Page 2 of 3
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 26 Feb 2011, 12:17
by SuperNickyWroe
no offence to any fellow posters, but if he was available would we want him?
i only ask after the opinions that some have regarding a player from notts county and one from down the road for
similar offences.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 26 Feb 2011, 13:57
by Fletch
SuperNickyWroe wrote:
no offence to any fellow posters, but if he was available would we want him?
i only ask after the opinions that some have regarding a player from notts county and one from down the road for similar offences.
TBH Barns, he sounds like a bit of an unexploded hand grenade to me matey....
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 26 Feb 2011, 14:30
by Scott Brehaut
SuperNickyWroe wrote:
no offence to any fellow posters, but if he was available would we want him?
i only ask after the opinions that some have regarding a player from notts county and one from down the road for
similar offences.
Different though isn't it? The other two fled the scene due to being pi***d, Robertson was still there, and was "only" changing the music on his mp3. How many of us have done that, and managed to get away with it?!
Tragic though it was, this was down to a lapse in concentration as opposed to being drunk.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 26 Feb 2011, 15:13
by SuperNickyWroe
no offence to any fellow posters, but if he was available would we want him?
i only ask after the opinions that some have regarding a player from notts county and one from down the road for
similar offences.[/quote]
Different though isn't it? The other two fled the scene due to being pi***d, Robertson was still there, and was "only" changing the music on his mp3. How many of us have done that, and managed to get away with it?!
Tragic though it was, this was down to a lapse in concentration as opposed to being drunk.[/quote]
true scotty, but death by DD it still is.
everyone knows the risk you take doing something like that whilst driving.
im just aware of people saying we'd have double standards.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 03 Mar 2011, 19:42
by Trojan 67
As Gilligan has returned to Northampton, can we expect a targetman in on loan for the Stevenage game ?
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 03 Mar 2011, 22:12
by Mav
wouldn't have thought so. If he had a target in mind, he would surely have got him in already. i would suggest he wants, but can't find
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 03 Mar 2011, 23:18
by Jeff
I wouldn't be surprised if we got someone in, given the fact Gilligan has returned home. We now can accommodate 2 additional loan players in any matchday squad (unless I missed someone) which would seem to give Buckle what he wanted.
On the subject of target-men, may I suggest Phil Walsh of dagenham. Scored a few on loan at Barnet earlier this season. 6th 3in, but more importantly has spend most of his career at places like Dorchester, Bath, Tiverton etc. O.k not exactly mouthwatering but if there is one managers scouting I pay respect too it's John Still at Dagenham. If he sees there's a player in someone, than they can play. Given the westcountry allegiance I reckon Walsh is worth a shot.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 01:51
by ferrarilover
Jeff wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if we got someone in, given the fact Gilligan has returned home. We now can accommodate 2 additional loan players in any matchday squad (unless I missed someone) which would seem to give Buckle what he wanted.
On the subject of target-men, may I suggest Phil Walsh of dagenham. Scored a few on loan at Barnet earlier this season. 6th 3in, but more importantly has spend most of his career at places like Dorchester, Bath, Tiverton etc. O.k not exactly mouthwatering but if there is one managers scouting I pay respect too it's John Still at Dagenham. If he sees there's a player in someone, than they can play. Given the westcountry allegiance I reckon Walsh is worth a shot.
Good call Jeff, ticks a lot of boxes for me. Dagenham were the worst of the promoted sides last year and got up based purely on scoring more goals than the opposition (if you see what I mean). They had 5 shots on target against us at their place last year and scored 5 goals. Not a bad one among them from memory. Been on loan already and to a side much worse off than ourselves (in the table, I mean), so probably not at the forefront of the mind of the manager. Big and tall, like that. Been down in the lower non-league, so won't be a Premier League prima donna, all man bags and no running. Not averse to coming to our little geographically anomalous outpost and, best of all, as you say, John Still is no mug when it comes to spotting talent from the obscurities of the 6th tier and below.
Further to this, he's 26, so a decent age, not a kid with no nous, but not an over-the-hill oldie either.
Wiki says he was on loan at Cheltenham Town for a month from Jan 6th. I might head over there now, see what I can find.
STOP THE PRESSES: according to Wiki, he is brother-in-law to none other than serial drunk and womaniser Kelsey Grammer, TV's very own Dr Frasier Crane. I LOVE that show, can we have him please, and can KG come along to watch!?!?!?!
Matt.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 12:13
by brucie
Scott - grow up. "he was only changing the music" - what speed was he going at the time?
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 13:08
by Scott Brehaut
There was no suggestion of going too fast was there....
My point was that being drunk behind the wheel is a deliberate act, and that they fled the scene. Changing the music in the car is, whilst producing tragic consequences this time, a fairly regular occurance on Britains roads.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 14:45
by Fletch
scottbrehaut wrote:There was no suggestion of going too fast was there....My point was that being drunk behind the wheel is a deliberate act, and that they fled the scene. Changing the music in the car is, whilst producing tragic consequences this time, a fairly regular occurance on Britains roads.
At the risk of stoking a bit of controversy (& Matt will probably know better than me due to his recent studies) I seem to remember several cases where the charge was Due Care & Attention for an accident while distracted by something like this (regardless of the outcome)...D by DD usually has aggravated circumstances attached to it? (& I stand by to be corrected by any "experts" on here)
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 16:22
by Scott Brehaut
Fletch - check here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/ ... s_driving/
D by DD can be classed by something as "trivial" as changing a CD in a player.
My point was, even though this is a tragic case, and I have every sympathy for the dead persons family, this is in no way as bad (in my opinion) as that of the cases involving McCormick (Muff keeper), and Hodges, who were both very clearly pissed and then fled the scene in order to avoid getting done for death whilst hammered drunk. Didn't help them though as they both still got caught.
Like I said, just my opinion. I know that I have changed CD's etc whilst driving, it is so easy to do so. Even keeping to the speed limit (and there is no indication in any of the reports I have read that Robertson was speeding at all) can cause an accident whereby another person dies.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 16:39
by ferrarilover
Ok, without getting clever, there is a distinction in law, between the classification of the two offences.
Drink driving (to avoid unnecessarily pompous terminology) is an offence requiring both mens rea (a guilty mind) and actus reus (a guilty act). This is that to be guilty of the offence, one must, wilfully or recklessly, be over the drink-drive limit and be driving a vehicle.
Death by dangerous driving is an offence of strict liability. That is, there is no requirement of mens rea involved. One doesn't necessarily have to wilfully or recklessly drive in a dangerous manner to be found guilty. To give an example; no reasonable person would believe that changing tracks on an iPod would lead to another persons death, whereas hitting someone in the face with an axe is foreseeable as likely to cause death or serious injury.
It is for this reason that Robertson was sentenced to slightly less than half the jail time to that which was awarded to the Plymouth 'keeper Luke McCormick.
Who among us can honestly say they have never given anything but 100% concentration to the road at all times? Mobile phone buzzes, you glance down to see who's calling, look up, you've hit a cyclist. Driving through town, come to complicated junction, check the sat-nav to see where to go, look up, you've hit an old lady on a zebra crossing.
Unfortunately, there are so many cars on the road now that it is absolutely unavoidable that from time to time, they will bump into one another. From here, it is basic math that some of these incidents will be fatal.
What occurred that day has forever, irreversibly, changed the lives of a very great number of people, but, while the outcome may have been broadly similar, the events leading to those outcomes are so markedly different from case to case as to warrant unequal social judgment for Robertson and, say, McCormick or Hughes.
Matt.
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 16:50
by Richinns
ferrarilover wrote:Ok, without getting clever, there is a distinction in law, between the classification of the two offences.
Drink driving (to avoid unnecessarily pompous terminology) is an offence requiring both mens rea (a guilty mind) and actus reus (a guilty act). This is that to be guilty of the offence, one must, wilfully or recklessly, be over the drink-drive limit and be driving a vehicle.
Death by dangerous driving is an offence of strict liability. That is, there is no requirement of mens rea involved. One doesn't necessarily have to wilfully or recklessly drive in a dangerous manner to be found guilty. To give an example; no reasonable person would believe that changing tracks on an iPod would lead to another persons death, whereas hitting someone in the face with an axe is foreseeable as likely to cause death or serious injury.
It is for this reason that Robertson was sentenced to slightly less than half the jail time to that which was awarded to the Plymouth 'keeper Luke Gutteridge.
Who among us can honestly say they have never given anything but 100% concentration to the road at all times? Mobile phone buzzes, you glance down to see who's calling, look up, you've hit a cyclist. Driving through town, come to complicated junction, check the sat-nav to see where to go, look up, you've hit an old lady on a zebra crossing.
Unfortunately, there are so many cars on the road now that it is absolutely unavoidable that from time to time, they will bump into one another. From here, it is basic math that some of these incidents will be fatal.
What occurred that day has forever, irreversibly, changed the lives of a very great number of people, but, while the outcome may have been broadly similar, the events leading to those outcomes are so markedly different from case to case as to warrant unequal social judgment for Robertson and, say, Gutteridge or Hughes.
Matt.
Luke Gutteridge should surly read Luke McCormick Matt ? :slap:
Re: NEW TARGETMAN
Posted: 04 Mar 2011, 17:27
by ferrarilover
SOOOOOOOORRY, I knew it was Luke something and my (very small) brain filled in the rest. Since this is very unfair on the innocent, I'll ammend the original post.
Matt.