to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

I agree. I can't stand him but he's entitled to an opinion.

I was under the impression she sought Morgan out for help with her career, and then dropped him cold and ghosted him, which it seems she has form for.

We all know that sort of person - who drops us without a second thought as soon as something or someone better comes along.

I don't blame him for being insulted but I don't think that's what's driving his comments - I honestly think he's just calling out the bullshit and hypocrisy coming from the pair of them and would be doing the same even if he had never met Markle.

I'm pleased with the ruling, it was the right one to make. His opinion is his opinion, and he is entitled to express it.

Also :

14 pages of Andrew coverage since 2011 VS over around 90 articles a day on MM since 2016. Analysts have counted over 100K articles on MM, mostly negative. Hardly compares.

Also saying that Andrew is under the radar, when H&M disappeared for 6 weeks in Canada we got rehashed stories over and over, we still do. Infact, outside their usual charity and causes, H&M have only appeared less than 10 times in the last 18 months. We hardly see them. They actually gave 3 personal interviews counting their engagement, Oprah and SA tour. 4 and 5 were for the MH charity. On closer examination, you see this is all BS from the media.

I say rehash and analyse Andrew, pap him driving to wherever. Go over his 'family representation' at funerals, his Covid deliveries, his new deals and new cars, his trips etc. Have an 'expect' everyday telling us what they think is on his mind just as they do with H&M.

@FreddyKreugersWife - well no it wasn't a cultural difference. They got married in the U.K. she lied. The Archbishop has admitted as much.

@Dreamstate - but it's not what happened. She lied.

But, @ohtobeyoungagain , the point is about voicing an opinion . There was wide derision of Andrew’s pizza and sweating stories. Should we not challenge his version because it is “his truth”? Because if you think that Meghan must not have her words queried, then the same must apply to others of whom you may well not approve.

@FreddyKreugersWife - this really didn't happen. And you can pretend all you want that it's cultural or you can see that she lied. She converted before the wedding as well, the cultural stuff wound have been explained.

14 pages of Andrew coverage since 2011 VS over around 90 articles a day on MM since 2016

The 14 pages of Andrew coverage was just in the Guardian. I don’t think that the Guardian will have 90 articles a day on the Meghan Markle!

Also, a lot of that coverage comes from the services of the PR firm that the Sussexes pay to keep them in the news. So a lot of it as PR BS as well as Media BS.

she lied. The Archbishop has admitted as much

Well, not exactly; he "clarified" that he'd had "pastoral meetings" with them before the wedding, but that it was definitely on 19th May

Doubtless it was after speaking with the palace, and you wouldn't expect an archbishop to be undiplomatic anyway - not even one who heads a church which shelters paedophiles

you wouldn't accuse a man of "casting a net" and looking to "advance his career/life"

Of course you would. Unless you’re spectacularly naive and think people like Percy Gibson genuinely fall in love with women who are 30 years older and just happen to be enormously wealthy. Catch yourself on.

Spot on, Blossom - after all, wasn't the term "cocklodger" more or less coined on here?

@Serenster

14 pages of Andrew coverage since 2011 VS over around 90 articles a day on MM since 2016

The 14 pages of Andrew coverage was just in the Guardian. I don’t think that the Guardian will have 90 articles a day on the Meghan Markle!

Also, a lot of that coverage comes from the services of the PR firm that the Sussexes pay to keep them in the news. So a lot of it as PR BS as well as Media BS.

The guardian does not have 90 articles on Meghan because they actually have common sense and report on actual stories, rather than hype up nothing to make the public froth.

You are saying that H&M's PR company is feeding negative stories about them to the same tabloids they are not talking to. And while they are at it, they are calling themselves 'royal sources'? But the same tabloids that hate them, are also not exposing that they are actually working in cahoots with H&M on a smear campaign against themselves.

Yeah, sure. Gotcha !

Not sure how many times the Archbishop talked about this, but his first response was to an Italian reported who asked him. He just said the official wedding was the one we saw and that he did have meetings with H&M beforehand, but he could not divulge anything else as it was all confidential.

He was under pressure from the media, but I think he gave a fair answer under the circumstances.

@Mrgrinch me too. It’s so dull without him.

@ohtobeyoungagain - you have not answered my question. Should, say, Piers Morgan be able to question Prince Andrew’s or anyone else’s story? If yes, why is that different from querying Meghan’s?

No, I’m not saying that at all, @ohtobeyoungagain. PR stories tend to be attributed to “friends of the couple” or “a source close to the couple” etc etc.

[quote DottyHarmer]@ohtobeyoungagain - you have not answered my question. Should, say, Piers Morgan be able to question Prince Andrew’s or anyone else’s story? If yes, why is that different from querying Meghan’s?[/quote]
I do not remember him harping on and on angrily about not believing Andre, maybe you can link that.

I am also not too sure who will be harmed by questing Andrew's story. So maybe what you really wanted to ask was if it was ok to question VG about her accussations?

@Serenster

No, I’m not saying that at all, *@ohtobeyoungagain*. PR stories tend to be attributed to “friends of the couple” or “a source close to the couple” etc etc.

From what I have seen, since H&M left the royal family, people with names and faces have come out to defend them against the barrage of bad press.

Which makes me question the 'friends' or 'close to', though I would not blame people for protecting themselves from scrutiny - and let's face it people lose their minds regarding anyone who speaks positively about the couple (look at how they go after Scobie, not just the public but the RRs and media), but that does not make me jump to it being their PR that does this. Considering it makes a lot of money to shade the couple, would it not be better if the publications just 'out' their PR company as trying to feed them positive stories?

[quote luckylavender]@FreddyKreugersWife - well no it wasn't a cultural difference. They got married in the U.K. she lied. The Archbishop has admitted as much. [/quote]
Wrong @luckylavender she didn't lie at all. You can keep say she lied because of your cultural ignorance, or you can accept the FACT that certain cultures call the private exchange of vows MARRIAGE. That IS WHAT IT IS CALLED in certain cultures and certain countries. Is there some reason you simply cannot understand that a word has TWO MEANINGS in some cultures? Why can't you understand that the UK way is NOT THE ONLY WAY?

The racism on this thread and the absolute pig-headed unwillingness to understand that people who grew up in different countries will use vernacular they are familiar with, is astounding. There is almost a determined racist obstinance to the unwillingness to cede that different cultures, races and countries have different meanings for words.

@ohtobeyoungagain

Oh, how is that possible when he resigned? How long would they carry that on for? Considering they are a commercial channel, you would think they keep an eagle eye on finances, especially as I say, he must cost a lot.

He said this week that they're still paying him, and joked that they may want him to start earning his money again.

I suppose he was prepared to continue but not apologise, so it wasn't a straightforward resignation.

@FreddyKreugersWife

The racism on this thread and the absolute pig-headed unwillingness to understand that people who grew up in different countries will use vernacular they are familiar with, is astounding. There is almost a determined racist obstinance to the unwillingness to cede that different cultures, races and countries have different meanings for words.

You're throwing phrases around purely because people have different opinions to you.

Keep repeating something doesn't make it right.

Yes, I agree. I can't stand him, I think many of his views are abhorrent --and suspect he doesn't even believe it himself but knows it gets public interest-'

I think it's depressing how may people seem to agree with him but I don't think banning the conversation is the answer, in this case or any other.

Free speech should include offensive views IMO. If they're allowed to be expressed they can be challenged. Shutting it down just means people are doubly convinced they're right and they feel aggrieved about it too which makes the views even more entrenched and there's no challenge.

@FreddyKreugersWife - I'm not a racist and she lied. That's my reply.