to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

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.

As do I. I've posted previously about the essential nature of a free press to any supposed democracy. (As well as the superfluity of a monarchy to the same).

Because Meghan is prob on balance an ok person she isn't capable of telling whopping porkies as she clearly did in the interview.

I haven't read the inventory of what lies she did and didn't tell. But if the worst of them was about a supposed back-yard wedding, I don't see the controversy.

The idea that the Windsors collectively harbour a particular form of prejudice I don't question in the slightest, albeit that doesn't necessarily extend to every single member. They have a demonstrative track-record of it.

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.

I'd be the last person to argue against that. Extremely privileged people displaying the grandiose sense of entitlement many of these people do, generally are. What I'm questioning is the very selective reporting of this in the media.

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.

Whom is a television actress allowed to marry, and what is she allowed to like and not like?

Don't like the twunt at all but it was the right decision.

@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.

That’s not entirely true, is it? It’s the lying he objects to.

@Earlydancing exactly.
There are some powerful forces at play.

“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”

This is complete nonsense, @MarieIVanArkleStinks. The news about Andrew being friends with Epstein has been covered extensively in the UK papers for more than 10 years now. It only became “common currency” because of their stories on the matter.

The story about his friendship with Epstein was broken by the News of the World in February 2011. This led to all the press writing starting writing about this issue. Throughout the first half of 2011. This coverage severely criticised him for the fact of the friendship, and also his brokering for Epstein to pay off the Duchess of York’s debts (as well as bringing up past issues). A Guardian columnist noted on 9 March that “every paper - and broadcaster - has realised the story's import. It was all over the Sunday papers yesterday and it has front page coverage in virtually all of today's national dailies”.

The press reports caused such a storm that in July 2011 the Palace announced that he was standing down as Trade Envoy, following “intense criticism”. That criticism came from the UK press.

There was then an absolute load of coverage (more front pages than Sussexit generated in January 2020) following the December 2014 Florida court filing that alleged that Prince Andrew was one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with Virginia Giuffre. The court papers were published, the photos dug up….

The Guardian reported later on how he was alleged to have given foot massages to another young woman trafficked by Epstein; the Daily Mail hunted down the video footage of him at Epstein’s NY house in 2010 and published that; each of the permutation of the UK legal proceedings were widely covered… I could go on. The Guardian alone has 14 pages of archived stories about Prince Andrew going back to 2011 and the vast majority of them are about Epstein.

It wasn’t until 2019 that he was interviewed by Emily Maitlis. And that was undertaken because he wanted the chance to put across his own side of the story after many years of intense press criticism and coverage.

I'm repeating myself now sorry, but have to ask, channeling the late great Caroline Aherne to Debee McGee:

What is it about this intelligent, independent, successful, beautiful divorcee who married a prince that rubs so many people up the wrong way?

😂.

Unfortunately Piers Morgan seems to think that nobody else on the earth is equally entitled to this privilege.

Indeed. He'll chuck away his rattle and strut offset.

I've often perceived it's the ones who protest most loudly about their right to free speech, who really mean 'I want the green light to be as rude and obnoxious as I like, and harbour whatever prejudices I like, to whoever I like, and no one else has the right to challenge those assertions because Free Speech (excepting their dissenters) and I Have A Right to My Opinion.

Pity for them that unsubstantiated opinions are as worthless as a two-year stalking vendetta.

Aside from all that, the judgement was still the right one. The report was clearly designed to protect the interests of ITV. In context they did allow the exercise of free speech in exactly that context by allowing the oaf to be challenged, in exactly the same way as he was challenging Meghan Markle.

That's how free speech works. Ironic that so many of its self-appointed 'champions' don't seem to recognise this.

I haven't read the inventory of what lies she did and didn't tell. But if the worst of them was about a supposed back-yard wedding, I don't see the controversy.

There were quite a few, including the discrepancies in the racist comment story, which was really a lot worse than the marriage one. I think PM alleged 17 lies or exaggerations. And then the Irish Post wrote them out. So it wasn't so much the seriousness of the lies, just that she told so many.

I think PM alleged 17 lies or exaggerations.

Private Eye went through his diaries when he published them and came up with quite a lot of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

So it wasn't so much the seriousness of the lies, just that she told so many

Not only that but if someone’s caught out in an obvious lie, how much credence can you give to anything they say? It makes them an unreliable witness. Which was the point Morgan was making.

