to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

[quote Haywirecity]@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.[/quote]
Well I think it's a pretty bad analogy for several reasons.

But if we have to use it, then, yes, the person who tells twice as many lies is clearly less reliable. And I also wouldn't be too quick to take it from him when he tells me the next husband, whom he has made clear he hates, is a liar too. And if you'd focus on Husband 2, I'd wonder why you're giving a "pass" to the guy who's twice as bad.

Most of Meghan's "lies" seem to be points of nuance that I can understand not making clear first time in a lengthy and emotional conversation (and Harry apparently saw no need to clarify them either). And they're mostly not very explosive. Nobody was harmed if they married or didn't marry in secret before the big ceremony.

I do think that Oprah interview was very foolish because you can't talk for hours about sensitive subjects without saying something that people who dislike you will be able to pick apart. Having to get back on the line the next day to say that the remark about Archie's skin wasn't from the Queen or Prince Philip was proof of the stupidity; how did they not foresee that people would start speculating like crazy? But they have been catering to an American audience, not a British one. I think a lot of Brits might not appreciate how hugely different that audience is, even if they're quick to castigate Meghan for not knowing Britain as well as she should have...

All good friends of Epstein:

@MarieIVanArkleStinks
these stories kept conveniently 'going away'.

But they only went away because the story was told and there was nothing new to add. That's the same with every news story. It'll be the same with Afghanistan. And that's a much bigger story than PA.

The Met saw fit to rugsweep the whole story, to the extent that they are now having to investigate that matter.

The Met investigated it twice I believe. Once in 2015 and a review on 2019. She had sex with him in this country when she was 17. So that didn't break the law. She complained that she was trafficked and the Met didn't dismiss her allegation but said it needed to be investigated by the authorities where these activities were mostly taking place. They wouldn't have access to suspects and evidence that were all in different countries. They reviewed that decision a second time in 2019. Because of the court case in the US, Dick said she'd review the case again. But they're not doing a full investigation.

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

As I said in one of my earlier posts though, the story hasn’t really “gone away” (not in the sense that it’s been resolved, I mean). The civil legal processes have rumbled on the US, the FBI investigation is also ongoing (and they have taken no formal steps against Prince Andrew to date), Epstein obviously committed suicide and Maxwell was located and arrested. Andrew gave his ridiculous interview and Virginia Roberts has now sued him in New York.

That’s really quite of lot of “stuff” to have happened, but as is the nature of this kind of case, it’s all taken place very slowly over a period of several years, with long intervals of nothing much happening for months on end (this is not at all unusual in big and complex legal/criminal matters, they can rumble on for years if not decades).

Things get plenty of coverage when they do happen, but then there’s literally nothing new for the press to say until the next development. And given Prince Andrew has all but disappeared from view since the interview (not even being seen when his oldest daughter got married - his father’s death and funeral was really the only time he made a public appearance), then new stories have dried up. There are still opinion pieces about him from time to time, but front page splashes? Well, they have nothing to say.

I don’t think anyone other than the relevant lawyers know what’s currently going on with Virginia Robert’s New York lawsuit - if Andrew has been served with it, or not, or what procedural applications are ongoing, for example - as these are not things that are published by the courts. The press can’t find out unless they have someone giving them information. Non-one’s making press statements, and no-one appears to be leaking to them either, so we all just have to wait and see what happens next.

the person who tells twice as many lies is clearly less reliable

That’s completely illogical. Anyone who lies at all is unreliable. One lie’s plenty to rob someone of credibility.

@DrSbaitso. Nooo, I think it's a perfect analogy. One has cheated more than the other one, but they're both cheats. (Once they've cheated more than once, they're both the same in my eyes. Colin Peacock killed 2 teenagers. If he'd killed 4, he'd be the same evil to me. He wouldn't be twice as evil) One has told more lies than the other one, but they're both liars.

It might be MMs lies are unimportant (not sure the person accused of racism thinks its an unimportant lie), but PM is still right when he says he can't believe her because she lies. And I think actually PH did contradict and clarify what she'd said. He was in the wings and he heard her tell the 'racist' story and then came out and, knowing what she'd said, he told a different story. He didn't actually use the words you told a lie, but because he contradicted what she'd said, he sort of did.

@Blossomtoes

the person who tells twice as many lies is clearly less reliable

That’s completely illogical. Anyone who lies at all is unreliable. One lie’s plenty to rob someone of credibility.

