to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

@Chicchicchicchiclana

PM got above himself and it was personal.

Criticising members of the Royal Family is getting above yourself? 🤔 So there are people in the country I'm not allowed to criticise because I'm not as good as them? Can you give me a list - just so I know my place.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

I’d argue on this particular point that you can’t get much more privileged than marrying into the ROYAL family.

Not if you're not in possession of one particular form of privilege. It will put you at an immediate disadvantage and you'll likely not last five minutes.

This is a family with a demonstrable track-record of a very particular form of prejudice. Harry not excluded.

The comment that was in response to sounded like it was trying to frame Piers as a privileged monolith against a defenceless, random American woman, not someone who was about to marry into the most famous family in Britain, and arguably, the entire world.

It was absolutely the right decision.

He was well within his rights to say that in his personal opinion he didn't believe a word of that interview.

I didn't believe a word of it either.

Of course you can criticise the Royal Family! He's a presenter on a national TV programme. Can you think of any other example of a personal vendetta being played out on TV like this? Please note that you don't know my virws about MM so don't do the lazy thing of thinking I support her.

I would have the same views if he carried out a sustained attack on anyone. My point is about the nature of his job.

@cardibach
”If she’d said she was his legal wife and tried to do things that only his wife could do, you might have a point. She just used a word to describe how she felt. I’m pretty sure both were aware it wasn’t a legal thing“

No, it wasn't just how she felt. She spoke about the deed.
"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that."
If she'd said we shared our vows in private, that would be one thing. But she said we got married, no one knows that. That's a definite declaration that a secret marriage took place.

PM is at the extreme end of 'free speech' but its important to society to be able to challenge other people with out basically losing your life.

His job was to generate higher ratings for ITV’s breakfast show. He did this by acting as somewhat as an agent provocateur in relation to the current news stories - taking often contrary positions to others on the show and arguing for them vehemently. I can’t stand him, personally, but objectively speaking he had done his job very well. ITV’s ratings steadily climbed over his years on the show, and actually beat the BBC for the first time ever on the morning he walked out.

@Chicchicchicchiclana

OK then Derxa. Interviewers are also supposed to be impartial on British TV. Or had you not noticed? PM was using GMTV to broadcast the views that he should have kept to his Op Ed pieces in the Daily Fail.

He was hired to have controversial opinions. He expressed his opinions on the government, identity politics etc etc. You might not like the format of the programme but he was hired to carry out a particular role.

@Chicchicchicchiclana

I would have the same views if he carried out a sustained attack on anyone. My point is about the nature of his job.

He carried out a sustained attack on Boris Johnson. Is that OK?

@Chicchicchicchiclana

Of course you can criticise the Royal Family! He's a presenter on a national TV programme. Can you think of any other example of a personal vendetta being played out on TV like this? Please note that you don't know my virws about MM so don't do the lazy thing of thinking I support her.

I didn't make any comment on MM. You said he got above himself which means that he thinks he's better than he is. The inference is that in reality he is not important enough to criticise the Royal family and he should know his place. He worked on a news broadcaster. People supported him when he called Boris Johnson a liar and was never asked to resign. That's hardly staying neutral. Once that's been established, he's entitled to call anyone a liar. It's problematic because if you don't have the clout of MM to call the head of itv and complain - and be listened to -, how do you regain your good name if you believe you weren't lying. But that's free speech, I guess, and no one is above themselves to avail themselves of it.

@znaika

The marriage thing is immaterial, the point is, it sets a dangerous precedent for free speech if journalists get fired for questioning the integrity of the rich and powerful.

As to the big tech- watch every single thread that isn't sycophantic fawning about Meghan get derailed to be about Andrew or deleted by exactly the same posters- is something else at play here? I don't have a problem with her actually, but she should be scrutinised.

It's a dangerous tribalism that affects us all

Well said. This thread has been completely derailed by the ‘Did Meghan lie about the wedding or didn’t she?’ question - whereas it makes no difference whatsoever to the OFCOM ruling. Piers Morgan didn’t have to prove the Duchess of Sussex was a liar; the ruling doesn’t imply she is either. What OFCOM was investigating was whether Morgan breached any guidelines by saying that, in HIS view, she was lying. They ruled he didn’t - not that he was right and she was wrong.

The notion of Freedom of Speech have devolved from a tool for life saving through political and social causes to a mandatory charter for bullying, fascism and all round vile behaviour, not least from edgelord celebrities like Piers Morgan. The only people who whine or 'fight' for so called- freedom of speech in its current iteration are people who want to cause harm and the further and rapid downfall of civil society. We are nearing a stage where all verbal, harassment and bullying at any age, environmentor level will be written off as 'freedom of speech.' you are not prepared for the consequences of this.

the man says,what other people only think,have a huge amount of time for him

If the only ‘marriage’ that had taken place was the one in the garden then Meghan would not now be the duchess of Sussex unless there were two witnesses present which I’m not aware there were.

