dandannieldanok Posted 10 November 2008 Posted 10 November 2008 I think the headline Family angry at 'handcuffs' goal indicates how the family's feeling. When I said incident I should have made it clear I was talking about the actual crash, my bad.
Tilley Posted 10 November 2008 Posted 10 November 2008 What a fuss.Now slate me. There you have it. He said what I daren't.
Nationwider Posted 10 November 2008 Posted 10 November 2008 Stupid thing to have done. The club have dealt with it quickly by fining him, which is good. That should be the end of it. The football authorities should be saving their energy for dealing with Chris Morgan.
Brainy Posted 10 November 2008 Posted 10 November 2008 There you have it.He said what I daren't. although I doubt you're both being serious, I agree.
Ultra Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Stupid thing to have done. The club have dealt with it quickly by fining him, which is good. That should be the end of it.The football authorities should be saving their energy for dealing with Chris Morgan. ...and Andy D'Urso..
Alexikokopops Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Norris apologises to the family Right then, lets leave it at that please tabloids
The People's Hero Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 I hope they tell us who we should be hating today, soon.... cos right now I'm hating no one - and that can't go on. Oooh I hope it's Chris Moyles.
Uncle Albert Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 He is showng loyalty to his mate, what a crime. Yea what he done was silly but he is showing loyalty and that he is thinking off his mate. I would do it. Tim Cahill done the same thing for his brother who is inside. There was no bigdeal made about that.
Ross-Kemp Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 I hope they tell us who we should be hating today, soon.... cos right now I'm hating no one - and that can't go on.Oooh I hope it's Uncle Albert. He is showng loyalty to his mate, what a crime. Yea what he done was silly but he is showing loyalty and that he is thinking off his mate. I would do it. Tim Cahill done the same thing for his brother who is inside. There was no bigdeal made about that.
Lovejoy Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Really, it was just a stupid thing to do. Vilifying David Norris is a bit ott imo, it wasn't intended as malicious, it was just carelessly stupid.
andyh1884 Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 He is showng loyalty to his mate, what a crime. Yea what he done was silly but he is showing loyalty and that he is thinking off his mate. I would do it. So if your friend had killed two young boys and ruined the lives of a family through entirely selfish, stupid and reckless actions, you would see nothing wrong with showing your support for the offender in front of cameras where the pictures would be broadcast to millions of people and to the family affected? Presumably you live in the same self-absorbed, me-me-me bubble as these moronic footballers. General decency should make you think otherwise, the family in this case have every right to feel aggrieved in my opinion. Tim Cahill done the same thing for his brother who is inside. There was no bigdeal made about that. You must have missed it then, cos there was. The victim's family were similarly outraged by the insensitive actions of a selfish, arrogant, ignorant footballer. Cahill says sorry What's interesting about these two cases is the different approaches taken by the FA. They took no interest in Cahill's, yet are demanding an explanation from Norris. I can only presume it's cos the FA deem assault to be an acceptable crime to display support for the perpetrator, whereas supporting someone who has caused death by dangerous driving is a step too far. Personally I can't see a difference, it's grossly insensitive to the victims
The Blur Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Apparently, it was his wedding that McCormack was driving home from, when the accident happened
Lovejoy Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 So if your friend had killed two young boys and ruined the lives of a family through entirely selfish, stupid and reckless actions, you would see nothing wrong with showing your support for the offender in front of cameras where the pictures would be broadcast to millions of people and to the family affected? Presumably you live in the same self-absorbed, me-me-me bubble as these moronic footballers. General decency should make you think otherwise, the family in this case have every right to feel aggrieved in my opinion.You must have missed it then, cos there was. The victim's family were similarly outraged by the insensitive actions of a selfish, arrogant, ignorant footballer. Cahill says sorry What's interesting about these two cases is the different approaches taken by the FA. They took no interest in Cahill's, yet are demanding an explanation from Norris. I can only presume it's cos the FA deem assault to be an acceptable crime to display support for the perpetrator, whereas supporting someone who has caused death by dangerous driving is a step too far. Personally I can't see a difference, it's grossly insensitive to the victims It's hardly condoning what he did is it . How about that Luke McCormick, for all his wrongdoings, is probably feeling utterly sh1t, and Norris was merely being a solid mate. What McCormick did would be considered unforgivable by many, but he's still a human being.
The People's Hero Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 It's hardly condoning what he did is it . How about that Luke McCormick, for all his wrongdoings, is probably feeling utterly sh1t, and Norris was merely being a solid mate. What McCormick did would be considered unforgivable by many, but he's still a human being. Absolutely.
dandannieldanok Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 The funny thing is that this whole discussion is meaningless as Norris has denied it being anything to do with handcuffs and McCormick.
Alexikokopops Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 The funny thing is that this whole discussion is meaningless as Norris has denied it being anything to do with handcuffs and McCormick. I saw that statement. He didn't actually say in the statement what it did mean though
The People's Hero Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 I saw that statement. He didn't actually say in the statement what it did mean though It's either the X Factor explanation which was offered earlier in the thread or his own recreation of the Jolly Roger.
andyh1884 Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 It's hardly condoning what he did is it . How about that Luke McCormick, for all his wrongdoings, is probably feeling utterly sh1t, and Norris was merely being a solid mate. What McCormick did would be considered unforgivable by many, but he's still a human being. Where did I say he was condoning what he did? All I was saying was the ill-advised nature of being a solid mate in front of TV cameras which would beam the pictures right into the home of the family affected by this tragedy, thus highlighting the incident once again and bringing it all back to them at a time when they're attempting to try & move on with their lives. It's just grossly insensitive. Norris could, as the family have said, just as easily gone to visit McCormick in prison or written a letter to let him know he was thinking of him. Why did he think this was the best way to do it? Norris has now come out & said that this wasn't the meaning behind the gesture anyway, although he's not offered any explanation as to what it was supposed to be about.
The People's Hero Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 If the family is so bothered about it being brought back, I'd expect them to want it to blow over rather than talking to the tabloids etc etc.
Shrenchel Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 The funny thing is that this whole discussion is meaningless as Norris has denied it being anything to do with handcuffs and McCormick. Eh? On the statement he isssued on the Ipswich website and that was reprinted in the papers, he said "I made no handcuff gesture, but it was a small private gesture to Luke McCormick."
dandannieldanok Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Eh? On the statement he isssued on the Ipswich website and that was reprinted in the papers, he said "I made no handcuff gesture, but it was a small private gesture to Luke McCormick." The BBC must have got it wrong then.
Shrenchel Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 The BBC must have got it wrong then. fook knows. Norris statement: http://www.itfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsD...1450839,00.html Edit: Just read on the Independent website that he originally denied it was a message to McCormick but later changed his statement and admitted it was.
dandannieldanok Posted 11 November 2008 Posted 11 November 2008 Edit: Just read on the Independent website that he originally denied it was a message to McCormick but later changed his statement and admitted it was. What a plank.
Durnerz Posted 13 November 2008 Posted 13 November 2008 See I don't think it was a private message to McCormick.... If it was it would have been along the lines of an Ipswich player bent over in front of Norris with a bar of soap lying on the ground.
Daggers Posted 13 November 2008 Posted 13 November 2008 What a marvelous example of a sportsman that Norris chap is.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.