Piers Morgan

[evensteadiereddie]

So, Grumps, who was the "someone from the education dept" whose role it was to inform parents about the back to school arrangements ? Williamson, I assume.
He was asked a simple qustion about Hancock's illegal behaviour and another, I believe, about the nurses' pay cut. Williamson took so long to bluster and dodge, choosing to avoid simple questions on straightforward issues rather than doing his job. Details of what was happening in schools were given, they were readily available but, yes, this rare insight into a Minister's incompetence and deviousness was certainly an example of an interviewer, in this case Morgan, taking and keeping control of matters and doing well. Extremely well, Williamson nearly shat himself oncehe realised he'd been done.
Compare that to the easy ride Williamson was allowed to have on Sunday's "Andrew Marr Show".
Two different interviewers. Two different approaches. Two different outcomes.

By the way, this is not political, I'm past caring - I'm pointing out that sometimes, just sometimes, the abrasive, no-nonsense approach of a determined interviewer will get you and the audience the answers or the reaction you're looking for.

[Grumps]

So, Grumps, who was the "someone from the education dept" whose role it was to inform parents about the back to school arrangements ? Williamson, I assume.
He was asked a simple qustion about Hancock's illegal behaviour and another, I believe, about the nurses' pay cut. Williamson took so long to bluster and dodge, choosing to avoid simple questions on straightforward issues rather than doing his job. Details of what was happening in schools were given, they were readily available but, yes, this rare insight into a Minister's incompetence and deviousness was certainly an example of an interviewer, in this case Morgan, taking and keeping control of matters and doing well. Extremely well, Williamson nearly shat himself oncehe realised he'd been done.
Compare that to the easy ride Williamson was allowed to have on Sunday's "Andrew Marr Show".
Two different interviewers. Two different approaches. Two different outcomes.

I said someone because I don't know their name, but it wasn't gavin Williamson... I know who he is.

[evensteadiereddie]

OK.

[Darthlaw]

Good post from Rileybobs.

I think the difficult element for some to believe Megan and Harry is because of how they have presented it. There is seemingly very little in their self awareness.

To explain your pressures and struggles with mental health and suicidal thoughts would and should demand sympathy from all but complete dregs of society. That is categorical and undeniable.

I don't believe for a second she's lied about those pressures, however when is presented amongst the following, you're going to find little empathy from the audience and certainly questions raised about her honesty.

Meghan didn't know about the Royal Family - Really? REALLY? She knew Eugenie but didn't know about the pomp around the royals?

We want a quiet life - So we moved to one of the most high profile cities in the USA, signed a £100m netflix deal, organised a podcast and had a worldwide broadcasted interview with one of the most recognised journalists around.

I can't believe they withdrew Archie's security - We've handed back our titles and will not perform duties of the Royal family but still want the benefits. Now we're going to have to use some of the $15m inheritance money to pay for it ourselves.

Can you imagine that Megan would want to 'improve her brand' by making this move? - No surprise that folk think it's fairly conceivable that supporting actress in a TV show, whos film credits include 'UPS delivery girl' in Horrible Bosses, would seek to raise their profile.

As per the usual in these jeremy Kyle style family squabbles, there will be M & H's version, The Royal's version and the truth will be somewhere between.

It does give society something else to be poles apart on, though...

[Jakubclaret]

I wouldn't say all but clearly more than you will ever manage - with the exception of playing the burning martyr.


I don't know why you've made this personal but just to be clear ; I like Morgan attacking glib politicians and, for what it's worth, despise the freak show that is the Royal Family.That's about it. I think M and H have done well to leave them all to it.

Others on here will support the Royal Family no matter what, good for them.

You carry on Eddie making the same mistakes in life & never learn from them & 1 day you’ll look back & know good old Jakub was right & why didn’t I listen to him.

[CaptJohn]

Because non-football related discussion has not been banned. This isn’t political.

I disagree and cannot understand why this is allowed whilst the topic of Covid vaccinations is not and was stamped upon at the outset.

[Rileybobs]

I disagree and cannot understand why this is allowed whilst the topic of Covid vaccinations is not and was stamped upon at the outset.

This thread is about a TV presenter and a couple of celebrities. It has nothing to do with the topics of Politics or COVID which as you know are not permitted on here. Why are you trying to get a harmless discussion pulled?

