to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

I'm torn on this.

I think the value of free speech and freedom of the press is highly important. Actually it's crucial to society.

I think people should be able to question public figures, and investigate their claims. Weather that be Boris Johnson, Meghan Markle or the pope.

If you open your mouth and say it, be prepared to back it up.

I think an individual does have the right to say "I don't believe you" . That's that individuals belief and opinion. You don't have to agree with it but you have to accept it.

I just wish it wasn't PM that had become a martyr of free speech, can't stand the man. But now he will walk round with his polished crown gloating. 🙄

[quote Haywirecity]@FrankButchersDickieBow. She used Piers Morgan for his contacts, publicity, etc. When she no longer needed him, she dropped him. I can see 100% why from her point of view. But when you use people, it can have bad consequences. And now the consequence is that he will dump on her whenever he feels like it. He needs to make sure he doesn't break the law. She needs to make sure she treats people better. Maybe they deserve each other. 🤷[/quote]
his is categorically not true.

Piers admitted in his video that he was to meet the whole main cast of Suits (as per production requirement that they promote the show). She met him once (though that is under questioning too because pics of her were posted where she was at a different venue same day, Piers did not take his usual selfies - despite always gushing about her all that time, He also claimed to have put her on a cab to meet Harry that evening, even though they actually met the next day for their blind date). She was not using him, he was meeting a cast member for once of the US popular shows as per both their jobs.

Maybe she was advised not to see him again, by either Harry or Suits productions. Maybe she found him creepy af.

If you justify him, he should also shit talk about the rest of the cast as he was dumped by all.

To be clear, Piers Morgan did not WIN anything over Meghan as he claims.

1. Meghan did not complain to Ofcom, over 50K people did.
2. Piers was not cancelled, he resigned, therefore he cancelled himself.
3. The ruling was for GMB and ITV. Who won because they had Suzanna, Chris and Alex represent a different viewpoint to Piers.

The pity about this ruling is that it will be viewed that if someone goes public with their MH, they will be called liars.

So you could view Ofcom as saying it's ok to say you are a liar and attention seeker if you state your problem, so go off yourself, then we will believe you.

@Lockheart

You can be pleased with whatever you like, why do you need to ask if it's unreasonable?

Did you miss the bit where the forum is all about people asking if they are being unreasonable?

It’s been said many times, but Duke and Duchess of virtue signalling what to be so private that they can’t help but slip and land in publicity all the time. And when they release some crap podcast, or ‘write’ some cringeworthy book or pretend to be life coaches to the world, they don’t like being discussed in the media. They’re probably happy that they are getting some more press out of this ruling.

Meghan did not complain to Ofcom, over 50K people did

Actually, she did:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58354662

@LakieLady. I think flippant is a much better word. I like it. I do think, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury in their pre-marraige meetings will have explained the actual process of getting married and the legal formalities.

I think those of the British public that are so inclined are capable of disliking three members of the Royal Family at the same time. I think PH has received a lot of criticism, but this thread was really about Morgan and Markle. And really it only concentrated so much on MM because a poster asked what lies she'd told.

Did he really call her a liar for saying she was suicidal ?

I understood that he called her a liar for saying that the RF didn't allow her access to mental health support for her suicidal thoughts.

@LakieLady exactly

He’s a creep. I don’t care about the ofcom result, he was seriously unprofessional however and will be glad to see him have less air time.

@ohtobeyoungagain. I don't know about any meeting PM had with MM and the Suits cast. So I accept your word for that. But she followed him on Twitter and said she was a big fan. They met up for drinks in London when she was over here to watch Williams playing tennis. She's never denied his version of events so I've no reason to disbelieve him. She didn't just meet up with him. She met up with other journalists and asked about who she should be getting in touch with to make the best contacts. (They suggested reasons for what she did but I think that's their impression rather than provable fact so I haven't repeated that.)

So to me it's clear she was trying to use the contacts she had to access others. I mean that's what networking is. I don't know why you'd be annoyed with me for saying that. It might be she found him creepy, and her saying we must meet again might have been a polite comment to get rid of him. We don't know. But she still tried to use him for what she could get out of him. In the same way, if they'd stayed friends, I'm sure he would have tried to use her. That's showbiz. I don't know that any other Suits cast member DMed PM that he was great and then met up with him in London, so can't comment on their possible behaviour.

Megan did complain to both head of itv who in effect sacked PM. Constructive dismissal really. She also complained to the regulator.

I have had depression and anxiety for over 25 years. I lost my job through it. If I tell a lie, people are entitled to say so. MH doesn't take away your intelligence. You know if you're lying or not. He clarified straight after the incident that he was not doubting her suicidal thoughts but that he did not believe she had been discouraged ftom seeking help to deal with her MH.

There’s a lot I don’t agree with where Piers Morgan is concerned and he’s always had an issue with Meghan since she snubbed him back when she and Harry were dating but he is a huge champion of women’s rights in general so I’ll always give him the time of day because of that.

