The term is not unusual. What would be, is a whole family being without feeling and sentiment for their mother.
If you really think that's likely.. Well, poor you.
And very devious too - get the pictures on the family walls before the interviews at the start of the series and spend all that time on the story to be used. Just surprised that it has not been suggested that the father is also part of this evil plot for publicity just to get his sons a few minutes on TV.
Just out of interest, has anyone spoken on behalf of the father yet to back him up? Friends/relatives etc.
The term is not unusual. What would be, is a whole family being without feeling and sentiment for their mother.
If you really think that's likely.. Well, poor you.
No need to be condescending just because you're naive. Maybe in your world of rainbows and unicorns, people wouldn't do such ghastly things. However, if you venture out into reality you would realize quickly that people aren't all singing with cartoon animals. It happens, it's reality. People do shitty things in the name of 15 minutes of fame. One look at reality television should tell you that. Sorry if I've burst your bubble.
No need to be condescending just because you're naive. Maybe in your world of rainbows and unicorns, people wouldn't do such ghastly things. However, if you venture out into reality you would realize quickly that people aren't all singing with cartoon animals. It happens, it's reality. People do shitty things in the name of 15 minutes of fame. One look at reality television should tell you that. Sorry if I've burst your bubble.
And very devious too - get the pictures on the family walls before the interviews at the start of the series and spend all that time on the story to be used. Just surprised that it has not been suggested that the father is also part of this evil plot for publicity just to get his sons a few minutes on TV.
Just out of interest, has anyone spoken on behalf of the father yet to back him up? Friends/relatives etc.
No need to be condescending just because you're naive. Maybe in your world of rainbows and unicorns, people wouldn't do such ghastly things. However, if you venture out into reality you would realize quickly that people aren't all singing with cartoon animals. It happens, it's reality. People do shitty things in the name of 15 minutes of fame. One look at reality television should tell you that. Sorry if I've burst your bubble.
But OK to be patronising to another poster?
People do the strangest things for fame so how can you exclude the father from this very point? Why do you see the father as the victim and the sons as the fame ****?
People do the strangest things for fame so how can you exclude the father from this very point? Why do you see the father as the victim and the sons as the fame ****?
To your first point, you get what you give.
To your second point, I'm not excluding the father from this very point. I'm saying it can go both ways. Just because the sons back Matt doesn't automatically assume the father was lying. Just as the dad could have been untruthful for money/publicity, etc..., the same is true for the sons.
Great post! The Op is obviously more intelligent than the average forum member, and seems to rellish in making everyone aware of his superiority. I even get the impression he looks down his nose at the likes of "the average" person. Pompous and arrogant are traits i cannot bear!
I agree with you, and to add to all that, pretentious is a word that comes to mind.
Just as the dad could have been untruthful for money/publicity, etc..., the same is true for the sons.
Except the sons were allowing themselves to be known as Matt's brothers before they were being paid If they were doing it for money, surely they'd be selling stories on him just like the Dad's tried doing despite never having seen Matt since he was 11?
Except the sons were allowing themselves to be known as Matt's brothers before they were being paid If they were doing it for money, surely they'd be selling stories on him just like the Dad's tried doing despite never having seen Matt since he was 11?
Money, being on tv, riding shotgun with their buddy as his fame goes up. Or maybe they just went along with the producer's or Matt's vision of a juicy sob story because they wanted him to do well on the show? Who knows, there are lots of different motivating factors that could come into play here.
It's also an assumption that the Dad did it for money. For a man who could presumably afford 15k quid annual tuition each for 4 children, I would guess that he's got a respectable profession. Why would he harm his reputation by going to a gutter rag with lies? They would have had to have paid him a shit load of money for that to be worth it.
It's also an assumption that the Dad did it for money. For a man who could presumably afford 15k quid annual tuition each for 4 children, I would guess that he's got a respectable profession. Why would he harm his reputation by going to a gutter rag with lies? They would have had to have paid him a shit load of money for that to be worth it.
I guess the dad could have been doing it for the same non financial purposes that you've said the brothers could have been doing it for. We'll never know! But I personally feel there are more plotholes in the father's story than in Matts and the brothers so I know which one I find more believable! Each to their own!
Also there is still nothing to suggest that there isn’t anything in it for them.
Very much dependent on their price.
They are afterall, Bankers and Investment ones at that....
Just look at the mess that they have caused to the economy the world over
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7525724.stm
Robert Reich, of the University of California at Berkeley, is a former US labour secretary.
Quote:
Some greed is necessary to keep capitalism going. But too much greed will bring it down.
Even Adam Smith, the father of economics, understood that capitalism requires some degree of trust.
Yet the greed that's taken over our banking system is undermining the trust of investors, who are necessary if there's going to be any money in the banking system to invest.
Here in America, the authorities are now chasing down investment bankers who recommended their giant hedge funds to investors, even when the bankers knew the funds were about to implode.
Greedy bankers like them have been running a giant con-game. They figure if they can persuade investors to buy something that's actually worth nothing, it might appear to be worth something, which lets them persuade others to buy even more, because - after all - by this time lots of investors are buying it.