[Jakubclaret]

I disagree and cannot understand why this is allowed whilst the topic of Covid vaccinations is not and was stamped upon at the outset.

That’s precisely the point, everything in life is interrelated in some shape or form, I wanted to start a thread the other day wishing Nigel farage a happy life outside of politics but I didn’t, because it would be connected politically when technically it wasn’t, Covid is pretty much dictating large parts of our lives we’ve never really experienced before so keeping that in isolation isn’t easy.

[karatekid]

The thread is about 3 very insignificant individuals and it’s a slow news day football wise.

[Firthy]

Don't particularly like the man but I do agree with his sentiments.

A very odious couple who wanted a quiet life away from the media set up a staged interview to gain sympathy and notoriety.

I am personally disgusted that they felt the need to air this in public rather than do it privately. Regardless of your opinion of the royals the Queen does not deserve this and it shouldn't be in the public domain.

Harry was happy to use his Royal status to to support the Invictus games which I truly respect him for because it was an amazing achievement. But he has turned his back on his family and allowed himself to be dragged into the gutter by a self centered, attention seeking partner. They both knew what the outcome of the interview would be with all the media attention.

[Aclaret]

The thread is about 3 very insignificant individuals and it’s a slow news day football wise.

The Arrogant, the Actress and the Duped.

[Dyched]

Anyone in Harrys position would have done the same. In Royal Family terms he’s surplus to requirements. He’s not needed. His mother knew that from the second he was born. He then went on to lose his mother at a very young age in quite similar circumstances. What I mean by this is his mother was a string independent woman that stood up for what she believed in. She was an outsider just like Meghan. He was then forced to grieve in public with billions of people around the world watching. He wasn’t gonna stand by and watch the same happen to the second most important woman in his life.

[Billy Balfour]

People sure lead dull lives if they are getting het up by a couple giving a TV interview and a angry man jacking his job in.

[Sproggy]

I think Morgan had a point on the day he walked out. Of the two accusations of racism, one (Archie isn't titled) is answered by existing protocol and it's hard to see how they wouldn't know that between them. The second is an accusation based on a 2nd hand conversation without context, evidence or a name. The best thing they can do is to give that additional clarity. Who are they accusing of racism because at the moment they've managed to (unfairly) tar the entire institution?

On the mental health side, Harry admitted in 2017 that he'd (very privately) been to grief counselling and was roundly congratulated for going public with it. It's hard to go from that to him cradling his suicidal wife in his arms and coming up with the only possible solution being a conversation with the palace HR department. They have unlimited money, access to the best in any profession, a history of maintaining privacy and (like them or not) they experience pressures that most of us will never understand so a response of "we don't do that, because it will make us look bad" just doesn't make sense.

The whole thing looks stage managed, but I doubt that they intended to kick up this much of a ****storm.

As someone above said, the truth will sit somewhere in the middle of the two camps but we're only ever going to get one side of the argument.

[Tribesmen]

100% plank i must say .

[Lowbankclaret]

Good post from Rileybobs.

I think the difficult element for some to believe Megan and Harry is because of how they have presented it. There is seemingly very little in their self awareness.

To explain your pressures and struggles with mental health and suicidal thoughts would and should demand sympathy from all but complete dregs of society. That is categorical and undeniable.

I don't believe for a second she's lied about those pressures, however when is presented amongst the following, you're going to find little empathy from the audience and certainly questions raised about her honesty.

Meghan didn't know about the Royal Family - Really? REALLY? She knew Eugenie but didn't know about the pomp around the royals?

We want a quiet life - So we moved to one of the most high profile cities in the USA, signed a £100m netflix deal, organised a podcast and had a worldwide broadcasted interview with one of the most recognised journalists around.

I can't believe they withdrew Archie's security - We've handed back our titles and will not perform duties of the Royal family but still want the benefits. Now we're going to have to use some of the $15m inheritance money to pay for it ourselves.

Can you imagine that Megan would want to 'improve her brand' by making this move? - No surprise that folk think it's fairly conceivable that supporting actress in a TV show, whos film credits include 'UPS delivery girl' in Horrible Bosses, would seek to raise their profile.

As per the usual in these jeremy Kyle style family squabbles, there will be M & H's version, The Royal's version and the truth will be somewhere between.

It does give society something else to be poles apart on, though...

I have read a lot on this now.
Archie did not get a title because it’s outside of the rules, created around 1917 apparently.

