to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

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

Dontcha know? As long as you're for white womens' rights, every other person can sod off. That's MN main feminist motto.

MN, where you only have to be a man to be considered 50% misogynist, then so much as say "boo" to a white woman and you're a full blown one BUT if you're against the "wokies", you're free. Haven't seen anyone call Piers a misogynist when he's shown himself to be one. You can say or do anything if you also talked about "the woke".

@HereForThis I don't know why you've used the strike through feature. A lot of 'feminism' is really only feminism for white women.

I don’t care for PM. But I think the ruling was correct. Of course you must be able to say you don’t believe people or question “their truth”.

Not being able to investigate or challenge would have very wide repercussions for issues far more important than Meghan Markle.

Right? My bad. @Vladimirspoutine
Just striking because they'll say it's for all women but we know it really isn't...not when push comes to shove.

You can say or do anything if you also talked about "the woke".

That was supposed to be talk about, not talked about...

Was Piers married when he took Meghan out? I wonder if his wife knew he was taking an actress out for dinner. I think hes an absolute scumbag. No wonder Meghan dropped him!

@ilovemydogandmrobama2

I seriously don't understand why Piers is so triggered by Meghan

I actually agree with some of what Piers said, but his obsession with Meghan is just bizarre and makes him look like a typical man who has been rejected by a woman! (He always says they were 'friends' and then she ditched him, they weren't friends, they had met once)

I don’t think he’s triggered as such - he’s just very media savvy and knows that Meghan (and Harry) are like Marmite here. He taps into that to get the clicks and raise his profile - if she was universally admired there wouldn’t be any interest in his less than positive views on her. He just says what a lot of people are thinking.

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

Beautifully put, but in fairness she had little chance to learn the role as everything's been so rushed

FWIW I'm another who believes (and that's believe not know) that she never intended stay in the UK - a view supported by her form for flitting from this to that and dumping what doesn't suit very quickly, be that a husband, a "friend" or whatever else - and seen from that perspective, there may have ben no reason to learn things or even care. There just seems no grit, loyalty or staying power there, and while folk are fully entitled to choose that path, others are entitled to comment on it

@Ontheblink

Was Piers married when he took Meghan out? I wonder if his wife knew he was taking an actress out for dinner. I think hes an absolute scumbag. No wonder Meghan dropped him!

And er...didn't she totally pie his attentions 🤣, both professionally and I have no doubt personally too.

Some men cannot get over rejection, whether career based or otherwise; especially those with super-inflated egos. Anyone here saying they've not encountered this in life then you must be so brainwashed I wouldn't know where to start with you.

There just seems no grit, loyalty or staying power there

Why? Because, like half the Royal Family, she's had a divorce? And because she didn't want to stay in contact with an older man who has gunned for her obsessively since, thus proving she was right to cut him loose? Because she didn't want to stay in a country whose press subjected her to relentless sexist and racist attacks, fuelled by her horrible family (apart from her mother) and still does?

If grit, loyalty and staying power mean having to live a miserable life to please everyone else, I'm happy to live without them.

I was heartened both by the OFCOM ruling and by the strength of their statement.

Of course the words & actions of wealthy, well-placed and privileged people should be open to scrutiny. Especially if those people use their high-profile position to criticise and malign others who are unable to respond.

But biters don't like getting bit...

@Ontheblink

Was Piers married when he took Meghan out? I wonder if his wife knew he was taking an actress out for dinner. I think hes an absolute scumbag. No wonder Meghan dropped him!

I’m sure his wife knew, just like she’d know it’s part of his job. Celia Walden isn’t naive or stupid.

'Of course the words & actions of wealthy, well-placed and privileged people should be open to scrutiny. Especially if those people use their high-profile position to criticise and malign others who are unable to respond. But biters don't like getting bit...'

Exactly.

I don’t like Piers Morgan either but I’m delighted that Ofcom ruled in his favour

Free speech is under threat from all directions. I hope this is the start of an effective push back

A PP had it, upthread. The contents of the actual report are not an indictment of Morgan, despite the demented crowing emanating from his column and those of his colleagues in the DM. As ever, they pointed out that context is everything, and in the context of their programming, Morgan's vitriolic, obsessive outpourings were robustly challenged. Job done: and that's thanks to his co-hosts not to him.

Storming offset because you don't like what someone's said is grossly unprofessional. ITV are, IMO, quite right to say they won't have him back. Legalities aside, they have the right to set their own standards.

