

Would you rather Luke was on the dole claiming unemployment benefit then?

He pled guilty, has served his time (and the sentence given was not his fault) and has the right to try to continue his life in some shape or form.

He was fired by the club for 'gross misconduct' or whatever they termed it?

And then they hired him back again.

Employment for Luke McCormick is not Argyle's problem - The club is not a charity, despite its ever increasing efforts in trying to turn itself into one.

The decision to hire McCormick you can bet was primarily a finiancial one..

Like I said...  Morally bankrupt.

Rickler wrote:

He was fired by the club for 'gross misconduct' or whatever they termed it?

And then they hired him back again.

Employment for Luke McCormick is not Argyle's problem - The club is not a charity, despite its ever increasing efforts in trying to turn itself into one.

The decision to hire McCormick you can bet was primarily a finiancial one..

Like I said...  Morally bankrupt.

And I still maintain that there is a lot of hypocrisy being shown about the abuse McCormick got from some fans at the Tiverton game. If McCormick returned to Home Park playing for Exeter he would get dogs abuse from the same fans saying it's out of order for him to get abuse now.

I just wish he would do anything other than play for Argyle, my opinion only but that's how I feel on the subject.

Rickler wrote:

He was fired by the club for 'gross misconduct' or whatever they termed it?

And then they hired him back again.

Employment for Luke McCormick is not Argyle's problem - The club is not a charity, despite its ever increasing efforts in trying to turn itself into one.

The decision to hire McCormick you can bet was primarily a finiancial one..

Like I said...  Morally bankrupt.

Wouldn't it be morally bankrupt to not take him back again?

He was fired, served his punishment and has been returned to society.

He ahs been given a second chance. I know the boys in the car, and their family, don't get a second chance but don't you think people deserve a second chance when it is available?

Morally bankrupt not to take him back? Are you serious?

You mean the club not punish him at all and just carry on like nothing had happened?

If someone was caught stealing from Argyle or had raped an employee, do you think they would ever be invited back? Hell no!

McCormick was only taken back because there was something in it for Argyle = morally bankrupt.

He can have his second chance.. But it shouldn't be at Argyle.

Rickler wrote:

Morally bankrupt not to take him back?  Are you serious?

You mean the club not punish him at all and just carry on like nothing had happened?

If someone was caught stealing from Argyle or had raped an employee, do you think they would ever be invited back?  Hell no!

McCormick was only taken back because there was something in it for Argyle = morally bankrupt.

He can have his second chance..  But it shouldn't be at Argyle.

I don't understand your logic. He can have a second chance...but not at Argyle?

So, he can play for other clubs but not this one? Why not? Who has the right to decide that!!

The club has punished him - he was sacked four or five years ago. He has now been re-employed having served his punishment.

This quote,

"If someone was caught stealing from Argyle or had raped an employee" is misleading.

These events would have happened at the club and affected peopled would still be in and around the club. Luke made a tremendous and catastrophic error one early morning in the North of England. Returning to the employer who paid you at the time actually seems a good fit to me. The people at the club know his character.

It's just another reason for some people (yes, Rickler) to criticise the club. Sometimes, it makes me wonder why any one so anti PAFC has even the remotest interest in the club at all; perhaps some people just get off on being pompously super-moral and being anti-PAFC.

feck orf and support man u you mean?

Absolutely not but absolutely every thing seems to resort to this. The club get a sponsor, it's the wrong sponsor, we sign a player, he's labelled as shit before he kicks a ball, the club offer some sort of deal for tickets, they're desperate. Not everything is fine and dandy at the club but likewise, not everything is terrible.

hairy j wrote:

It's just another reason for some people (yes, Rickler) to criticise the club. Sometimes, it makes me wonder why any one so anti PAFC has even the remotest interest in the club at all; perhaps some people just get off on being pompously super-moral and being anti-PAFC.

Keep wondering super troll because somebody as feckin clueless as you are is never going to work it.

And RWW...

If PAFC at the time said Alcoholism is a disease and we will do everything to help Luke whilst he is 'recovering' then I would have sympathy with their decision.

