Luke McCormick

Lee Jameson wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Lee Jameson wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Lee Jameson wrote:

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Because it's called debate and you were the one who posed the question in the first place. Without actually giving your own opinion may I add. Which is?

I think he should be allowed to play again, have mixed feelings regarding a return to Plymouth Argyle.

NIMBY then? So who can he play for and it's Ok? If he signed for Exeter, the Argyle fans would hate him all the more and give him 10 times more stick than if he signed for us.

And if he did re-sign for us and played outstandingly every game it would all be forgotten. Hypocrisy at it's worst, but football fans on the whole are like that.

I would hope he isn't daft enough to consider playing professional football again, just like you shouldn't ever consider standing for a place on The Argyle Fans Trust in the future. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed.

That remains to be seen, I won't be coming to you for advice!

Ah so that's why you posted the question tonight. You think you have abstained from posting long enough for people to forget your part in The Trust/ Deep Throat shenanigans, and you might want to be involved in The Trust again?

You don't need to come to me for my advice about you playing a part in The Trust again, but I'll give it to you anyway,

You really don't have a clue do you?

One day you will wake up and smell that coffee and it won't be pleasent buddy!

What the hell are you talking about?

For the record, City would never sign Luke McCormick. An ex Argyle keeper would be a no no, combine that with killing two innocent children and there would be serious problems. He would be hounded out. The City fans would want him to fail. We can all say things like he has served his sentence and all that, but when it really comes down to it we would not want him anywhere near our delapidated ground. I would also fear for any City management team that thought about signing him. That is reality, sorry if it is not PC

Have thought about it. Argyle should not entertain the idea of signing him, he was to short anyway. Best of luck to him in whatever career he persues hopefully a wiser man.

Gone to Swindon apparently.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Gone to Swindon apparently.

http://argyletalkdemocratic.forumotion.co.uk/t1887-luke-mccormick-trial-at-swindon

Don't 'sunglass smiley' me you snivelling little ape.

If you'd any respect for typical forum etiquette, you'd have stuck your comments on this thread anyway.

ataf

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Don't 'sunglass smiley' me you snivelling little ape.

If you'd any respect for typical forum etiquette, you'd have stuck your comments on this thread anyway.

ataf

Well at least you've stopped making the perverted remarks you did on the other argyle talk

Ya ya, true dat.

Radio 5Live devoted over an hour to this topic last night.

A very interesting and thought provoking debate with contributions from the Swindon Chairman (if Luke signs he'll be doing a lot of community work about what he's been through with a view to helping others) Swindon ST holders who say they'll tear up their tickets if he signs, and even a call from a man who's daughter was killed by a drunk driver, saying everyone deserves the chance to rehabilitation.

A very divided debate but one comment that struck me was that Luke seems to be being punished more (if he can't go back into football) because of his job-no one would boycott Tesco's just because they employed an ex offender.

some good points there grovehill.

fans who threaten to tear up season tickets in june for the next season rarely do so.

Seems as though Swindon/Di Canio have a few irons in the fire when it comes to controversy.

After the chairman publicly backed Di Canio over claims that he racially abused one of his own players, the club has now issued an apology privately, through their solicitors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18245752

The same chairman, Jeremy Wray, has now said that he will resign if the row over McCormick damages the club! I can't honestly see it helping the clubs image in any way, so it will be interesting to see if the man is true to his word.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18206915

I wonder if Swindon will be contacting Ched Evans to have first dibs on him when he's released in a couple of years, after being sentenced to 5 years in prison for rape. He's been released by Sheff Utd now so will be a free agent on his release.

Hopefully the gym facilities will be good at his prison and he gets to train with a club on a day release scheme, so as not to jeapordise his chances of walking straight back into society in a highly paid, high profile job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18264057

Don't forget Mr Evans is to appeal.

Lee Jameson wrote:

Don't forget Mr Evans is to appeal.

Good for him. At the moment he's a convicted rapist serving 5 years and Sheff Utd have released him.

I'm sure the pissed up slag he raped and let his mates watch was wearing a really short skirt so she was asking to be raped, whilst lying unconscious on the night club floor, which was caught on the night club's CCTV. As he's a footballer though, his behaviour is common-place, so he should be allowed to get on with his life and earn fortunes again whilst sticking 2 fingers up to the people he's hurt.

While they're at it they should drop the case against Titus Bramble. FFS he only forced a girl to grope him and was so drunk he pissed all over the Police station steps, where the taxi driver had taken them because he knew the girl was in danger and trying to stop him.

Greenjock wrote:

While they're at it they should drop the case against Titus Bramble.

They have !

Or rather he was found not guilty.

Ched Evans was unbelievably unlucky to be found guilty, innocence requires only the very smallest element of doubt.

Bramble has always been a tw@ and once hit on a a friend of mine, you couldn't come across a bigger knob head, but the fact remains that these girls/women have a responsibility to look after themselves, my friend told him to fook off and got him slung out of the Club in question, the girl in the Evans case gave him the green light then changed her mind, WTF is that all about ?

One of the Paedostanis raped a 13 year old and knocked her up, he got a year longer than Evans.

None of this of course has anything to do with Luke McCormick who fecked up and deserves to be left alone to get on with his life, there was no criminal intent in what he did, he has done his time and will have to live with the consequences of his stupidity, playing football is his job.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

While they're at it they should drop the case against Titus Bramble.

They have !

Or rather he was found not guilty.

