| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! 13:11 - Aug 9 with 4646 views | STYG |
It shouldn't need it's own threat but by the comments on here, social media and so on clearly this needs to be crystal clear.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/01/richard-keogh-waking-up-paramed
- Keogh had missed his lift home but his teammate Tom Lawrence was in his Range Rover, keys in the ignition, ready to go. Did Keogh want to jump in?
“I hadn’t spent the evening with Tom,” Keogh says. “I had no reason to believe he was over the limit. Everyone was in there before me so I didn’t think: ‘Hang on a minute.’ It was just: ‘OK. I need to get home. Let’s go.’ The next thing I know I’m waking up and speaking to the paramedics.”
Keogh, a man going through a difficult time, who had had a couple of drinks, misses his lift, is offered one by a team mate who he didn't believe to be over the limit and woke up surrounded by paramedics.
He was not the driver.
He was not getting into a vehicle with someone he knew to be drunk.
He is not James Norwood.
He is not guilty of drink driving.
He's the victim of a drink driver, who suffered horrible injuries and was left for dead by his team mates. Yet he was sacked whilst the actual drink drivers were retained. He successfully took his employers to court.
Hopefully that can be the end of the ridiculous comments. I myself didn't know the background or whether he knowingly got into the car but I knew he wasn't the driver.
Ironically when someone suggested we go for Tom Lawrence before he moved to Rangers I don't recall anyone saying no on the basis he was the actual driver.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:15 - Aug 9 with 2623 views | RobTheMonk |
Was also left by his 'team mates'. |  | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:16 - Aug 9 with 2614 views | Big_Jase |
I bet near enough everyone on this board has made a decision whilst intoxicated that endangered their health, fortunately without any consequences. To vilify a person for getting into someone’s car, who he in his own words believed to be sober, is absolutely ridiculous. |  |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 with 2611 views | Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |  |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:18 - Aug 9 with 2588 views | Veggie |
Well if Keogh said it it must be true. How convenient. [Post edited 9 Aug 2022 13:18]
|  | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:19 - Aug 9 with 2577 views | STYG |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
There is a HUGE difference between not knowing the circumstances and then seeking to find them out than stating, with confidence, the incorrect ones.
Especially to accuse a severely injured passenger of being the actual drink driver. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:19 - Aug 9 with 2576 views | wrightsrightglove |
This.
Some of the comments on tw@tter are horrendous. The guy done nothing wrong and has more than paid the price if there was any naivety on his part but it sounds like even this wasn’t the case. Any one of us would get a lift with a mate without the need to question whether they’re over the limit if you haven’t been watching them drink and if they’re not clearly intoxicated. He got royally stitched up and as you said, if we were signing Lawrence, I doubt those same people would be kicking off about it. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:21 - Aug 9 with 2549 views | Darth_Koont |
“He was not getting into a vehicle with someone he knew to be drunk.”
That’s the key point. And I think the assertion that he did know is a fairly serious allegation. But ultimately a silly one to make if you weren’t even there. |  |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:22 - Aug 9 with 2532 views | STYG |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
Most people would lose their job or career for getting into a car with a friend they believed to be sober and suffering awful injuries??? Bull.
You think that an independent tribunal would find so heavily in his favour if he'd sat with Lawrence watching him since 12 pints and then jumped in his car.
Don't be so ridiculous.
How perfect your life must that you can't imagine easily being in a similar situation where you trust people. [Post edited 9 Aug 2022 13:23]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:22 - Aug 9 with 2522 views | pointofblue |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
Nor is crucifying him for it necessary either. The difference with Norwood is he was the actual driver but there was something very weird going on there, with him coming back into the fold as soon as Cook left. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:22 - Aug 9 with 2524 views | wrightsrightglove |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
Wait, people are getting sacked from their day to day jobs for getting into a car with someone they were unaware was over the limit? Where does this happen? If I got into a car crash because a mate, who I didn’t know was over the limit, had crashed their car and left me unconscious I can’t believe the company I work for would sack me. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:24 - Aug 9 with 2468 views | Darth_Koont |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
Nobody’s beatifying him. This is getting sillier by the minute. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:27 - Aug 9 with 2420 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:17 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
You admit you don't know but presume to tell everyone what to say/think. It doesn't matter if he was the driver, Lawrence wasn't a tad over the limit because he'd misjudged timing and had a pint extra. They were out on the p1ss.