I agree. Someone who tells me two lies isn't twice as unreliable as someone who tells me one. They're both unreliable liars.

Well I disagree that it's a good analogy, if only because it's an unequal number of the exact same lie in the exact same circumstance by the exact same character to the exact same person for the exact same reason, and I don't think Morgan and Markle are that similar and easy to compare. The hypothetical husbands also have no relationship with each other, and I think the fact that Morgan has a clear anti-Meghan agenda is quite relevant. And I really, really can't equate it to murder. That's an even worse comparison.

At any rate, though, it looks as though the decision has been made for whom you wish to believe over the other and everything else is just reverse engineered around that.

the person who tells twice as many lies is clearly less reliable.

It's the gravity of those lies that is the important factor.

Compare: hacking murder victims' phones and faking photos supposedly depicting abuse by a British solider whilst on duty.

As opposed to: a supposed exchange of vows ahead of a formal wedding.

Doesn't really compare. Apparently the most serious accusation in that interview was an allegation of racism against the Windsors. That's still not in the same league as falsely claiming by implication that someone breached the Geneva convention, or that a murder victim might come home again after all, but could do serious damage to the key establishment family nonetheless. 'We are not a racist family', says Harry's brother. Now cf. Princess Michael of Kent and that hideous brooch, worn on meeting the first PoC to marry into their family; Philip's numerous 'gaffes' (ugh), such as Australian Aboriginals chucking spears at each other and cringeworthy comments made about the Chinese; The Queen and her sister being taught by their mother to do a Nazi salute, Harry himself and a less than choice four-letter epithet used whilst in the army, not to mention his notorious uniform.

Not a racist family my blue hiney (and that's without even going into their Imperialist basis, which isn't relevant here). And don't tell me people in that day and age didn't know any better. They did, and some of these events are far more recent than others. It's not too great a stretch that they might have harboured similar sentiments to a woman marrying into their family. And it's Harry, lest we forget, who makes that allegation, had told it to her second-hand, and repeated it on the interview.

So when William said 'we are not a racist family', was that a lie, too?

It certainly looks that way from where I'm standing, although of course 'recollections may vary'. Frankly the Windsors and Morgan alike are a disgusting shower and thoroughly deserve each other.

And it's Harry, lest we forget, who makes that allegation, had told it to her second-hand, and repeated it on the interview

They both made it and their recollections differed. They couldn’t even get the story straight between the pair of them.

@MrsSkylerWhite

Today 13:43 ilovemydogandmrobama2

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

Heard tell that he made advances in years gone by and she wasn’t interested. No idea if that’s true or not.

It's not true. She made advances to him - a good networking opportunity.

@Blossomtoes

And it's Harry, lest we forget, who makes that allegation, had told it to her second-hand, and repeated it on the interview

They both made it and their recollections differed. They couldn’t even get the story straight between the pair of them.

I do wish we knew what exactly was said. I wonder if it was something like "it'll be hard if your baby is dark", which could mean "oh no, dark skin in our white Windsor family" or could mean "you know how racist the press can be, I hope that doesn't become a problem for your son".

@DrSbaitso. I'm very disappointed. I had to keep upping the ante to see if I could reach you. But no. Be thankful I stopped. I was moving on to Hitler and Stalin next. Not that I'm equating any of the three of them to Hitler and Stalin!!

I don't like PM. I first knew of him from the faked army photos in the Mirror. I accept he didn't know they were faked, but just a bit of basic journalism would have found the truth. And I loathe his interview show, and I did see his US chat show once or twice and thought he was rubbish on that. Didn't much like him on Britain's Got Talent. He's a journalist, I'm sure he's lied and said ridiculous things. I also know that MM has lied. Because I saw the interview. So when she says, he's a liar. She's right, I believe her. And when he says, she's a liar. He's right, I believe him. No reverse engineering. They've both lied. I don't need to defend either of them and you can chuck PH into the mix too. I'm with Shakespeare. A plague on both their houses. (Slight misquote)

@ilovemydogandmrobama2

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

Because she stopped talking to him on Twitter, that's where it all started

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

Yes this narrative that he's a scorned admirer is ridiculous. I can't stand the man, his hysteria on gmb during the start of the pandemic was absolutely irresponsible, but in this situation I agree with him. If they can share 'their truth' then he can challenge it.