Meghan lied. I think it was the right decision that Ofcom made but I’m torn as I dislike Piers Morgan & his obsessive stalking of her.

@SailYourShips

Well done for the Catholics!

Next step might be getting rid of the ruling which precludes them from inheriting the throne-the only group who are disallowed.

I know it's a niche situation but the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes.

At the risk of further derailing, this isn’t quite accurate. Catholics are barred from the British throne because the monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If you don’t belong to that Church, you cannot govern it. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs may not be officially barred from the throne in the same way, but the likelihood is that this simply hasn’t come up. I think you’d find Charles was very quickly out of the line of succession if he converted to Islam.

@Demelza82
"The notion of Freedom of Speech have devolved from a tool for life saving through political and social causes to a mandatory charter for bullying"

Although I agree with the idea of what you're saying, the problem comes when you have to decide what is free speech and what is bullying. Who gets define it and who gets decide who can have or not have it aimed at them? I'm sure Putin has a clear idea of free speech and bullying. Free speech is criticising Alexei Navalny; bullying is criticising Vladimir Putin. Hence, people on social media get to vilify others in an unreasonable way but to stop them might mean silencing honest criticism at the same time.

He’s not “triggered” he’s just not putting up with her bullshit

Haha. He is absolutely OBSESSED with her.

She was advised not to be friends with a tabloid journalist when dating Prince Harry, which makes sense. Especially with his track record of lying.

She dropped him and he felt entitled to be her friend.

He is a pompous fuckwit.

Not triggered indeed.

It seems his life revolves around badmouthing her.

What abpathetic creep. Just because his ego was dented.

@Demelza82

The notion of Freedom of Speech have devolved from a tool for life saving through political and social causes to a mandatory charter for bullying, fascism and all round vile behaviour, not least from edgelord celebrities like Piers Morgan. The only people who whine or 'fight' for so called- freedom of speech in its current iteration are people who want to cause harm and the further and rapid downfall of civil society. We are nearing a stage where all verbal, harassment and bullying at any age, environmentor level will be written off as 'freedom of speech.' you are not prepared for the consequences of this.

This is bullshit. People were barred and videos removed from fb all of last year if they mentioned the virus having been to to with Wuhan laboratories. It was a banned thought. It was not allowed to be discussed. Thankfully members of the scientific community have broken rank to describe the structure of the virus and how the Wuhan theory is the most plausible. We are allowed to consume what Big Tech tell us. This is why people uncritically worship celebs and royals and get sucked in. Andrew is an arse and almost certainly guilty (IMO) but why are we talking about him and not Clinton? Big Tech.

@TeloMere

Lockheart You can be pleased with whatever you like, why do you need to ask if it's unreasonable?

Because I'm interested in others opinions of my unreasonableness/reasonableness of course .

This is a great comeback, OP

the issue is whether or not Meghan is or isn’t telling the truth

I thought it was more about whether Piers was entitled to say he didn't believe her?

FWIW I'm another who thinks he's a deluded fool, but even deluded fools are free to express their own opinions unless they constitute hate speech, incite violence, etc.

@FrankButchersDickieBow. She used Piers Morgan for his contacts, publicity, etc. When she no longer needed him, she dropped him. I can see 100% why from her point of view. But when you use people, it can have bad consequences. And now the consequence is that he will dump on her whenever he feels like it. He needs to make sure he doesn't break the law. She needs to make sure she treats people better. Maybe they deserve each other. 🤷

[quote Haywirecity]@FrankButchersDickieBow. She used Piers Morgan for his contacts, publicity, etc. When she no longer needed him, she dropped him. I can see 100% why from her point of view. But when you use people, it can have bad consequences. And now the consequence is that he will dump on her whenever he feels like it. He needs to make sure he doesn't break the law. She needs to make sure she treats people better. Maybe they deserve each other. 🤷[/quote]
And this seems to be repeated behaviour for how she treats people. There appears to be a list of people left behind once no longer useful.

@Serenster

His job was to generate higher ratings for ITV’s breakfast show. He did this by acting as somewhat as an agent provocateur in relation to the current news stories - taking often contrary positions to others on the show and arguing for them vehemently. I can’t stand him, personally, but objectively speaking he had done his job very well. ITV’s ratings steadily climbed over his years on the show, and actually beat the BBC for the first time ever on the morning he walked out.

This.

He was the Katie Hopkins of breakfast tv.

No, Haywirecity, you have misunderstood what I'm saying completely. I'll try one more time. IMO he got above his place as a mere presenter to use the privilige if his position to broadcast his PERSONAL views of Meghan to the nation. Not just once, but repeatedly. This is not what journalism is about. I will leave it there. Please don't tell me my opinion is wrong yet again - that is cancel culture.