But they didn't... They dumped his arse as quickly as they could. And now that PAFC are in crap position they want their cake to eat as well.

hairy j wrote:

It's just another reason for some people (yes, Rickler) to criticise the club. Sometimes, it makes me wonder why any one so anti PAFC has even the remotest interest in the club at all; perhaps some people just get off on being pompously super-moral and being anti-PAFC.

Rickler's criticism's of the club have always been valid and backed up by his reasons why.

I actually believe that what the club has done is the opposite of "morally bankrupt".

He has served his time. He wants to get back in the game - so much so that he approached the manager for a trial. The club has helped in his reintegration into society in which he may make a positive contribution. There are many employers who think this way. Isn't that a good thing?

To continue to punish him makes even more of a mockery of our laws. His sentence may have been too low; the system of time off for good behaviour may not be right; there may even be more to the story that we don't know of that was never made open to the press. But that isn't Luke's fault. With regard to the law, we are where we are.

I have no problem whatsoever with him playing for us again.

Yea Man wrote:

hairy j wrote:

It's just another reason for some people (yes, Rickler) to criticise the club. Sometimes, it makes me wonder why any one so anti PAFC has even the remotest interest in the club at all; perhaps some people just get off on being pompously super-moral and being anti-PAFC.

Rickler's criticism's of the club have always been valid and backed up by his reasons why.

I agree (though I'm not sure about "always"  ). I just happen to disagree with him on this one.

Rickler wrote:

hairy j wrote:

It's just another reason for some people (yes, Rickler) to criticise the club. Sometimes, it makes me wonder why any one so anti PAFC has even the remotest interest in the club at all; perhaps some people just get off on being pompously super-moral and being anti-PAFC.

Keep wondering super troll because somebody as feckin clueless as you are is never going to work it.

And RWW...

If PAFC at the time said Alcoholism is a disease and we will do everything to help Luke whilst he is 'recovering' then I would have sympathy with their decision.

But they didn't...  They dumped his arse as quickly as they could.  And now that PAFC are in crap position they want their cake to eat as well.

Who on earth said he was an alcoholic?

Can't you see that the lad made a huge mistake and is just trying to get on with his life surrounded by people that care about him (e.g. the club)?

I don't think they had a choice about terminating his contract though to be fair.

They were hardly going to pay his wages while he sat in the nick for 3 years.

Every ex offender deserves the chance of rehab and Luke is no exception.

It is a bit of a PR disaster for him to return here though and i'm surprised the media haven't made of a deal out of it. "Killer keeper returns home" or headlines to that effect.

Ok well at the time it was said that McCormick wanted to drive back home to confront his girlfriend? who it was claimed on social media sites was having an affair I believe, but he was talked out of it and agreed to wait until the morning but he woke up very early and decided to drive.

This means that he was planning to drive drunk hours before he did it but you still maintain that he deserves another chance.

How about this scenario then, Postey/PL2 3DQ/Ian De Lar has been involved in making threats of violence to me and also in naming the female members of my family to make the threats more sinister. A gang were coming to my house with baseball bats to teach me a lesson Greenman said, as well as saying a private investigator had been hired to find me, which turned out to be true.

Now the snivelling little shit has admitted being part of the Greenman account but says there were others he won't name, but everyone knows who they were.

So if I decided to go to the first home game of the season, seek out Postey and teach him a feckin lesson with a baseball bat and name the female members of his family as I do it which is witnessed by hundreds of fans who see me repeatedly battering the cnuts head in until he's dead, do you think it would be ok for me to still be a mod on ATD after serving a piddling 3 year sentance for his death?

Would I deserve a second chance? To be back at the same place getting more shit off Posteys mates, having private investigators hired again and me snapping and reacting with threats or insults again?

I would've thought expecting me to be nowhere near this place again would be a good starting point, plus not being able to own a baseball bat or have any contact with Postey's mates especially via internet forums.

How about you RWW?

Feel that under the circumstances a medal would be called for.