He's a senior pro and captain and made a massive error. Calling him a victim is pretty insulting to people who actually are and who lose more than a lucrative contract temporarily. Most people would lose their job if not career.
Given the Norwood stuff it is a difficult sell when Ashton is so big on the corporate image. He's not done anything on the pitch yet, but being able to separate those things and not need to go all Nadine Dorries is perfectly acceptable.
He might have put it behind him and I hope he has. Beatifying him like this is completely unnecessary. |
What utter nonsense. No one is beatifying him, but plenty are vilifying him for a simple mistake.
He isn't Norwood, he didn't climb behind the drivers wheel TWICE when over the limit.
He isn't Lawrence, he didn't drive three of his team mates home, drunk and then leave one of them in the car unconscious.
He did, get in the car, but he got in believing that Lawrence was fit to drive. Who are you to say he was wrong? They were there before him, how would he know?
Either way, he made an error of judgement, show me how he didn't pay for that error. |  |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:32 - Aug 9 with 2363 views | Mullet |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:22 - Aug 9 by STYG |
Most people would lose their job or career for getting into a car with a friend they believed to be sober and suffering awful injuries??? Bull.
You think that an independent tribunal would find so heavily in his favour if he'd sat with Lawrence watching him since 12 pints and then jumped in his car.
Don't be so ridiculous.
How perfect your life must that you can't imagine easily being in a similar situation where you trust people. [Post edited 9 Aug 2022 13:23]
|
If I was involved in that kind of smash it's more than possible, maybe I'm only looking at my own circumstance there but I'd struggle to teach again definitely. One google and they'd pass me over, every single time.
A tribunal was looking at contract law, it's a very different thing. Had Morris sacked all three rather than just singling Keogh out as the most expedient asset to get rid, he'd have nothing to have found in favour.
The idea he did nothing wrong, made no error of judgement etc is nauseating sh1te frankly. I'm not sure anyone is saying he's on a par with Hughes, McCormick etc. but had Keogh not been signing for us today, the likes of you suddenly.
If in your mid 30's you jump in a car with someone knowing they'd been out and don't notice they're p1ssed that's a mistake. It doesn't have to be a lynchmob or love-in because he's soon to be our player. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:34 - Aug 9 with 2337 views | pointofblue |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:32 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
If I was involved in that kind of smash it's more than possible, maybe I'm only looking at my own circumstance there but I'd struggle to teach again definitely. One google and they'd pass me over, every single time.
A tribunal was looking at contract law, it's a very different thing. Had Morris sacked all three rather than just singling Keogh out as the most expedient asset to get rid, he'd have nothing to have found in favour.
The idea he did nothing wrong, made no error of judgement etc is nauseating sh1te frankly. I'm not sure anyone is saying he's on a par with Hughes, McCormick etc. but had Keogh not been signing for us today, the likes of you suddenly.
If in your mid 30's you jump in a car with someone knowing they'd been out and don't notice they're p1ssed that's a mistake. It doesn't have to be a lynchmob or love-in because he's soon to be our player. |
And yet it’s coming across as you’re first in line with a pitchfork and torch. Apologies if I’m reading it incorrectly. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:35 - Aug 9 with 2323 views | Mullet |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:27 - Aug 9 by Cheltenham_Blue |
What utter nonsense. No one is beatifying him, but plenty are vilifying him for a simple mistake.
He isn't Norwood, he didn't climb behind the drivers wheel TWICE when over the limit.
He isn't Lawrence, he didn't drive three of his team mates home, drunk and then leave one of them in the car unconscious.
