Tom Lawrence and Mason Bennett: Derby County stars charged with drink-driving
Comments
-
Coaching kids how to get hooked on alcohol.1
-
far too lenient those sentences
0 -
I would be happy with the sentence IF the community work brings some reality to their lives. Assisting mentally handicapped or disabled people, helping the aged or similar.
I will be really disappointed if it ends up coaching a few kids.0 -
In a softer approach I'd hope that Lawrence gets help with his alcohol issues
If he's drinking because he cant handle the loss of his Mum then he needs someone there to help him out - Drinking surely isnt going to help or make the problem ever go away, it'll surely just turn him into another Gascogine type when he retires2 -
What an absolute farce of a sentence. Afraid of going to prison? Worried they might lose their jobs? Dependent on alcohol? Fucking disgustingly lenient.2
-
Thanks for the concern for my welfare and finances .. I am semi-retired and have a say in a couple of small businesses .. for what it's worth and I have only myself to blame, the ban has impacted on me quite a bit, confined me to base for too long, as has having to pay over nearly 600 quid .. the good effect ? .. sold one of my cars and that has saved me a LOT of money .. another down side ? .. my insurance has leapt up, BUT, not so much as I feared ..Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They were both fined 6 weeks wages by Derby. When you got banned, did your work fine you?Lincsaddick said:
no fine ? .. I was recently banned for 6 months, fined £500 with £88 costs for 5 speeding offences (MWay speeding, NOT along narrow country lanes or past schools when the infants were on their way home walking along with mum) ((:>)clive said:Lawrence and Bennett were ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work, given a 12-month community order and banned from driving for two years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085Lawrence and Bennett were ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work, given a 12-month community order and banned from driving for two years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085
You could argue that what good is the court fining them anyway, they probably have enough money to not care.
as for any fine not affecting the Derby players .. your argument is ridiculous, are you opining that only poorer people should be fined as the rich wouldn't miss the money ? .. on the contrary, the bigger the income, then the bigger the fine should be
0 -
Far too lenient,
Drunk, crash and flee. Should have hurt them in their pockets and a 5 year ban.0 -
Two separate issues here.
1.Havehey been sentenced in line with guidelines and the same as if they were not public figures? Does anyone have any evidence to day they have or have not?
2. Are sentencing guidelines overall adequete and proportionate for driving and drink driving offences.
5 -
I'm not saying only poorer people should be fined. My point is that Derby already fined them 6 weeks wages, so if the court fined them (for example) another 5-10k, i don't see it would've made much difference.Lincsaddick said:
Thanks for the concern for my welfare and finances .. I am semi-retired and have a say in a couple of small businesses .. for what it's worth and I have only myself to blame, the ban has impacted on me quite a bit, confined me to base for too long, as has having to pay over nearly 600 quid .. the good effect ? .. sold one of my cars and that has saved me a LOT of money .. another down side ? .. my insurance has leapt up, BUT, not so much as I feared ..Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They were both fined 6 weeks wages by Derby. When you got banned, did your work fine you?Lincsaddick said:
no fine ? .. I was recently banned for 6 months, fined £500 with £88 costs for 5 speeding offences (MWay speeding, NOT along narrow country lanes or past schools when the infants were on their way home walking along with mum) ((:>)clive said:Lawrence and Bennett were ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work, given a 12-month community order and banned from driving for two years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085Lawrence and Bennett were ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work, given a 12-month community order and banned from driving for two years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085
You could argue that what good is the court fining them anyway, they probably have enough money to not care.
as for any fine not affecting the Derby players .. your argument is ridiculous, are you opining that only poorer people should be fined as the rich wouldn't miss the money ? .. on the contrary, the bigger the income, then the bigger the fine should be
The ban and having to do the community service is what they will care about.0 -
I'm in education; I'd without doubt be fired. There is absolutely no excuse for drink driving, particularly with footballers that earn a vast amount of money, relative to the rest of the population.0
- Sponsored links:
-
At the point they turned down a club car to get them home, continued drinking & then drove their own cars was it for me. You could possibly excuse someone having a few too many & then jumping into a car they had parked outside......but to knowingly carry on when the club had basically said "enough, its home time & there is a car waiting for you outside" was the line in the sand that they crossed.
0 -
this - gross misconduct in any employers book surely ?golfaddick said:At the point they turned down a club car to get them home, continued drinking & then drove their own cars was it for me. You could possibly excuse someone having a few too many & then jumping into a car they had parked outside......but to knowingly carry on when the club had basically said "enough, its home time & there is a car waiting for you outside" was the line in the sand that they crossed.1 -
The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!2 -
I disagree completelygolfaddick said:At the point they turned down a club car to get them home, continued drinking & then drove their own cars was it for me. You could possibly excuse someone having a few too many & then jumping into a car they had parked outside......but to knowingly carry on when the club had basically said "enough, its home time & there is a car waiting for you outside" was the line in the sand that they crossed.
I couldn't possibly excuse "having a few too many and then jumping into a car they had parked outside".
That is precisely their crime, there is no possible excuse. The waiting cars are immaterial.0 -
So committing a crime and potentially committing a crime should be treated the same?Kap10 said:The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!
That doesn't make sense.
IMHO drunk drivers should be strongly punished as should speeding and other dangerous drivers. People who drink drive and then kill people should be punished even more strongly2 -
Why did they take their cars in the first place when they knew they were going for a drink? One can only conclude that they planned to drive. Arrogant as well as stupid.1
-
whenever did a huge intake of booze lead to a rational, logical mindset ?Redrobo said:Why did they take their cars in the first place when they knew they were going for a drink? One can only conclude that they planned to drive. Arrogant as well as stupid.
0 -
I think the point Kap is making is that the difference between killing somebody or not is down to luck. If you drink and drive, you are increasing the chances of somebody getting killed. But look at Ant, he seems to be forgiven.Henry Irving said:
So committing a crime and potentially committing a crime should be treated the same?Kap10 said:The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!
That doesn't make sense.
IMHO drunk drivers should be strongly punished as should speeding and other dangerous drivers. People who drink drive and then kill people should be punished even more strongly1 -
to be fair though, he did miss one series of I'm a celebrity...MuttleyCAFC said:
I think the point Kap is making is that the difference between killing somebody or not is down to luck. If you drink and drive, you are increasing the chances of somebody getting killed. But look at Ant, he seems to be forgiven.Henry Irving said:
So committing a crime and potentially committing a crime should be treated the same?Kap10 said:The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!
That doesn't make sense.
IMHO drunk drivers should be strongly punished as should speeding and other dangerous drivers. People who drink drive and then kill people should be punished even more strongly0 -
Agreed, whether you kill someone or not is a matter of luck really, though I suppose that's how the law works. If, without looking, I throw a heavy weight from a bridge and it misses the people and cars below the sentence would presumably be a lot lower than if it had killed someone, despite the actions being the same.MuttleyCAFC said:
I think the point Kap is making is that the difference between killing somebody or not is down to luck. If you drink and drive, you are increasing the chances of somebody getting killed. But look at Ant, he seems to be forgiven.Henry Irving said:
So committing a crime and potentially committing a crime should be treated the same?Kap10 said:The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!
That doesn't make sense.
IMHO drunk drivers should be strongly punished as should speeding and other dangerous drivers. People who drink drive and then kill people should be punished even more strongly
This is Tony Adams' car after his drink drive crash. He was so lucky not to kill himself or anyone else.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Agreed the sentences aren’t great but surely people would rather they do CS than a couple of grand fine which won’t affect them at all.0
-
and as for Atomic Ant and his Siamese twin .. they are to produce and present a new BBC series on street car racing .. yes the return of the chavs .. good choice to have a convicted drunk driver overseeing fast cars racing in confined spacesMuttleyCAFC said:
I think the point Kap is making is that the difference between killing somebody or not is down to luck. If you drink and drive, you are increasing the chances of somebody getting killed. But look at Ant, he seems to be forgiven.Henry Irving said:
So committing a crime and potentially committing a crime should be treated the same?Kap10 said:The Plymouth keeper was drink driving and two kids were killed. He received a custodial sentence. It had not been his intention to hurt anyone let alone kill them. Anyone drink driving is potentially a killer and their crimes should be recognised as such and sentencing the same. I see no difference between these two and the Plymouth keeper fate .. luck whatever you call it resulted in them not killing anyone due to their drinking.