@Serenster

“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”

This is complete nonsense, @MarieIVanArkleStinks. The news about Andrew being friends with Epstein has been covered extensively in the UK papers for more than 10 years now. It only became “common currency” because of their stories on the matter.

The story about his friendship with Epstein was broken by the News of the World in February 2011. This led to all the press writing starting writing about this issue. Throughout the first half of 2011. This coverage severely criticised him for the fact of the friendship, and also his brokering for Epstein to pay off the Duchess of York’s debts (as well as bringing up past issues). A Guardian columnist noted on 9 March that “every paper - and broadcaster - has realised the story's import. It was all over the Sunday papers yesterday and it has front page coverage in virtually all of today's national dailies”.

The press reports caused such a storm that in July 2011 the Palace announced that he was standing down as Trade Envoy, following “intense criticism”. That criticism came from the UK press.

There was then an absolute load of coverage (more front pages than Sussexit generated in January 2020) following the December 2014 Florida court filing that alleged that Prince Andrew was one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with Virginia Giuffre. The court papers were published, the photos dug up….

The Guardian reported later on how he was alleged to have given foot massages to another young woman trafficked by Epstein; the Daily Mail hunted down the video footage of him at Epstein’s NY house in 2010 and published that; each of the permutation of the UK legal proceedings were widely covered… I could go on. The Guardian alone has 14 pages of archived stories about Prince Andrew going back to 2011 and the vast majority of them are about Epstein.

It wasn’t until 2019 that he was interviewed by Emily Maitlis. And that was undertaken because he wanted the chance to put across his own side of the story after many years of intense press criticism and coverage.

What a detailed and interesting post. It's very clear that Andrew has been investigated by the UK press deslite multiple assertions to the contrary. The demise of the Guardian is a tragedy.

There were quite a few, including the discrepancies in the racist comment story, which was really a lot worse than the marriage one. I think PM alleged 17 lies or exaggerations.

It was Morgan who made that list? Morgan who tapped a dead girl's phone and got her family's hopes up to no avail; who was fired for doctoring photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi?

Ha ha ha! That's brilliant. I think the less said about honesty and integrity coming from that particular direction, the better!

@DrSbaitso. I don't doubt it. I never liked him since he published those fake pictures in The Mirror. And I loathe his interview shows. All that stage managed crying. Ugh.
But his lies don't cancel out hers. It just makes them two sides of the same coin. How they'd both hate that thought. 🤣🤣

@MarieIVanArkleStinks but that's the point. Just because PM is a dick doesn't mean he's wrong.

[quote Haywirecity]@DrSbaitso. I don't doubt it. I never liked him since he published those fake pictures in The Mirror. And I loathe his interview shows. All that stage managed crying. Ugh.
But his lies don't cancel out hers. It just makes them two sides of the same coin. How they'd both hate that thought. 🤣🤣[/quote]
It's more a question of: can you trust a liar's word on the lies he claims someone else told, especially when he hates that person? And do Meghan's lies, even if they exist, really compare to the things he's told the public?

Piers Morgan himself wasn’t the one making the claims that she’d lied in the Oprah interview though. He was basing his opinion on all the press articles and commentary that were already pointing out that she appeared to be being “economical with the truth” at certain points. The Irish article mentioned upthread was just one of many. So no-one needed to take his word for anything. He was just expressing his opinion based on what was already been discussed publicly.

If anyone wants to call Piers Morgan an opportunist/liar/scum etc etc publicly based on his own past actions, they are equally free to do so (and frequently do! )

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

There were quite a few, including the discrepancies in the racist comment story, which was really a lot worse than the marriage one. I think PM alleged 17 lies or exaggerations.

It was Morgan who made that list? Morgan who tapped a dead girl's phone and got her family's hopes up to no avail; who was fired for doctoring photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi?

Ha ha ha! That's brilliant. I think the less said about honesty and integrity coming from that particular direction, the better!

PM said 17. The Irish Post was one of many newspapers that made the list. So the actual allegations came from other sources. I don't think the Irish Post and MM have an axe to grind with each other so I don't know why you'd dismiss them as dishonest. But PM has had problems with the truth. That doesn't negate that MM has also had problems with the truth. Considering you've said you have no feelings for members of the royal family, you seem quite fond of her. Which is nice. 🙂

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

Errr, she is married to Piers Morgan, I rest my case.