Markle perhaps wanted to befriend him as he is a well connected media person in the UK, once she didn't need him to open doors for her he was ghosted. Fine, she can't be pals with a telly presenter once she had he'd feet under the royal table but she should've just 'reached out' to him and explained that.

Seem to be 2 narcissists easily taking offence at other's narcissistic actions.

You’re right there, @Janiiejones . A pair of narcissists indeed.

And it surely does not matter a jot whether you are a MM fan or a PM supporter. The ruling was in regard to whether it is acceptable to say you disbelieve someone. Ofcom said that if it is not, the implications of that are “chilling”.

I haven't RTFT but YABU in my opinion. Piers Morgan has an unhealthy obsession with MM. But that's besides the point. What Piers did was effectively say he didn't believe someone when they admitted to having mental health issues and suicidal thoughts. He accused her of lying about these things for her own benefit. How many people experiencing issues like that may have watched him and believed that they might not be believed either?

How many people might have been discouraged from speaking out or asking for help because of it? The issue here isn't whether you like MM or PM. It's about a person on a public platform saying incredibly reckless and irresponsible things that could cause harm to others.

I knew bits of the Piers Morgan/Meghan Markle story, but here’s a good and details timeline going all through Piers’ contemporaneous tweets about it.

www.insider.com/piers-morgan-meghan-markle-relationship-interview-timeline#december-2018-morgan-writes-a-new-column-with-the-headline-meghan-markle-is-a-ruthless-social-climbing-actress-who-has-landed-the-role-of-her-life-and-is-determined-to-milk-it-for-all-she-can-18

Reading this, it seems that Meghan seized the opportunity to connect with Piers in the latter series of Suits, when she was clearly interested in developing her career away from acting (there are a few people who have spoken about how she was looking to the UK as a new potential base in this period). I don’t remotely judge her for showing so - like him or not Piers is clearly very well connected and could have been a very useful contact for someone in her position - such is the lot of any actress/personality/spokesperson etc looking for new opportunities.

Anyway, she went on a blind date with Prince Harry at the same time, and obviously that new opportunity superseded anything Piers might have to offer her .

Piers (who had been super-nice about her initially) wrote in a column after the wedding that:

"I'd been 'played' by a couple of B-list actors*, who were clearly just using me to advance their careers. And frankly, who am I, a former tabloid newspaper editor, to take a dim view of such ruthless antics? But on another level, the whole experience left me feeling suspicious and cynical about Ms Markle."

At the time, he was appeared quite sanguine about it all. Obviously over time that changed! I have my own views as to why (Piers obviously has very strong views about press freedom and I suspect the Sussexes’ attempts to strictly control what the Press wrote about them really wound him up. His attitude also seemed to change a bit after he interviewed her father).

(*the second was her co-star on Suits, whom Piers had sent messages to, but whom had never responded, until after the wedding, when he was suddenly sending Piers super-chummy messages and suggesting they meet up etc).

@Serenster
"the second was her co-star on Suits, whom Piers had sent messages to, but whom had never responded, until after the wedding, when he was suddenly sending Piers super-chummy messages and suggesting they meet up etc"

Was he looking for a princess to marry? Piers should start charging!

@teaandcrumpets35
What Piers did was effectively say he didn't believe someone when they admitted to having mental health issues and suicidal thoughts.

Can't believe I'm standing up for Piers flipping Morgan but here goes.
No, he was quite clear straight after he walked out that he was not doubting that she had mental health issues. He said he didn't believe that she was denied help by the Palace.

Of course he was cleared. As he should be.

Not keen on him, but any other ruling would have been just wrong.

Someone on R4 pm said there were no producers of TV news/currents affairs shows who were people of colour . They said if PM had a black producer he might have been restrained from making such controversial remarks

What does this mean? So you just have to ensure you appoint a member of your own group in the TV production team so that you can go ahead and say whatever you fancy unchallenged? This is akin to nepotism and would not be tolerated in any other circumstance, what makes this scenario different?

Nobody and nothing should be out of bounds with regards to scrutiny

Also, YANBU OP

Anyway, she went on a blind date with Prince Harry at the same time, and obviously that new opportunity superseded anything Piers might have to offer her

Agreed. A Prince blows literally everyone else out the water. Good on her!

A Prince blows literally everyone else out the water. Good on her!

Are you a royalist?