Archie got protection as part of the family protection of serving royals. The family protection was removed with titles when they stepped back from royal life.

Apparently when Prince Charles takes the throne, Archie would then get a Prince title within the rules and then get the protection a Prince is allowed.

That’s how I understand the position.

[ClaretDiver]

That's how I understand it too Lowbank

[arise_sir_charge]

Nonsense, arise.
The quieter journos you mention ask a question, receive no real answer just vague, well-rehearsed waffle. The journos ask the same question and get a similar reply. The journos then move on.
At least Morgan broke it down to the simplest questions - the ones most of us would actually like to ask and ones that only the guilty or incompetent or both - can dodge.

Do you regret acting illegally, yes or no ?
Do you think clapping for nurses was/is an adequate replacement for a nurse's decent pay rise, yes or no ?
And so on.

See that’s where we will fundamentally disagree then. I think Neil and Maitlis get the crux of the matter and know the detail.

As for asking questions like “ Do you think clapping for nurses was/is an adequate replacement for a nurse's decent pay rise, yes or no ?” to me that is just ridiculous and a waste of a question. Has any politician said it is, is any ever likely to agree it is.....no.

When people are asked about the pay rise and give coherent and logical answers it’s not what the public want to hear. That’s where a shouty bloke talking over the politician appeals to some, but not to me.

On the subject of acting illegally, all the answers I have seen in that regard stack up. Yes we did, yes we are sorry, would we do it again in the circumstances, yes we probably would. That seems fair enough to me. Again sadly that doesn’t always wash with the public.

[Lowbankclaret]

I know the thread is about Mr Morgan, who I find entertaining and irritating in equal measure. But I believe you need someone prepared to hold a different view to the populous, he just goes about it in the wrong way.
Megan’s step sister has released written and photographic evidence that prove one claim of Megan’s is a large exaggeration. She said they had not been together for 20 years, she produced a photo from 13 years ago.
The other that she changed her name back to Markle when she met Harry. The evidence shows that to be a fabricated story, she released the documents that prove she changed her first name in 1997 and in fact her Surname had never changed.

The claim of a wedding of 3 days before has put the Church and Archbishop right and royally in the poo.

[Volvoclaret]

A Prince born to a narcissistic manipulator, marries similar, end of.

[Grumps]

I have read a lot on this now.
Archie did not get a title because it’s outside of the rules, created around 1917 apparently.

Archie got protection as part of the family protection of serving royals. The family protection was removed with titles when they stepped back from royal life.

Apparently when Prince Charles takes the throne, Archie would then get a Prince title within the rules and then get the protection a Prince is allowed.

That’s how I understand the position.

I think that's pretty spot on..

[dermotdermot]

I suppose that they've forfeited poor little Archie's chance of receiving his title now. Such a shame.

[Zlatan]

funny thread on Twitter...

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status ... 5907693575

[Murger]

Meghan will dump Harry as soon as she's bored. It seems to be a common trait. Dumps friends and family, and now Harry's done the same.

[evensteadiereddie]

You carry on Eddie making the same mistakes in life & never learn from them & 1 day you’ll look back & know good old Jakub was right & why didn’t I listen to him.

What the hell are you talking about, Jakub ?

I know you've embarrassed yourself again with two posters having to ask you to explain what your comments actually meant and I'm sorry about that but there's no need for the personal stuff.

I'm assuming this is you disguising yet another climbdown by angling to get the thread closed which is a pity because the thread and its diversity of opinion is pretty interesting.

A shame you can't hack anybody questioning your thoughts without playing the "victim" card but there you go.

Stick to the topic being discussed, eh ? There's a good lad.

Anyway, moving on....

[LeadBelly]

I don't watch any morning TV and don't much like PM (or "shock jockeys" in general) + he's an Arsenal fan. However, he's got a valid point that H&M may well be just playing victim and telling a few fibs to get sympathy (as above, quite a few statements in the interview have already been debunked) and he has a right to tell it as he sees it. A big % of UK population (maybe a majority) sees it the same.

He'll come out of it all Ok anyway, easily get some other media job and probably become more popular whilst GMB loses audience.