He did, get in the car, but he got in believing that Lawrence was fit to drive. Who are you to say he was wrong? They were there before him, how would he know?
Either way, he made an error of judgement, show me how he didn't pay for that error. |
Matey literally calls him a victim. The idea he's not made a massive cock up that night is laughable. Disagreeing with this fawning OP isn't the same as insisting he's some sort of monster either. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:38 - Aug 9 with 2263 views | Mullet |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:34 - Aug 9 by pointofblue |
And yet it’s coming across as you’re first in line with a pitchfork and torch. Apologies if I’m reading it incorrectly. |
I think you are to be honest, as it was merely conceding I wasn't a specific as I probably needed to be for those gushing quite so much.
It's very tedious that something with a bit nuance has to get the Soccer AM treatment and there is no allowance for suggesting maybe his past is at odds with what the club are trying to sell us as these days. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:38 - Aug 9 with 2255 views | STYG |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:35 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
Matey literally calls him a victim. The idea he's not made a massive cock up that night is laughable. Disagreeing with this fawning OP isn't the same as insisting he's some sort of monster either. |
Unless you have proof that he knew Lawrence was drunk and knowingly made the decision, in sound mind, to get into the car anyway then yes, he is a victim.
He was the victim of a car crash which left him with serious injuries.
Out of interest, if you'd had a few drinks, were walking home and were struck by a drink driver are you not a victim?
What about if you were so drunk you accidentally walked towards the out of control car instead of moving away from it when it was about to hit you? Not a victim then either?
All of this rests on you proving Keogh was complicit. Which you can't. Until then he will continue to be a victim.
I'd hate to think which other victims you have opinions on without actual facts. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:39 - Aug 9 with 2226 views | ITFC_Forever |
"I hadn’t spent the evening with Tom"
Er, weren't they on a team bonding night out? |  |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:39 - Aug 9 with 2214 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:35 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
Matey literally calls him a victim. The idea he's not made a massive cock up that night is laughable. Disagreeing with this fawning OP isn't the same as insisting he's some sort of monster either. |
He is a victim of a drink driver if he didn't know TL was drunk and he say's he didn't. Anyone disagreeing with that is directly calling him a liar.
How could he not know?
I assume the same way that my mates and my missus can never tell when I'm drunk, I don't look drunk until I literally fall over. The mates that have been with me all night know how much I've had and can therefore can figure it out, but anyone who arrives later, or picks me up to head home (often the missus) regularly say that I "don't look, or seem drunk"
Why is it so hard for people to understand this? | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:40 - Aug 9 with 2196 views | wrightsrightglove |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:32 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
If I was involved in that kind of smash it's more than possible, maybe I'm only looking at my own circumstance there but I'd struggle to teach again definitely. One google and they'd pass me over, every single time.
A tribunal was looking at contract law, it's a very different thing. Had Morris sacked all three rather than just singling Keogh out as the most expedient asset to get rid, he'd have nothing to have found in favour.
The idea he did nothing wrong, made no error of judgement etc is nauseating sh1te frankly. I'm not sure anyone is saying he's on a par with Hughes, McCormick etc. but had Keogh not been signing for us today, the likes of you suddenly.
If in your mid 30's you jump in a car with someone knowing they'd been out and don't notice they're p1ssed that's a mistake. It doesn't have to be a lynchmob or love-in because he's soon to be our player. |
Wait, you think that:
A) You’d be named in the paper if you were involved in a car crash with zero responsibility?
and
B) This would be grounds for someone sacking you as a teacher and preventing you from getting another job??
Imagine the unfair dismissal claim on that!! | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:43 - Aug 9 with 2165 views | STYG |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:40 - Aug 9 by wrightsrightglove |
Wait, you think that:
A) You’d be named in the paper if you were involved in a car crash with zero responsibility?
and
B) This would be grounds for someone sacking you as a teacher and preventing you from getting another job??