And then when the bubble bursts and investors lose their shirts, the bankers keep their fat commissions and a percentage of the upside gains. Unquote:
I hope that curdle stubs his little toe on the way to the bathroom (in the middle of the night), stands on some lego, stumbles into the bannister and bashes his funny bone, before slipping and landing on his coccyx.
Ahh well atleast people believeing everything they read in a 'newspaper' keeps forums like this alive I guess....
Very true And keeps us cynics entertained. Only here could it go from being accused of telling a fib to being held (partly) to blame for the state of the economy. To paraphrase Richard Littlejohn - you couldn't make it up.
I will brave the cold forthwith and check for myself, I shall be extra careful not to fall of the edge of the world while I look.
Hopefully a 12 Gauge;)
They are afterall, Bankers and Investment ones at that....
Just look at the mess that they have caused to the economy the world over
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7525724.stm
Robert Reich, of the University of California at Berkeley, is a former US labour secretary.
Quote:
Some greed is necessary to keep capitalism going. But too much greed will bring it down.
Even Adam Smith, the father of economics, understood that capitalism requires some degree of trust.
Yet the greed that's taken over our banking system is undermining the trust of investors, who are necessary if there's going to be any money in the banking system to invest.
Here in America, the authorities are now chasing down investment bankers who recommended their giant hedge funds to investors, even when the bankers knew the funds were about to implode.
Greedy bankers like them have been running a giant con-game. They figure if they can persuade investors to buy something that's actually worth nothing, it might appear to be worth something, which lets them persuade others to buy even more, because - after all - by this time lots of investors are buying it.
And then when the bubble bursts and investors lose their shirts, the bankers keep their fat commissions and a percentage of the upside gains. Unquote:
So, are they just looking after their investment?
I like the OP's style... Made me laugh
I hope that curdle stubs his little toe on the way to the bathroom (in the middle of the night), stands on some lego, stumbles into the bannister and bashes his funny bone, before slipping and landing on his coccyx.
That will be suitable punishment.:D
Why would he be on his way to a bathroom in a house with Lego? Are you suggesting he's having an affair with a mother of young children? Or will have a one night stand with a mother of young children? Do you have any proof?
People do the strangest things for fame so how can you exclude the father from this very point? Why do you see the father as the victim and the sons as the fame ****?
Well the father doesn't appear to need the money and why on earth would a successful businessman be after 15 minutes of fame at 61 years of age, and even if he were, wouldn't there be many other ways of doing it that wouldn't involve bringing himself into professional and personal disrepute and possible financial loss if shown to have been lying?
I guess the dad could have been doing it for the same non financial purposes that you've said the brothers could have been doing it for. We'll never know! But I personally feel there are more plotholes in the father's story than in Matts and the brothers so I know which one I find more believable! Each to their own!
Each to their own indeed. I find the exact opposite. Matt, his family and the Floyd boys' side of the story looks like a sieve to me.
Pmsl@ people spinning in ever decreasing circles for 39 pages.
Think someone should be scouring the tabloids for the next bit of gossip tbh.
Matt told his side. Mr Floyd told his side. Nobody is any nearer knowing who told the truth, and since none of us were there or know any of these people its doubtful we ever will be. We will all believe Matt if we like him. Those who don't will believe the other guy. Its that simple.
Everyone is in danger on this thread of constantly repeating themselves now.
Pmsl@ people spinning in ever decreasing circles for 39 pages.
Think someone should be scouring the tabloids for the next bit of gossip tbh.
Matt told his side. Mr Floyd told his side. Nobody is any nearer knowing who told the truth, and since none of us were there or know any of these people its doubtful we ever will be. We will all believe Matt if we like him. Those who don't will believe the other guy. Its that simple.
Everyone is in danger on this thread of constantly repeating themselves now.
I'm enjoying this thread. I hope it is a never ending thread. To infinity and beyond!
I rather agree with that. I honestly expected to see 62-year-old property developer David Floyd coming out all guns blazing if not on the front page of The Daily Mail, at least on the showbiz pages. If not of his own volition, I'd have expected the DM to rally a blistering defence using copy left out of the initial interview we all read. Because the DM would want to hold their reputation as a quality newspaper as opposed to the tabloid junk that is the NOTW.
I think that was the reasoning going on in the DM editorial meeting after the NOTW released the brothers' views. And Matt's views. The NOTW story belittled the DM's integrity. /sarcasm.
Comments
And very devious too - get the pictures on the family walls before the interviews at the start of the series and spend all that time on the story to be used. Just surprised that it has not been suggested that the father is also part of this evil plot for publicity just to get his sons a few minutes on TV.
Just out of interest, has anyone spoken on behalf of the father yet to back him up? Friends/relatives etc.
No need to be condescending just because you're naive. Maybe in your world of rainbows and unicorns, people wouldn't do such ghastly things. However, if you venture out into reality you would realize quickly that people aren't all singing with cartoon animals. It happens, it's reality. People do shitty things in the name of 15 minutes of fame. One look at reality television should tell you that. Sorry if I've burst your bubble.