Ched Evans was unbelievably unlucky to be found guilty, innocence requires only the very smallest element of doubt.

Bramble has always been a tw@ and once hit on a a friend of mine, you couldn't come across a bigger knob head, but the fact remains that these girls/women have a responsibility to look after themselves, my friend told him to fook off and got him slung out of the Club in question, the girl in the Evans case gave him the green light then changed her mind, WTF is that all about ?

One of the Paedostanis raped a 13 year old and knocked her up, he got a year longer than Evans.

None of this of course has anything to do with Luke McCormick who fecked up and deserves to be left alone to get on with his life, there was no criminal intent in what he did, he has done his time and will have to live with the consequences of his stupidity, playing football is his job.

She accepted a taxi home with the other guy who was found not guilty, not long after being seen comatose on CCTV at the club. She went back to the hotel with the original guy who texted Evans to say he "had one", because it was a pre-planned excercise.

She had consenting sex with one guy, whilst obviously still pretty damn pissed, but didn't consent to Evans joining in, or the gang of friends filming from the window, because again it was pre-planned.

The other footballer, I can't remember his name, left via the front door of the hotel, Ched Evans knowing that he had raped her, left via the emergency fire exit.

Evans had a girlfriend at the time of the rape, and she's going to stick by her man bless her, and is a general slimeball when it comes to women by all accounts, and is just another footballer who thinks gang rape or sexual assault is "banter". Yes these girls who get starstruck by footballers and hang around them in clubs and bars are stupid, and possibly even worse when they consent to having sex with these sleazebags who are generally either married or in a relationship, but I'm pretty sure that most of them are not aware that part of the deal is to have group sex or be humiliated by several of these knobhead footballers and their mates.

A woman can consent to have sex with a guy and go back to their home or a hotel whatever, but at any stage they can change their mind, like the victim did after consenting with one footballer but not to Ched Evans. Lots of footballers seem to think the law doesn't apply to them.

The "paedostanis" as you call them who raped 13 yr olds, should be castrated for what they did, or left alone in a room with the girls fathers or brothers, but are you seriously telling me that no white people have ever raped or murdered Asians or blacks? Even if they did target white girls, they are paedophiles who happened to be Asian, chucking in the "Stanis" at the end of your post is racist.

Again it seems that the law doesn't seem to apply when it comes to football fans. You say yourself that Titus Bramble is a knobhead with a history of this kind of thing. He has been found not guilty on this occasion, well done to his solicitor, but I would suggest that it is the dickhead, overpaid prima donna footballers who should change their ways, and I would also suggest that on many occasions the club or bar where the sort of thing you describe takes place, it would be the girls who tell the footballers to Fuc k Off who would get thrown out. They wouldn't want to lose the custom of the Wankers drinking Champagne and splashing the cash.

I'm sure the other guy in the Evans case was Port Vale's Clayton MacDonald. Both came through the ranks at Man City.

Greenjock wrote:

She had consenting sex with one guy, whilst obviously still pretty damn pissed, but didn't consent to Evans joining in

Well I wasn't looking in the window like you must have been but it is a matter of record that she did consent to sex with Evans, he was convicted based on the ruling that she had not been sufficiently aware for that consent to be given, pretty bleddy thin in my book.

Where you got the rest of that from I have no idea.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

She had consenting sex with one guy, whilst obviously still pretty damn pissed, but didn't consent to Evans joining in

Well I wasn't looking in the window like you must have been but it is a matter of record that she did consent to sex with Evans, he was convicted based on the ruling that she had not been sufficiently aware for that consent to be given, pretty bleddy thin in my book.

Where you got the rest of that from I have no idea.

From the court case. She never consented to sex with Evans, he turned up after his mate had texted him to say he had one. Evans went into the hotel room and wanted to join in, but she refused, his mate left and there were a couple of others watching from outside the window. I'll get a link tomorrow with the details.

I am sure that many people would consider most of my views as PC gone mad. But .... what I've never understood is the situation whereby a woman is considered incapable of consenting to sex if she is drunk but if a man is drunk it is no defence. Or have I missed something?

Please put me right so I can be even more a mad PC than I am.

If a man is seen naked through a window, he is a flasher. If a woman is seen naked through a window you are a peeping Tom.

pepsipete wrote:

If a man is seen naked through a window, he is a flasher. If a woman is seen naked through a window you are a peeping Tom.

and that my friend is called injustice...........

Lee Jameson wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

If a man is seen naked through a window, he is a flasher. If a woman is seen naked through a window you are a peeping Tom.

and that my friend is called injustice...........

Or is it that the law takes into consideration the different emotions that the sexes have?

This could be an interesting debate.

GOB wrote:

Lee Jameson wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

If a man is seen naked through a window, he is a flasher. If a woman is seen naked through a window you are a peeping Tom.

and that my friend is called injustice...........

Or is it that the law takes into consideration the different emotions that the sexes have?

This could be an interesting debate.

Depends on the make-up of the Jury!

Lee Jameson wrote:

GOB wrote:

Lee Jameson wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

If a man is seen naked through a window, he is a flasher. If a woman is seen naked through a window you are a peeping Tom.

and that my friend is called injustice...........

Or is it that the law takes into consideration the different emotions that the sexes have?

This could be an interesting debate.

Depends on the make-up of the Jury!

Very true Lee, good reply.

Ooooh.... rubs hands in anticipation....

I'm never convinced that men and women have differing emotions.