Imagine the unfair dismissal claim on that!! |
I think he'd more likely be sacked for his ridiculous stance on issues like this long before they even looked at the papers. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:45 - Aug 9 with 2134 views | Mullet |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:38 - Aug 9 by STYG |
Unless you have proof that he knew Lawrence was drunk and knowingly made the decision, in sound mind, to get into the car anyway then yes, he is a victim.
He was the victim of a car crash which left him with serious injuries.
Out of interest, if you'd had a few drinks, were walking home and were struck by a drink driver are you not a victim?
What about if you were so drunk you accidentally walked towards the out of control car instead of moving away from it when it was about to hit you? Not a victim then either?
All of this rests on you proving Keogh was complicit. Which you can't. Until then he will continue to be a victim.
I'd hate to think which other victims you have opinions on without actual facts. |
I'm not a court of law so that proposition doesn't work either. But the idea he didn't notice how drunk Lawrence was is a serious error of judgement, he wasn't bundled in the boot at gunpoint he took a risk and got stung.
The bloke had already thrown up that night and both were 1.5-2x the limit when they came back and finally gave a test. It's impossible to suggest they weren't driving after a session, the very best you can say is Keogh was totally careless and unthinking.
People are allowed to think that wasn't the smartest without wanting a pound of flesh or go into bat for him. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:48 - Aug 9 with 2078 views | STYG |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:45 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
I'm not a court of law so that proposition doesn't work either. But the idea he didn't notice how drunk Lawrence was is a serious error of judgement, he wasn't bundled in the boot at gunpoint he took a risk and got stung.
The bloke had already thrown up that night and both were 1.5-2x the limit when they came back and finally gave a test. It's impossible to suggest they weren't driving after a session, the very best you can say is Keogh was totally careless and unthinking.
People are allowed to think that wasn't the smartest without wanting a pound of flesh or go into bat for him. |
He saw Lawrence in his car about to leave and was offered a lift. He got in. 60 seconds later he was wrapped round a lamp post.
It's not as if he saw Lawrence stumble across the car park, drop his keys twice, pee up against his car and slump behind the wheel is it.
Keogh, who was grieving and drunk, accepted a lift from someone in a car whom he thought to be sober. It's not a serious error of judgement if there is little evidence (other than a man in a car when some players were drinking and some were not) to suggest what you are suggesting he should have known. | | | |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:48 - Aug 9 with 2076 views | Mullet |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:40 - Aug 9 by wrightsrightglove |
Wait, you think that:
A) You’d be named in the paper if you were involved in a car crash with zero responsibility?
and
B) This would be grounds for someone sacking you as a teacher and preventing you from getting another job??
Imagine the unfair dismissal claim on that!! |
Definitely, a neighbour's kid was killed last year in a police chase. They mention his girlfriend who had seen him early that day in the paper for example. If I was in the car and injured I'd certainly be named.
Maybe you're being a bit naive but if you weren't disciplined for that, you'd soon be managed out and your references would be sh1t. Proving unfair dismissal in teaching has to be pretty clear cut to get anywhere and at best you get a small payoff. I've seen it happen several times. | |
| |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:53 - Aug 9 with 2022 views | pointofblue |
| Can we just clarify something for a few people please! on 13:38 - Aug 9 by Mullet |
I think you are to be honest, as it was merely conceding I wasn't a specific as I probably needed to be for those gushing quite so much.
It's very tedious that something with a bit nuance has to get the Soccer AM treatment and there is no allowance for suggesting maybe his past is at odds with what the club are trying to sell us as these days. |
I think the issue is the greyness behind what happened with Keogh - it’s not clear, not black and white. It’s proven by the reaction to the OP; some are dismissing Keogh as lying or embellishing the truth whilst others see what he says at face value. The thing is none of us can be sure as we weren’t there.
Norwood’s case was black and white. There also seems something very odd behind it considering he was welcomed back into the fold after Cook left despite the manager telling him it was taken out of his hands. What happened - McGreal asked if he could play him and Ashton changed his mind? Goodness knows but that’s another situation where there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