The pity about this ruling is that it will be viewed that if someone goes public with their MH, they will be called liars

I wouldn't quite go that far; context is all, and if it's coming from someone not noted for bizarre claims and damaging allegations (and who isn't interested in the concept of "my truth") I'd expect them to be listened to more carefully

As with the bullying, the racism, the pregnancy loss and other things, it's perhaps interesting that so many of the misfortunes Meghan's shared with us touch on rightly sensitive areas which folk are reluctant to challenge
That's in no way to say I don't believe them either, but I find it interesting nonetheless

The pity about this ruling is that it will be viewed that if someone goes public with their MH, they will be called liars

That’s nonsensical. The ruling is nothing to do with ‘Who’s telling the truth - Piers or Meghan?’ The ruling does not state that Meghan Markle was lying, or that Piers Morgan was telling the truth. You can’t force people to believe a claim via legislation or regulatory guidelines.

@MrsJuliaGulia

There’s a lot I don’t agree with where Piers Morgan is concerned and he’s always had an issue with Meghan since she snubbed him back when she and Harry were dating but he is a huge champion of women’s rights in general so I’ll always give him the time of day because of that.

Is Piers a huge champion of women's rights, though? He probably gets it right for the Trans issue, but he has an obvious problem with young women of colour speaking up. Maybe he had history with Megan, but he also gleefully laid into Naomi Osaka and Simon Biles for daring to complain about mental health. His first column about Osaka after she refused the press conference was titled `Narcissistic Naomi'. He has since gone the same pattern of constantly goading her on twitter even after she blocked him. Men talking about mental health get either his support or silence. Young black women get torn to shreds. So no, he doesn't champion all women's rights, in fact he is dangerously goady around young successful black women. Getting it right for one women's right issue does not give him an automatic pass to be an absolutely horrible bully to women of colour.

Also, away from the daily mail headline hysteria, Piers hasn't really been hailed as a champion of free speech in the ofcom report. In fact the report is quite critical of Morgan. It ruled that while Morgan's remarks on suicide and mental health were "potentially harmful and offensive," he had the right to say them and that, given the "extensive" challenge offered by his co-presenters, the remarks were "sufficiently contextualized." So if Susanna et al were not there to temper it and Morgan was frothing by himself on the program, the program could well have been found to violate the standards. Morgan's views by themselves would not stand, they would stand only of proper context and opposing viewpoints were clearly presented. They also said that “Nonetheless, we’ve reminded ITV to take greater care around content discussing mental health and suicide in future."

He's literally escaped censure because of his co-presenters.

There are always consequences to free speach though...Katie Hopkins can hardly work now. Thank god!
Does this mean that anti vaxxers should now be able to chat shit everywhere?

[quote FreddyKreugersWife]@znaika But Meghan used common parlance that was familiar to her. She wasn't to know the UK are really strange about marriage.[/quote]
No, we are NOT really strange about marriage, before the Marriage Act of 1753 all sorts of 'marriages' took place. The problem was that people got married and there were questions about the validity of such marriages. This Act made it mandatory for Banns to be called and for the marriage to take place in Church, which in effect meant the CofE. (There were provisions for Jews and Quakers before anyone corrects me). we still understand that private vows make no legal marriage. You might find it odd, but to us, it's perfectly normal, despite the fact that we can now marry in a Register Office etc. The marriage has to be registered to be valid, and we know that private vows don't count. Whatever Meghan thought or didn't think, if they had only made private vows it would not have stood up in Court. It's also so why people who marry only with a Niqqah, for example, aren't married in the eyes of the law.

Stop using @ with my name with that quote i didnt say it. I said the UK was not "really weird" about marriage and she knew damn that the (multi million pound tax-payer funded) wedding was when the union became legal.
I think the wedding argument is irrelevant anyway. You can't give free speech to the ones you like and not to the ones you don't. That's not free speech at all.

And on Meghan, I think it shows why it was never going to work re her living in the UK. I don't think she understood what her role in the RF was, or how she ought to behave or what people would expect of her. Had she taken more time to find out or be guided then she stood a better chance of making a go of it. The other issue was when she claimed to be suicidal she didn't know who to contact, so neither she nor Harry knew to contact a doctor ? I really can't believe that one. Couldn't Harry just pick up the phone, or is he that dim?
It's just a litany of half-truths.
Furthermore, she placed the Archbishop of Canterbury in a difficult position by claiming he married them in the backyard. He knew that didn't happen, so what was he supposed to do?
As others have said'words matter'.

Does this mean that anti vaxxers should now be able to chat shit everywhere?

Of course they entitled to 'chat shit' as much as they like, as a person you are able to weigh up their argument and consider their view, a long with the debate about the need for vaccines and being protected. People can talk about what they like everywhere and anywhere, it is the whole point of democracy and free speech malificent The UK is not China, we don't believe in censure.

I don’t care about the ofcom result, he was seriously unprofessional however and will be glad to see him have less air time

I think you will be disappointed, this is likely to enhance Pier's career no end planty

If you take the personalities out of this, it’s an excellent ruling. I’ve just (reluctantly) read Morgan’s piece in the Fail and completely agree with it. The propensity for shutting people down because you don’t agree with them is becoming far too pervasive and it’s time the tide turned.

If the Sussexes believe they have the right to free speech and can cast allegations publicly against the RF then they should also believe other people have the right to free speech too.

Unless they are hypocrites..