Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Jamie Carragher spits at fan (young girl)



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham
Oh, that's quite interesting. Do you happen to know if he was using it hands free? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think using a cell-phone whilst driving is frowned upon by the authorities.

Yes, you know what, that's a very interesting point. I wonder why nobody has mentioned this? Spitting, though. You can't condone it, no matter what the provocation. Its a rum old conundrum, in my book.
 








Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,145
Goldstone
Was it written by Jamie's legal team?

"No matter how famous or familiar from TV they are, they are not our plaything, they are not our cue for banter and we need to be more understanding of others and less desperate to become a YouTube hero. I can’t believe this even needs saying."

We? Speak for yourself, I don't disturb let alone abuse famous people I see, and nor do most others. I can't believe they're making excuses for his behavior.
 


sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
Was it written by Jamie's legal team?

"No matter how famous or familiar from TV they are, they are not our plaything, they are not our cue for banter and we need to be more understanding of others and less desperate to become a YouTube hero. I can’t believe this even needs saying."

We? Speak for yourself, I don't disturb let alone abuse famous people I see, and nor do most others. I can't believe they're making excuses for his behavior.

A point of view that is fair enough. But there is always another side, whether you agree with it or not.
 






sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
Yeah, I just wish Savile was still with us to tell us his side.

Or the guy that was driving along a motorway with his 14 year old daughter whilst recording a conversation he was having with a famous ex-footballer on his phone.

And you're comparing Saville with Jamie Carragher? Really?
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,145
Goldstone
Or the guy that was driving along a motorway with his 14 year old daughter whilst recording a conversation he was having with a famous ex-footballer on his phone.
IMO he should be charged. What's your point?

And you're comparing Saville with Jamie Carragher? Really?
No I'm not. You said there is always another side, whether you agree with it or not. What exactly is Jamie's side? I've read his response and there's nothing in there that comes close to an excuse or justification for what he did.
 




sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
IMO he should be charged. What's your point?

No I'm not. You said there is always another side, whether you agree with it or not. What exactly is Jamie's side? I've read his response and there's nothing in there that comes close to an excuse or justification for what he did.

My point is that they should both be charged (albeit with very different offences), and it wasn't Carragher's actions that could've caused people to die.

His side, if you read the piece, is that the constant evasion of their privacy, the constant "banter" which verges on insult, is likely to lead to a negative reaction if emotions are running high. Why was the guy filming him? Why was he baiting him? What right does he have to bait someone he doesn't know? I'm not condoning Carragher's actions, I might add. Just that it is clear to any rational person that it takes two to tango, and that the guy driving the car is as bad, if not worse, than Carragher.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,145
Goldstone
My point is that they should both be charged (albeit with very different offences)
I agree with that.
and it wasn't Carragher's actions that could've caused people to die.
Surely leaning out of the window to gob into another person's car is also dangerous driving?

His side, if you read the piece, is that the constant evasion of their privacy, the constant "banter" which verges on insult, is likely to lead to a negative reaction if emotions are running high.
Why were emotions running high? Jamie didn't play in the game, it wasn't that big of a game.
Why was the guy filming him? Why was he baiting him? What right does he have to bait someone he doesn't knowv?
He was an idiot and has no right to behave like that.
I'm not condoning Carragher's actions, I might add.
Then what's your point? It's Jamie we're talking about. If the other guy was working in the media I'd be suggesting he shouldn't keep his job too.
Just that it is clear to any rational person that it takes two to tango, and that the guy driving the car is as bad, if not worse, than Carragher.
The main thing that the other guy did wrong is filming while driving. That's got nothing to do with Jamie though. He was also annoying Jamie and of course I agree people shouldn't behave like that, but '2-1 mate, 2-1' is hardly that bad and as you say, does not condone Jamie's reaction.

No decent person would respond the way Jamie did.
 






Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
So Carra will be back for the start of next season (by which time everyone would have forgotten about all this) as I predicted.

Meanwhile (and apologies if I missed it), what about the guy who was filming it behind the wheel? Sure the OB must be going after him soon? Using your mobile while driving is a hot topic at the moment – maybe the authorities should make an example out of HIM, too?

Is there footage of him holding the phone, could it not have been held by another in the car? Just playing devils advocate, its not as simple as some may think. Unfortunately Carragher was caught on camera with his bad behaviour. I have no allegiance to or against Carragher, but I suspect he will be viewed very closely by the press from hereon in, I hope theres nothing in his wardrobe.
 


dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,110
As someone else mentioned, Kirsty Gallagher, who has a similar job at Sky didn't get suspended after been convicted of drink driving. Which crime is worse?

The fact that the 'victims' and I'm sure he didn't intend to aim at the innocent daughter were wishing him to keep his job should end this matter.