@DrSbaitso

"It's more a question of: can you trust a liar's word on the lies he claims someone else told, especially when he hates that person? And do Meghan's lies, even if they exist, really compare to the things he's told the public?"

But the list was made by the newspapers. I repeat I don't know that The Irish Times and MM have any beef with each other. And I think MM would have let us know if she had.

But let's say his lies are worse than her lies. That doesn't negate her lies. If your first husband cheated on you 10 times, and your second husband cheated on you 5 times, it doesn't make your second husband some kind of catch. 🙄

[quote Haywirecity]@DrSbaitso

"It's more a question of: can you trust a liar's word on the lies he claims someone else told, especially when he hates that person? And do Meghan's lies, even if they exist, really compare to the things he's told the public?"

But the list was made by the newspapers. I repeat I don't know that The Irish Times and MM have any beef with each other. And I think MM would have let us know if she had.

But let's say his lies are worse than her lies. That doesn't negate her lies. If your first husband cheated on you 10 times, and your second husband cheated on you 5 times, it doesn't make your second husband some kind of catch. 🙄[/quote]
No, but I think I'd dislike my first husband a lot more.

@Serenster

“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”

This is complete nonsense, @MarieIVanArkleStinks. The news about Andrew being friends with Epstein has been covered extensively in the UK papers for more than 10 years now. It only became “common currency” because of their stories on the matter.

The story about his friendship with Epstein was broken by the News of the World in February 2011. This led to all the press writing starting writing about this issue. Throughout the first half of 2011. This coverage severely criticised him for the fact of the friendship, and also his brokering for Epstein to pay off the Duchess of York’s debts (as well as bringing up past issues). A Guardian columnist noted on 9 March that “every paper - and broadcaster - has realised the story's import. It was all over the Sunday papers yesterday and it has front page coverage in virtually all of today's national dailies”.

The press reports caused such a storm that in July 2011 the Palace announced that he was standing down as Trade Envoy, following “intense criticism”. That criticism came from the UK press.

There was then an absolute load of coverage (more front pages than Sussexit generated in January 2020) following the December 2014 Florida court filing that alleged that Prince Andrew was one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with Virginia Giuffre. The court papers were published, the photos dug up….

The Guardian reported later on how he was alleged to have given foot massages to another young woman trafficked by Epstein; the Daily Mail hunted down the video footage of him at Epstein’s NY house in 2010 and published that; each of the permutation of the UK legal proceedings were widely covered… I could go on. The Guardian alone has 14 pages of archived stories about Prince Andrew going back to 2011 and the vast majority of them are about Epstein.

It wasn’t until 2019 that he was interviewed by Emily Maitlis. And that was undertaken because he wanted the chance to put across his own side of the story after many years of intense press criticism and coverage.

That's indeed an interesting post. Thanks for going to all the effort to detail these historical reports @Serenster. I hold my hands up to the fact that I'm wrong, and the whole thing wouldn't have seen the sunlight it's getting now were it not for these papers laying the groundwork. This is proof positive, were that needed, of how essential a properly critical media really is (and the rightness of the OfCOM conclusions).

There are still some relevant related points. One is that these stories kept conveniently 'going away'. The level of power Windsor PR has over the media is also clear from how quickly certain inconvenient stories 'disappear', as happened when the brave Virginia Roberts resurfaced and made it equally clear she wasn't shutting up or going away. Since Harry married Meghan, the stories on those two have eclipsed those on Andrew et al, at least as far as volume is concerned.

Then there are the related arguments about 'trial by media', which come back again to questions of privilege and the protection of the establishment. The Met saw fit to rugsweep the whole story, to the extent that they are now having to investigate that matter. It's a damning indictment of any society that the media should be the only avenue which holds a mirror up to that decidedly toxic, murky smoke, and begins to make those people answerable.

@Earlydancing

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?

Good question. I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

@DrSbaitso. Really? Well, that takes the wind out of my sails. But I guess you feel how you feel. Personally I MIGHT be able to forgive one transgression but once they were on 2 and over, they'd be equal scumbags in my mind. I just caught one earlier than the other. 😄 But if you can sort of give one husband more of a pass than the other, I can see why you'd choose to believe MM and disbelieve PM.

Oh as long as you attack trans people cos you hate minorities you're 'for women' on here. No mention of those same right wing scum just bringing in medieval abortion laws in the US or their refusal to help afghan women. White western woman having to see 'karen' is worse than slavery.