Oh dear.
Not to my knowledge.
Yeah, I said the same thing :eek:
But OK to be patronising to another poster?
People do the strangest things for fame so how can you exclude the father from this very point? Why do you see the father as the victim and the sons as the fame ****?
To your first point, you get what you give.
To your second point, I'm not excluding the father from this very point. I'm saying it can go both ways. Just because the sons back Matt doesn't automatically assume the father was lying. Just as the dad could have been untruthful for money/publicity, etc..., the same is true for the sons.
I agree with you, and to add to all that, pretentious is a word that comes to mind.
If I didn't mind speaking ill of the dead, I'd suggest a possible reason for that.
Except the sons were allowing themselves to be known as Matt's brothers before they were being paid
Money, being on tv, riding shotgun with their buddy as his fame goes up. Or maybe they just went along with the producer's or Matt's vision of a juicy sob story because they wanted him to do well on the show? Who knows, there are lots of different motivating factors that could come into play here.
It's also an assumption that the Dad did it for money. For a man who could presumably afford 15k quid annual tuition each for 4 children, I would guess that he's got a respectable profession. Why would he harm his reputation by going to a gutter rag with lies? They would have had to have paid him a shit load of money for that to be worth it.
I guess the dad could have been doing it for the same non financial purposes that you've said the brothers could have been doing it for. We'll never know! But I personally feel there are more plotholes in the father's story than in Matts and the brothers so I know which one I find more believable! Each to their own!
4 Years, as reported.
You mean it isn't? :eek:
I will brave the cold forthwith and check for myself, I shall be extra careful not to fall of the edge of the world while I look.
Hopefully a 12 Gauge;)
They are afterall, Bankers and Investment ones at that....
Just look at the mess that they have caused to the economy the world over
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7525724.stm
Robert Reich, of the University of California at Berkeley, is a former US labour secretary.
Quote:
Some greed is necessary to keep capitalism going. But too much greed will bring it down.
Even Adam Smith, the father of economics, understood that capitalism requires some degree of trust.
Yet the greed that's taken over our banking system is undermining the trust of investors, who are necessary if there's going to be any money in the banking system to invest.
Here in America, the authorities are now chasing down investment bankers who recommended their giant hedge funds to investors, even when the bankers knew the funds were about to implode.
Greedy bankers like them have been running a giant con-game. They figure if they can persuade investors to buy something that's actually worth nothing, it might appear to be worth something, which lets them persuade others to buy even more, because - after all - by this time lots of investors are buying it.
And then when the bubble bursts and investors lose their shirts, the bankers keep their fat commissions and a percentage of the upside gains. Unquote:
So, are they just looking after their investment?
I like the OP's style... Made me laugh
I hope that curdle stubs his little toe on the way to the bathroom (in the middle of the night), stands on some lego, stumbles into the bannister and bashes his funny bone, before slipping and landing on his coccyx.
That will be suitable punishment.:D
Very true
It was never 4 years, I dont know why its been reported as that. she said in her own 'story' that they went out for just over a year
Why would he be on his way to a bathroom in a house with Lego? Are you suggesting he's having an affair with a mother of young children? Or will have a one night stand with a mother of young children? Do you have any proof?
Well the father doesn't appear to need the money and why on earth would a successful businessman be after 15 minutes of fame at 61 years of age, and even if he were, wouldn't there be many other ways of doing it that wouldn't involve bringing himself into professional and personal disrepute and possible financial loss if shown to have been lying?
Each to their own indeed. I find the exact opposite. Matt, his family and the Floyd boys' side of the story looks like a sieve to me.
Think someone should be scouring the tabloids for the next bit of gossip tbh.
Matt told his side. Mr Floyd told his side. Nobody is any nearer knowing who told the truth, and since none of us were there or know any of these people its doubtful we ever will be. We will all believe Matt if we like him. Those who don't will believe the other guy. Its that simple.
Everyone is in danger on this thread of constantly repeating themselves now.
It's not really. I don't dislike Matt. I'm just calling it as a I see it. Pretty much like with the sales issue.
I'm enjoying this thread. I hope it is a never ending thread. To infinity and beyond!
I gave up reading it about 20 pages ago and just skip to the last bit now.
Just keep getting the urge to type blah blah blah yeah whatever....:D
I had hoped there'd be a retort or 7 from the brothers' dad in a tabloid after NOTW report from Matt's side, but I see nothing, alas.
His silence speaks volumes,:rolleyes:
I rather agree with that. I honestly expected to see 62-year-old property developer David Floyd coming out all guns blazing if not on the front page of The Daily Mail, at least on the showbiz pages. If not of his own volition, I'd have expected the DM to rally a blistering defence using copy left out of the initial interview we all read. Because the DM would want to hold their reputation as a quality newspaper as opposed to the tabloid junk that is the NOTW.
I think that was the reasoning going on in the DM editorial meeting after the NOTW released the brothers' views. And Matt's views. The NOTW story belittled the DM's integrity. /sarcasm.