Suspension until the end of the season will probably satisfy the easily offended, and I hope Carragher has learned his lesson.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
14,834
Is there footage of him holding the phone, could it not have been held by another in the car? Just playing devils advocate, its not as simple as some may think. Unfortunately Carragher was caught on camera with his bad behaviour. I have no allegiance to or against Carragher, but I suspect he will be viewed very closely by the press from hereon in, I hope theres nothing in his wardrobe.

No footage, but he admitted it in an interview with (I think) The Mirror. Plus it's obvious him filming it – his daughter is the only other one in the car and he's giving a running commentary of what's going on...
 




sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
I agree with that.
Surely leaning out of the window to gob into another person's car is also dangerous driving?

Why were emotions running high? Jamie didn't play in the game, it wasn't that big of a game.
He was an idiot and has no right to behave like that.
Then what's your point? It's Jamie we're talking about. If the other guy was working in the media I'd be suggesting he shouldn't keep his job too.
The main thing that the other guy did wrong is filming while driving. That's got nothing to do with Jamie though. He was also annoying Jamie and of course I agree people shouldn't behave like that, but '2-1 mate, 2-1' is hardly that bad and as you say, does not condone Jamie's reaction.

No decent person would respond the way Jamie did.

I’m talking about both of them because there’s a context to the incident which involves three people, only one of which is innocent. You, however, seem so focused on your faux outrage at the celebrity that you’re not that willing to discuss said context because there might just be a chance that your outrage then seems misplaced. I’m not entirely sure you’ve even read the article to be honest.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,145
Goldstone
I’m talking about both of them because there’s a context to the incident which involves three people, only one of which is innocent.
Something I haven't disagreed with.
You, however, seem so focused on your faux outrage at the celebrity that you’re not that willing to discuss said context because there might just be a chance that your outrage then seems misplaced.
Why is it faux outrage? There's nothing fake about it. I've not defended the guy with the camera. I will never have to see him again so I don't really care about him. I will see Jamie though, on the tv I like to watch, and I pay his wages, so obviously I'm more interested in what happens to him than the random guy.

I’m not entirely sure you’ve even read the article to be honest.
I did read it. Which bit in particular do you think should have made me think differently about Jamie's actions?
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,042
Burgess Hill
A point of view that is fair enough. But there is always another side, whether you agree with it or not.

But it is a rubbish article. He isn't owned by the public, fair enough, but he chooses to earn his living in the public eye so whether he likes it or not, what he got comes with the territory. When he was getting 'banter' whilst playing for Liverpool did he trot over and gob in peoples faces?
 


sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
Something I haven't disagreed with.
Why is it faux outrage? There's nothing fake about it. I've not defended the guy with the camera. I will never have to see him again so I don't really care about him. I will see Jamie though, on the tv I like to watch, and I pay his wages, so obviously I'm more interested in what happens to him than the random guy.

I did read it. Which bit in particular do you think should have made me think differently about Jamie's actions?

You haven’t disagreed with it, but by putting your focus on one person when there are two involved illustrates a lack of interest in the whole context and the severity of the two separate incidents. You’ve then, in your second paragraph, illustrated why it is only Carragher you’re interested in, which proves that you really are only arguing one point of view (and the fact that you feel you have a right to have such a strong view of something that happened in his personal life because you “pay his wages” only further highlights just how prevalent the initial article I posted is - you’re a case in point for the type of ownership that the article is describing!).

The article isn’t solely about Carragher’s actions (why do you call him Jamie - are you on first name terms with him?). The article itself condones Carragher’s actions as an isolated incident, as I have, but it’s looking at the wider picture of why such incidences happen and why he deal with celebrities as we do. You haven’t really referenced any of it - you’ve simply condoned Carragher’s actions without looking at the context or the bigger picture, and you haven’t put your arguments in the context that the article puts them - I mean you compared him to Saville after all!

But I get it, you think he’s done wrong and that’s that. You do pay his wages after all, so let’s just get on with crucifying the guy.
 




sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
But it is a rubbish article. He isn't owned by the public, fair enough, but he chooses to earn his living in the public eye so whether he likes it or not, what he got comes with the territory. When he was getting 'banter' whilst playing for Liverpool did he trot over and gob in peoples faces?

Your latter point is nonsensical. Everyone has different breaking points for different things.

As to your first point, do you think because he lives in the public eye, the public then have the right to treat him differently than they would any other person they met on the street, just because he’s famous?
 


Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
But it is a rubbish article. He isn't owned by the public, fair enough, but he chooses to earn his living in the public eye so whether he likes it or not, what he got comes with the territory. When he was getting 'banter' whilst playing for Liverpool did he trot over and gob in peoples faces?
Would his actions have been the same if the car had four forty year old bald geezers in it, I think not. Sure he loves his job, £1m a year for spinning the sh.t as pundit with no responsibility if he gets it wrong and only espousing his opinions. Its not a good look Jamie, he passes judgement on players, managers and coaches every week. Try spitting at a steward at the Amex and see what happens to you. What goes around.
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here