to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

There just seems no grit, loyalty or staying power there,

What for? For something that doesn't suit, as you also (rightly) said? Is it better then to waste 20, 30 years before you move on just to have shown loyalty and staying power? F-that. Much wiser to move on when something doesn't suit.

Despite so many current attempts to muddy the waters, misogynists are generally very good at identifying women. Even when they pretend not to be able to, their actions towards the female people show that they can tell when it matters to them.

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

So would I, but I've never found it that be so. Obviously we all make mistakes, and marrying into the ghastly RF is one many have discovered too late, but for me it's less about any one incident than an overall pattern

It all reminds me of the story of the proud parents watching a passing out parade: "Ooooo look, everyone's out of step except our Johnnie!!"

@HereForThis

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.

Hehe. True that. I was going to put the Duchess of Cambridge but as we'd called everyone else by their given name, I changed it. Note to self: read more carefully before posting.

@znaika

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

The press reported the Andrew/Epstein when the story had become common currency anyway. It had been hiccupping on behind the scenes for years beforehand, with only a few rumours swirling and no searching questions asked. By the time he gave his crazy interview Pandora's box was open: it was out there. They'd reached the point where it would likely have looked odder if they'd rugswept it than actually reported it.

The column inches devoted to Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle could probably paper Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham and Windsor about 10X over. The commentary devoted to Andrew, or Charles's continual, unwanted interference with the mechanics of our elected representatives, say for instance, or William's alleged affair (although doubtless that isn't in the public interest; they all seem to be at it) and various anomalies with their accounting, is notably slim by comparison.

This can only be for one reason: the ring of PR steel around these people and their undue influence over the press.

I’m please with their decision. I don’t care for MM. Seems to me she’s somewhat of a narcissist and everything has to be about her. My opinion is that she plays the victim a lot. My thoughts are that she didn’t like having to follow the rules (that everyone has to follow) and didn’t like that she wasn’t pandered to.

I might be wrong but that’s my impression of her. My respect for Harry is completely gone. Used to really like him but can’t stand him now.

They are my personal opinions. I accept not everyone will agree but thankfully we live in a society we can share them.

PM says it as it is and I’m pleased with the outcome. Freedom of speech is part of democracy and once you lose that then democracy starts to disappear….

I hear you. My posts are often riddled with words I forgot to leave out or change after switching other words. I try to edit them better but by the time I'm done faffing about, the posts would have moved on.

That was to haywirecity

This can only be for one reason: the ring of PR steel around these people and their undue influence over the press.

Definitely a huge part of it. However, until there is actually news on the subject, ie new information, there isn't much to add to what's already been said. Commentators can keep it alive but even they usually require a news hook.

Harry and Meghan generate new content all the time. I'm not criticising them for it, just saying that it's one factor in why this plays out the way it does. Undue influence is most definitely a massive element too, of course.

Nope. The press had reported on Andrew and Epstein a full decade before the excruciating interview with. Emily Maitlis.

@znaika

Nope. The press had reported on Andrew and Epstein a full decade before the excruciating interview with. Emily Maitlis.

Precisely my point. Extremely slim, factual accounts, no doubt on pain of potential libel, And it just kept on and on going away .... (head scratch).

In the 80s when Andrew was under no suspicion of any crimes he was also subject to savage press.
Meghan s fans like Meghan herself play fast and loose with facts. I dont think she's a bad person fwiw. I agree with the idea that rich and powerful people deserve no exemptions just because they seem nice.

Nope. Because it's not just Andew. Its a collection of the richest and most powerful men in the world who are lawyered up to the hilt

The @HereForThis. 😉
Me too. I'm too slow.

[quote Mrgrinch]@Lockheart did I say anyone should care? I said I'd like him back on it because he was the reason I watched it. Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Wow @lockheart got out of bed on the wrong side!! 😂😂😂

Who are Meghan's 'fans?'

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool republican. I don't support a single one of them. If anything, I should actively dislike Meghan because she's done the unthinkable: made a large swathe of the public close ranks in support of the Windsors, aided by an obsequious, pro-royal press.

What I don't like is concerted campaigns of persecution against an individual, such as spear-headed by the likes of the repulsive DM. It's unconscionable, and would have broken even the strongest of people.

@Haywirecity

The *@HereForThis*. 😉 Me too. I'm too slow.

There are posters on here who obsessively hate her and obsessively worship her.
I dont really care about her either way
What i do disagree with is the notion that because PM is a provocative twat he should not be able to question people's integrity. Because Meghan is prob on balance an ok person she isn't capable of telling whopping porkies as she clearly did in the interview.
Fwiw i believe the epstein case goes far beyond Andrew and Epstein did not.kill himself. There are very powerful forces at play and I'm not insinuating that he is innocent as i don't believe he ks3. Just that it is an extremely complicated case.
I also dont believe in whataboutery so whenever Meghan and Harry do anything controversial people just deflect and say what about Andrew. They can all be dicks you know

Extremely slim, factual accounts, no doubt on pain of potential libel, And it just kept on and on going away ....

Because there was no proof of any crime in this country. It was investigated by the police and passed to CPS and it was judged that no law had been broken. What do you want the news to do? Just keep headlining it every day. Then it would be the olds not the news! And it was a front page and double page spread in the News of the World, which was a really popular Sunday newspaper. They approached the Palace for a comment. But once Virginia Roberts had said her piece and there was nothing from the Palace, what was there left to keep saying?
There's been tons of commentary on the latest doings. But the news moves on. Meantime PH is juggling outside MMs window, presumably to catch attention and make the news.

@znaika

Nope. Because it's not just Andew. Its a collection of the richest and most powerful men in the world who are lawyered up to the hilt

Indeed. Who no doubt have insight into Epstein's demise.

.

By the same token, I don’t understand why seemingly sane and articulate people have seized upon MM as a totem of all that is good, when in fact, step back and what you have is a small-time actress who married a Prince, and who loves the finer things in life, and seeks to hobnob with A-listers. And, of course, who is certainly not publicity shy.

The fact that purported republicans grasp at Meghan as an emblem is most odd. If you see her as a route to bringing down the monarchy, say so, as that is more understandable, but I am baffled why the same people are trying to make out she is a beneficent pioneering feminist.

What I don't like is concerted campaigns of persecution against an individual, such as
spear-headed by the likes of the repulsive DM. It's unconscionable, and would have broken even the strongest of people.

I agree. It's a horrible way the press have of building people up, then tearing them down. I'm glad that Kate Middleton was strong enough to withstand all the criticism if herself and her family. And I can't even imagine what MMs fans would say if naked pictures of her had been published.

I believe that Piers Morgan is correct in his views that he is entitled to use 'free speech '. Unfortunately Piers Morgan seems to think that nobody else on the earth is equally entitled to this privilege.

Bill Clinton, an even bigger name than PA, is still on the witness list. PA has had tons of press; Bill Clinton practically nothing. Why aren't we talking about him as well?

@WestendVBroadway

I believe that Piers Morgan is correct in his views that he is entitled to use 'free speech '. Unfortunately Piers Morgan seems to think that nobody else on the earth is equally entitled to this privilege.

He doesn't think anyone should be even allowed to speak, free or not, in his presence. Lol.