Nick Jordan

[davidjenkin]

The club will release him due to breach of contract if he is found guilty. If for any reason it doesn't go to court then he may be fined for bringing the club into disrepute. That's the way I see it. We couldn't sack him without a guilty verdict as this could involve compensation, and if it doesn't go to court then it is probably the case that the incident wasn't as serious as first thought, and luck smiled on him where it passed Luke McCormick by.

The waiting game I guess now.

 

[manc grecian]

The club will release him due to breach of contract if he is found guilty. If for any reason it doesn't go to court then he may be fined for bringing the club into disrepute. That's the way I see it. We couldn't sack him without a guilty verdict as this could involve compensation, and if it doesn't go to court then it is probably the case that the incident wasn't as serious as first thought, and luck smiled on him where it passed Luke McCormick by.

The waiting game I guess now.

Why wouldnt it go to Court? He has been charged. Most drink drive cases are pretty clear when it comes to finding out if someone is guilty or not.

 

[Poultice]

Strange that I should find myself alligned with the kids but would anybody care to show me where it says the accident was his fault ?

An acquaintance of mine lost his licence for being over the limit when an uninsured driver, in an untaxed, un mot'd vehicle, crossed the central reservation and smashed into him as he was quietly driving home at 2 in the morning. Being involved meant an automatic BT, should he have had a drink, no, was it his fault, definitely not.

 

[londonboy80]

I agree that if found guilty in a Court of Law then the club has the obligation to terminate his contract - that goes without saying. For a 'community' club to do anything less would be scandalous, even more so in light of the McCormick situation which has already put Westcountry sport under the spotlight when it comes to drink driving.
My concern with drink driving offences is that the punishment is always based on the consequences of the offence rather than the offence itself and the fact it has been committed. Take Carlton Cole for example, he gets stopped last week and is found to be over the limit, but there was no accident. He'll go to court, get fined, get banned from driving probably and then he'll be playing for West Ham the following saturday. Yet because Jordan had an accident he will (and deservedly so) be sacked by the club. But shouldn't Carlton Cole also have his contract terminated by West Ham? Why should being over the limit but not injuring anyone not be a sacking offence. Would be interesting to see how much Carlton Cole was breathalised at compared to Jordan because for me it's not how much over the limit you are but the consequences of you being over the limit that result in a more severe punishment and I don't think that's right at all

 

[manc grecian]

Agree, I'm not arsed if there was an accident or not or whose fault the accident was. The fact that he was drink driving in the first place is enough for me to make my mind up.

 

[halffoxhalfgrecian]

An acquaintance of mine lost his licence for being over the limit when an uninsured driver, in an untaxed, un mot'd vehicle, crossed the central reservation and smashed into him as he was quietly driving home at 2 in the morning. Being involved meant an automatic BT, should he have had a drink, no, was it his fault, definitely not.

But if your mate was sober he may have been able to take avoiding action which he would have been incapable of when over the limit.

It seems to be a strange consequence of law that Jordan was over the limit, unlucky and had an accident but no one was killed, whereas McCormick was over the limit, extremely unlucky and killed 3 people. Jordan will get a ban, McCormick a prison sentence. The punishment is based on the outcome rather than the intent which doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Grecian_In_Exile]

Perhaps Mr Jordan would like to come and have a word with my beautiful wife on Saturday at the Gillingham game; she could show him her scars where she went through the windscreen of a car due to her drunk ex

 

[Jason H]

The punishment is based on the outcome rather than the intent which doesn't seem right to me.

Same elsewhere though - if you TRY to kill someone, your sentence is less than if you DO kill someone.

I believe personally that "Causing death by dangerous driving" should be charged as if murder - as manslaughter to me is more a negligence issue than a wilful act of law-breaking.

Which then raises the question of the sliding scale of punishment. Should all drink-drivers be treated the same way as someone who causes several deaths? That would lead to a hefty increase in Britain's already full-to-bursting prison population!

 

[Jason H]

Perhaps Mr Jordan would like to come and have a word with my beautiful wife on Saturday at the Gillingham game; she could show him her scars where she went through the windscreen of a car due to her drunk ex

Of course, that raises the question of people willing to get into a car with a drunk driver....

 

[Super Ronnie Jepson]

Agree, I'm not arsed if there was an accident or not or whose fault the accident was. The fact that he was drink driving in the first place is enough for me to make my mind up.

I agree entirely, it's only luck if there is an accident or not. the act of driving under the influence of alcohol is the offence.

What a d*ck.