And I'm normally quite liberal!
That doesn't make sense.
IMHO drunk drivers should be strongly punished as should speeding and other dangerous drivers. People who drink drive and then kill people should be punished even more strongly
0 -
A month in the back of a police car that responds to all drink drive related RTC and made to see the consequences of these idiotic actions.JaShea99 said:Agreed the sentences aren’t great but surely people would rather they do CS than a couple of grand fine which won’t affect them at all.2 -
Derby captain Richard Keogh has been told to take a pay cut on his £1.3million a year wages if he wants to stay at the Championship club.
Keogh is considering a final proposal from Derby to remain a player on a reduced salary, in the aftermath of the alcohol-fuelled team bonding night which left him with serious knee injuries.
Derby have conducted a thorough disciplinary process, initially delayed after Keogh’s first knee operation earlier this month, and following weeks of talks have made him a take-it-or-leave it offer.
It is understood the 33 year old has 14 days to decide whether to stay at the club on reduced wages, with his lucrative £25,000 a week contract running out at the end of next season. His current contract will be amended if he agrees to the new terms.
While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out.
A Derby County spokesman said: "The process is ongoing and in order not to prejudice any of that process we will not be making any comment until the conclusion of our investigation."
0 -
It would appear he will be suffering a higher penalty than those who were actually committing a criminal offence.Covered End said:Derby captain Richard Keogh has been told to take a pay cut on his £1.3million a year wages if he wants to stay at the Championship club.
Keogh is considering a final proposal from Derby to remain a player on a reduced salary, in the aftermath of the alcohol-fuelled team bonding night which left him with serious knee injuries.
Derby have conducted a thorough disciplinary process, initially delayed after Keogh’s first knee operation earlier this month, and following weeks of talks have made him a take-it-or-leave it offer.
It is understood the 33 year old has 14 days to decide whether to stay at the club on reduced wages, with his lucrative £25,000 a week contract running out at the end of next season. His current contract will be amended if he agrees to the new terms.
While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out.
A Derby County spokesman said: "The process is ongoing and in order not to prejudice any of that process we will not be making any comment until the conclusion of our investigation."
15 -
"While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out."
I imagine a decent solicitor will be wondering how a pay cut is being linked to gross misconduct and looking forward to collecting their fees.
As @Redrobo say he is being threatened with gross misconduct but not, or so it seems, the two found guilty of criminal offences.4 -
a couple of comments .. firstly, as a senior pro and club captain he should have set an example to the younger players .. he failed to do this .. this could be construed as both negligent and gross misconduct.Redrobo said:
It would appear he will be suffering a higher penalty than those who were actually committing a criminal offence.Covered End said:Derby captain Richard Keogh has been told to take a pay cut on his £1.3million a year wages if he wants to stay at the Championship club.
Keogh is considering a final proposal from Derby to remain a player on a reduced salary, in the aftermath of the alcohol-fuelled team bonding night which left him with serious knee injuries.
Derby have conducted a thorough disciplinary process, initially delayed after Keogh’s first knee operation earlier this month, and following weeks of talks have made him a take-it-or-leave it offer.
It is understood the 33 year old has 14 days to decide whether to stay at the club on reduced wages, with his lucrative £25,000 a week contract running out at the end of next season. His current contract will be amended if he agrees to the new terms.
While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out.
A Derby County spokesman said: "The process is ongoing and in order not to prejudice any of that process we will not be making any comment until the conclusion of our investigation."
secondly, at his age and with a bad injury, there is no guarantee he will ever be as effective as he has been for a number of years .. the injury was a result of his own irresponsible conduct .. the club will be keen to save money and not to waste it on a potential crock .. I am sure that Morris, the Derby owner, has taken legal advice over this situation ..
