.png)
Im probably in a majority that has the view that drunk driving is wrong.
I'm not bothered if Im in a minority that think Woodall should go because of it.Just disappointed.
Brian Woodall
Nothing at all wrong with having strong opinions... makes a forum more fun. Def in the minority on this one though... irrelevant anyone as many of us don't think Woodall will play for us againARNU wrote:Im probably in a majority that has the view that drunk driving is wrong.
I'm not bothered if Im in a minority that think Woodall should go because of it.Just disappointed.
-
daggersjeff
- Posts: 725
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:41 am
- Location: Irvine, North Ayrshire
TBH I think was the final nail in a coffin whose lid had been slammed shut months ago!ARNU wrote:Im probably in a majority that has the view that drunk driving is wrong.
I'm not bothered if Im in a minority that think Woodall should go because of it.Just disappointed.
-
SUSSEX DAGGER
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:47 am
Totally agree with you on the Social consequences of this Topic Arnu.
Do not however agree with you about his form this year. He was my MOM at Scunthorpe,worked very hard in a dire team performance at Mansfield in games he started.
Still think he has a lot to offer and I would have him long before Scott and at the moment a clearly Match unfit Dickson, but this is the final straw for me Personally.
Do not however agree with you about his form this year. He was my MOM at Scunthorpe,worked very hard in a dire team performance at Mansfield in games he started.
Still think he has a lot to offer and I would have him long before Scott and at the moment a clearly Match unfit Dickson, but this is the final straw for me Personally.
If I take the D+D case out of the equation I think its fair to say that I've always been a fan of Brian Woodall,his problem has been consistency and not being totally committed to the cause.In Still's last season Woodall couldn't be bothered to come back fit and I think ever since then in the chances he had he sort of played with a bit of a lethargic-ness.Like I said in another thread,his good season with us was when he was surrounded by lower ability players,the calibre of player this season has relegated him to being behind Murphy,Medi,Scott,Dickson,Oberfemi and even Jake Reed.It was obvious Brian had a talent and I was there at Southend when he reached Daggers hero status with that equaliser.It is a shame but Id rather see someone who wants to play their heart out.As for the D+D offence,Id have the same opinion whoever the offender.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
-
daggersjeff
- Posts: 725
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:41 am
- Location: Irvine, North Ayrshire
SUSSEX DAGGER wrote: Still think he has a lot to offer.........
Let Still sign him up then.... :P
-
Pie & Mash
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:18 pm
The fact nobody got hurt makes it a victimless crime
Very true,but you can only commit the victimless crime of Drunk driving in hindsight.You couldn't be totally pissed drive a car and guarantee you wouldn't hit/kill anyone/thing.Pie & Mash wrote:The fact nobody got hurt makes it a victimless crime
What is a victimless crime anyway ?
Are there any really ?
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
Arnu, I've expressed my views on this previously, but I still insist the ONLY way to prevent/reduce/stop these tragic scenarios from repeating is to have a zero tolerance level. But even then, I guarantee there will still be drunk drivers out there.
A zero tolerance level leaves no doubt of the consequences should you drink and drive. Also, it takes away the often used rationale of well I only thought I'd had a one drink. Zero tollerance leaves no excuse, no defence and accordingly, make the penalty so severe (lost licence forever), people will stop and think about it. All it needs is for a couple of people to lose their licence for the rest of their lives, see how quick that stops things.
And for clarification, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. When a crime happens, someone, somewhere gets hurt and not always physically. Woodall hurt himself if no one else.
A zero tolerance level leaves no doubt of the consequences should you drink and drive. Also, it takes away the often used rationale of well I only thought I'd had a one drink. Zero tollerance leaves no excuse, no defence and accordingly, make the penalty so severe (lost licence forever), people will stop and think about it. All it needs is for a couple of people to lose their licence for the rest of their lives, see how quick that stops things.
And for clarification, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. When a crime happens, someone, somewhere gets hurt and not always physically. Woodall hurt himself if no one else.
I agree totally Davei.Zero tolerance leaves nobody in any doubt.These morons that drive on a ban (usually drunk again) should definitely get minimum 5 years for it too.That way they cant run our kids over while they are locked up.I daresay someone will defend those idiots too.****** 'em !
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
Arnu wrote: "I daresay someone will defend those idiots too"
Yup, firstly the hospitality industry, then the idiots (including politicians) who say they should be able to go out for a meal and have a glass of wine etc. No one is stopping them from going out for a meal, nor stopping them having a glass of wine. Just don't get behind the wheel if you've had a drink, take a taxi.
This is so simple, only the brain dead can argue with it, and of course, some will.
Yup, firstly the hospitality industry, then the idiots (including politicians) who say they should be able to go out for a meal and have a glass of wine etc. No one is stopping them from going out for a meal, nor stopping them having a glass of wine. Just don't get behind the wheel if you've had a drink, take a taxi.
This is so simple, only the brain dead can argue with it, and of course, some will.
Great contribution there bearaass,1st time in ages a serious issue gets discussed on here and you solve the problem in a sentence.If anything you are still leaning towards the lenient side of the argument.bearaab wrote:Can't we just shoot him in the face and put this behind us.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
bearaab wrote:We get it, drink driving is bad. There's only so many ways you can say it.
Poorr attempt on spoofing the name as well.
So just cos you don't want to talk about it we've gotta shut up ? Yeah right.
Just jog on and start another thread somewhere else might be a better idea.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !