- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 68
So how is it looking so far? What are the chances Carra keeps his job now I wonder x
Ahh, no I haven't actually. Thanks for the tip
I just cannot fathom what was going through his head. Why the fcuk did he not just keep the window up and turn the radio up or something?! Incredible reaction.
Great examples.
So you believe he's a serial spitter? Perhaps he is, although we can't assume everything that's caught on camera once is indicative of a multiple offender. I do tend to agree though it seems to be one of those traits that you either have or you don't. To spit directly at another individual is disgusting.
Missed that one. What’s that all about?They dropped that lesser pundit who made the holocaust comment like a hot brick.
.
I watched it a number of times since the post stating, "I've not watched it yet".
And, again, Carragher should be fined heavily and attend anger management classes, but I don't believe he should lose his punditry role.
Hardly controversial opinion if you're a sane human being.
If he loses his job, someone else will just hire him in a while - so what's the point? Why should Sky lose their best pundit?
Better to make some money from it (from him) give it to charity.
And make an example of him by talking about it openly and getting anger management.
That's just my opinion.
Mate, you're genuinely sounding more and more hysterical on this topic.
Your views, while valid to yourself, are in the minority here. Not everyone is gonna agree with what you're saying and think that Carragher should be sacked.
He's one of the very few non ABU pundits, ironically, given his playing days, and he offers good insight into the game.
Hysterical? For believing that a man/ media personality should be sacked after spitting in the face of a 14-year old girl? If that's your opinion fine, I'm good with being part of the minority.
I don't even want to dive back into this discussion, but the only reason why I told him not to try is because you said it would be "daft" to consider this a vile act (you came up with the word "evil", which I hadn't even used).
For what it's worth Carragher is my favorite pundit and it would be a shame to see him go, although I would completely understand if that does happen given the circumstances.
Well at the time I posted yesterday afternoon, there was no dedicated thread to the issue like there is here.Far be it from me to defend RAWK, but erm, that's simply not true.
There was less fuss made about Kirsty Gallagher picking her kids up drunk, than there is about this spitting thing. She still has her job, and if he does get sacked for this it’s an outrage. Sacked for spitting vs not sacked for being 3 times over the limit with kids in the car.
He didn’t aim for the girl, and you can say it’s disgusting and you’re right, it is, but to my mind it’s far more disgusting to drive with your phone out. That’s actually putting lives at risk. Yet all anyone is talking about is spitting. Kinda strange.
Yep. He's from Liverpool, so he might have been carrying TB for goodness sake! It may be worse than Ron's, I suppose, but I'll let others decide that. For me, ranking them is like judging a beauty contest for dog-turds.So spitting at someone is as bad as calling someone a "fecking lazy thick n*gger"?
Yep. He's from Liverpool - he might have TB. Or leprosy. So for me, ranking these acts is a bit like judging a beauty contest for dog turds.So spitting at someone is as bad as calling someone a "fecking lazy thick n*gger"?
Forgive my ignorance but I know nothing of the Kirsty Gallacher story - disgusting behaviour and after a quick search it seems that she's been banned from her job for 2 years (I won't dive into that).
Regardless, there's no point to comparing this case to any other. That's a dangerous approach that could lead to potential legitimization of any inappropriate action or behaviour.
And I honestly can't understand the "he didn't aim for the girl" fallacy. He opened his window, saw that the other car window was down, and still decided to spit "in the direction of" of that little girls face. End result is he spat in her face and that's what he's on the hook for, rightly so.
Yep. He's from Liverpool, so he might have been carrying TB for goodness sake! It may be worse than Ron's, I suppose, but I'll let others decide that. For me, ranking them is like judging a beauty contest for dog-turds.
Yep. He's from Liverpool - he might have TB. Or leprosy. So for me, ranking these acts is a bit like judging a beauty contest for dog turds.
She’s been banned from driving, but she’s still an employee of sky. You’ll have to forgive me, but the comparison is valid. Both work for sky, both did something wrong. If one loses their job but not the other it’s not right by any measurement. Especially when you consider that driving drunk is far far worse than spitting at someone.
As for the spitting itself, it’s not a fallacy. There’s intent and there’s accidental. The result isn’t the only thing that should matter. No he shouldn’t have done it, but it’s a bit harsh to just label him unworthy of forgiveness considering that he has apologised and it is out of character. Just like driving drunk was out of character for Kirsty and she was forgiven and given a second chance.
It was a moment of stupidity, and I think we can all agree sometimes things just get to us and we over react and do something stupid. It’s not an excuse, but there’s context to every story.
But again, I must stress that spitting at anyone while disgusting, doesn’t actually put anyone else at risk. Driving and using a phone can and does cost lives. Where’s the outrage for that? In 2016 mobile phone usage while driving accounted for around 78% of all traffic accidents that involved a distracted driver and included injury in the US. Exactly 0% involved spitting. It’s outrageous that all anyone wants to talk about is him spitting and getting sacked for it. There’s a 14 year old girl in that car that got spat on, but no one seems to care that her father put her LIFE at risk for no other reason than to annoy someone else.
A couple of differences for me. First, is that Keys and Gray had form for their lazy sexist views. Keys in particular held plenty of prejudices, had been caught out before and had largely been indulged by Sky. I certainly don't recall any defences made of his personality by others in the industry. Second, there's a difference between the matter-of-fact way that Keys, Gray or Atkinson said what they said, compared to the provoked nature of this incident. One comes across as a more routine expression of underlying views or prejudices, the other as an over-the-top reaction to a provocation.Just to repeat my question from previous page. Has anyone asked Richard Keys or Andy Gray for their opinion?
What’s the caf’s consensus? Was theirs the greater offence?
Just because Kirsty kept her job doesn't mean Jamie has to?
She 100 percent should have been fired, it doesn't mean Sky should forever recreate the same mistake.
I’m unconvinced she should have been fired. As I understand it, she went for a night out and perfectly properly left her car behind and got a taxi home. The next morning at 11am she got stopped and was still well over the limit. Whilst she probably should have known she was still drunk, I suspect a lot of people have done similar thinking they must be under the limit several hours later. It seems a lot more defensible than someone (e.g. Rooney) who gets straight in a car from the pub.
Doesn’t really matter which is worse either, seems an odd question to ask. Sexism is disgusting. Spitting on someone is disgusting. All twats for doing it.A couple of differences for me. First, is that Keys and Gray had form for their lazy sexist views. Keys in particular held plenty of prejudices, had been caught out before and had largely been indulged by Sky. I certainly don't recall any defences made of his personality by others in the industry. Second, there's a difference between the matter-of-fact way that Keys, Gray or Atkinson said what they said, compared to the provoked nature of this incident. One comes across as a more routine expression of underlying views or prejudices, the other as an over-the-top reaction to a provocation.
Missed that one. What’s that all about?
A bit late to the party on this one so not sure if it's already been mentioned. Yes, what Jamie did was bad but it means nobody is actually thinking about the father who goaded and filmed him.
It's against the law to use your mobile phone while driving, so why hasn't that guy been arrested? There's video proof of him breaking the law!
Read back, LOADS of people have mentioned it.A bit late to the party on this one so not sure if it's already been mentioned. Yes, what Jamie did was bad but it means nobody is actually thinking about the father who goaded and filmed him.
It's against the law to use your mobile phone while driving, so why hasn't that guy been arrested? There's video proof of him breaking the law!