All three players involved in stupidity .. as for gross misconduct, just because Keogh is under this threat, it does not necessarily follow that the other two should be under the same threat .. irrespective of illegality etc., my first point will probably be the overriding factor
0 -
But then the players weren't that young. Tom Lawrence is 25 for example. It just screams double standards to me because the younger players are more valuableLincsaddick said:
a couple of comments .. firstly, as a senior pro and club captain he should have set an example to the younger players .. he failed to do this .. this could be construed as both negligent and gross misconduct.Redrobo said:
It would appear he will be suffering a higher penalty than those who were actually committing a criminal offence.Covered End said:Derby captain Richard Keogh has been told to take a pay cut on his £1.3million a year wages if he wants to stay at the Championship club.
Keogh is considering a final proposal from Derby to remain a player on a reduced salary, in the aftermath of the alcohol-fuelled team bonding night which left him with serious knee injuries.
Derby have conducted a thorough disciplinary process, initially delayed after Keogh’s first knee operation earlier this month, and following weeks of talks have made him a take-it-or-leave it offer.
It is understood the 33 year old has 14 days to decide whether to stay at the club on reduced wages, with his lucrative £25,000 a week contract running out at the end of next season. His current contract will be amended if he agrees to the new terms.
While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out.
A Derby County spokesman said: "The process is ongoing and in order not to prejudice any of that process we will not be making any comment until the conclusion of our investigation."
secondly, at his age and with a bad injury, there is no guarantee he will ever be as effective as he has been for a number of years .. the injury was a result of his own irresponsible conduct .. the club will be keen to save money and not to waste it on a potential crock .. I am sure that Morris, the Derby owner, has taken legal advice over this situation ..
All three players involved in stupidity .. as for gross misconduct, just because Keogh is under this threat, it does not necessarily follow that the other two should be under the same threat .. irrespective of illegality etc., my first point will probably be the overriding factor
10 -
Right. That’s not gonna happen though is it?T_C_E said:
A month in the back of a police car that responds to all drink drive related RTC and made to see the consequences of these idiotic actions.JaShea99 said:Agreed the sentences aren’t great but surely people would rather they do CS than a couple of grand fine which won’t affect them at all.0 -
More likely flying a kite in the hope they can reduce costs. You can’t just make up it up as you go along and as an employer you have a duty to treat everyone fairly. I can’t see that they are.Lincsaddick said:
a couple of comments .. firstly, as a senior pro and club captain he should have set an example to the younger players .. he failed to do this .. this could be construed as both negligent and gross misconduct.Redrobo said:
It would appear he will be suffering a higher penalty than those who were actually committing a criminal offence.Covered End said:Derby captain Richard Keogh has been told to take a pay cut on his £1.3million a year wages if he wants to stay at the Championship club.
Keogh is considering a final proposal from Derby to remain a player on a reduced salary, in the aftermath of the alcohol-fuelled team bonding night which left him with serious knee injuries.
Derby have conducted a thorough disciplinary process, initially delayed after Keogh’s first knee operation earlier this month, and following weeks of talks have made him a take-it-or-leave it offer.
It is understood the 33 year old has 14 days to decide whether to stay at the club on reduced wages, with his lucrative £25,000 a week contract running out at the end of next season. His current contract will be amended if he agrees to the new terms.
While Derby are prepared to let him stay, Keogh has also been warned that if he does not accept the latest offer, the threat of being sacked for gross misconduct cannot be ruled out.
A Derby County spokesman said: "The process is ongoing and in order not to prejudice any of that process we will not be making any comment until the conclusion of our investigation."
secondly, at his age and with a bad injury, there is no guarantee he will ever be as effective as he has been for a number of years .. the injury was a result of his own irresponsible conduct .. the club will be keen to save money and not to waste it on a potential crock .. I am sure that Morris, the Derby owner, has taken legal advice over this situation ..
All three players involved in stupidity .. as for gross misconduct, just because Keogh is under this threat, it does not necessarily follow that the other two should be under the same threat .. irrespective of illegality etc., my first point will probably be the overriding factor
I suspect that they will end up paying him off.3