As to the legal side, of course it's not only necessary, but crucial, that any society with pretentions to democracy go all out to protect its free press. The Windsors already have far too much leverage over their rosy if dullsome (and wholly contrived) image in the press as it is. IMO, it's a pity more of them are not opened up to the same sort of scrutiny, especially in relation to one cossetted, miscreant son of HMQ. But it seems they've reserved that high-powered spotlight of attention for two members in particular. Funny, that.

Beautifully put, but in fairness she had little chance to learn the role as everything's been so rushed

That was down to her wanting to "hit the ground running" instead of taking her time and learning the ropes. She was advised to take time like the Kate Middleton did but she decided not to.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

A PP had it, upthread. The contents of the actual report are not an indictment of Morgan, despite the demented crowing emanating from his column and those of his colleagues in the DM. As ever, they pointed out that context is everything, and in the context of their programming, Morgan's vitriolic, obsessive outpourings were robustly challenged. Job done: and that's thanks to his co-hosts not to him.

Storming offset because you don't like what someone's said is grossly unprofessional. ITV are, IMO, quite right to say they won't have him back. Legalities aside, they have the right to set their own standards.

As to the legal side, of course it's not only necessary, but crucial, that any society with pretentions to democracy go all out to protect its free press. The Windsors already have far too much leverage over their rosy if dullsome (and wholly contrived) image in the press as it is. IMO, it's a pity more of them are not opened up to the same sort of scrutiny, especially in relation to one cossetted, miscreant son of HMQ. But it seems they've reserved that high-powered spotlight of attention for two members in particular. Funny, that.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

But it seems they've (the Windsors) reserved that high-powered spotlight of attention for two members in particular.

To be fair, I think those two members put the spotlight on themselves, juggling outside windows. If they'd just stayed speechless, the spotlight would be nowhere near them.

Agree with it but dislike himself. No massive fan of Meghan either but he’s quite obviously obsessed with her. It’s weird.

Even now he’s tweets about her and Harry constantly. Odd. If you despise them that much, ignore them.

It was also the UK papers who found and broke the story about Andrew and Epstein in the first place. Every time that there is something to update in the story, it is front page news (there’s a dedicated royal follower on twitter who had been comparing the coverage of Andrew to Sussexit when the stories first broke - Andrew’s story was in the front pages for more consecutive days than the Sussexes then).

The difficulty with the comparison though is that the Andrew story is particularly slow-moving and he has withdrawn from public life, giving the papers literally nothing to write about for weeks/months on end. This leads to a not necessarily accurate perception that the press don’t write about him. They absolutely do, but when the Sussexes actually deliberately make sure they are regularly in the press, unsurprisingly they get a lot of day to day coverage. It’s what they are paying for, after all.

She was advised to take time like the Kate Middleton did but she decided not to

Like the Kate Middleton, reminds me of famous "The Donald" by Melania Trump.

The only reason that people know about Prince Andrew is because the press reported it. I would have thought it's fairly obvious why the press aren't disclosing much at this point and it's nowt to do with HM and everything to do with not prejudicing a potential criminal trial.
I am amazed that people fall for the twitter crap hook line and sinker

Haven't seen anyone call Piers a misogynist when he's shown himself to be one. You can say or do anything if you also talked about "the woke".

Haven't you? Then you haven't been looking very hard. The thing has been held up to elongated discussion, on the FWR boards at least. And even on occasions where people do agree, the general tone is along the lines of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

Morgan's assault on the trans rights activists isn't a feminist position, any more than the Conservatives are a feminist party because they happen at present to be the only political party who know what an adult human female is. Neither Morgan nor Tory HQ ever did or ever will give a button about women's rights.

It's about an assault on the 'woke'. The normally (I'd argue still) progressive trains of thought associated with feminism have found themselves - to their own surprise - to be 'on the wrong side of history' on this particular issue. They've therefore found themselves pummelled by all manner of accusations of bigotry: the same conventionally levelled at the Tories et al for their reductive, 'back to basics' style of shit.

The idea of Morgan as a pro-feminist strikes me as distinctly comical. But I've certainly never seen any protestations that he isn't a misogynistic oaf rivalled by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and Boris Johnson. This point is a straw man.

If you despise them that much, ignore them.

Defo this. Applies to PM and PH and MM. Why cant the three of them just shut the fuck up?