[dermotdermot]

As for the bogus account of a secret marriage three days before, it just doesn't tally. They state that there were just three people in attendance. There would have had to have witnesses. A balanced interview would have had the interviewer point this out.
So we have an inaccurate slant on the title situation and a suspect account of an extra marriage ceremony for a start. This leads you to believe that perhaps one or two or three other stories are similarly open to question.
I also don't go along with the exclamations of horror at the interest in how the offspring would look. Whatever was said doesn't have to constitute being a 'racist' remark. It will, of course, be jumped on by the BLM movement but it is quite normal for anyone to speculate, in any mixed raced marriage circumstance, on what the babies would look like, be it Anglo Japanese, French Mongolian or whatever.
I, along with Piers Morgan, cannot bring myself to believe a word either of them say. This whole supposedly sordid affair should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[evensteadiereddie]

"I also don't go along with the exclamations of horror at the interest in how the offspring would look. Whatever was said doesn't have to constitute being a 'racist' remark. It will, of course, be jumped on by the BLM movement but it is quite normal for anyone to speculate, in any mixed raced marriage circumstance, on what the babies would look like, be it Anglo Japanese, French Mongolian or whatever."

Come off it, dermot.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Which football team does he play for?

[dermotdermot]

‘Come off it, Dermot’.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you obviously think this to be ‘racist’.

[Dike Muff]

A hacker of murdered schoolgirl’s answerphones. The fact that he could continue with Media work after this is a terrible reflection of our Society’s moral fibre.

[Jakubclaret]

What the hell are you talking about, Jakub ?

I know you've embarrassed yourself again with two posters having to ask you to explain what your comments actually meant and I'm sorry about that but there's no need for the personal stuff.

I'm assuming this is you disguising yet another climbdown by angling to get the thread closed which is a pity because the thread and its diversity of opinion is pretty interesting.

A shame you can't hack anybody questioning your thoughts without playing the "victim" card but there you go.

Stick to the topic being discussed, eh ? There's a good lad.

Anyway, moving on....

Why on earth Eddie would anybody intentionally set out to instigate a thread removal? Not me wrong bloke, I’m trying to discuss this in a sensible manner, we are meant to be adults & capable of debating points in a adult manner.

[evensteadiereddie]

Indeed, you need to try it.

Just cut out the need to play the martyr every time you're challenged and you'll be fine, I'm sure.

[evensteadiereddie]

‘Come off it, Dermot’.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you obviously think this to be ‘racist’.

Why would anybody in their right mind ask a pregnant woman what shade of colour her baby is likely to be ? Why would it matter ?

[Jakubclaret]

Why would anybody in their right mind ask a pregnant woman what shade of colour her baby is likely to be ? Why would it matter ?

How do we know anybody did? We’ve got MM word only that’s what happened & that’s doubtful!

[Grumps]

Why would anybody in their right mind ask a pregnant woman what shade of colour her baby is likely to be ? Why would it matter ?

They didn't....

[Rileybobs]

How do we know anybody did? We’ve got MM word only that’s what happened & that’s doubtful!

We've not actually. It was Harry who was party to a conversation about the appearance of the baby. Not sure why he'd feel the need to lie about that.

[Stayingup]

I'm only surprised a few more haven't walked off from these snide Gotcha interviews that are all the go now. Well done him. Too many interviewers ask questions and then butt in before an aswer is given. They're useless many of them.

[Stayingup]

We've not actually. It was Harry who was party to a conversation about the appearance of the baby. Not sure why he'd feel the need to lie about that.

Harry said nothing on this matter in interview. Did you notice?

[Damo]

It baffles me how many people give a toss about royals, ex royals and Piers Morgan.
I can only assume lockdown has completely ruined people's minds, the amount of people who still seem to have nothing better to talk about than this topic.

Put your rain coats on and go and get some fresh air or something

[Jakubclaret]

We've not actually. It was Harry who was party to a conversation about the appearance of the baby. Not sure why he'd feel the need to lie about that.

It’s irrelevant what Harry said or didn’t say, he’s far too emotionally attached so no credence can be given, Harry’s like a puppet on strings & MM is the 1 in charge.

[Zlatan]

Why would anybody in their right mind ask a pregnant woman what shade of colour her baby is likely to be ? Why would it matter ?

It can be argued that similar question regarding hair or eye colour etc can and are often asked without any offence probably on a daily basis. Of course, I can understand why skin colour could cause offence if not handled in a sensitive manner, which it appears is the case. I can formulate scenarios where it could have been handled sensitively and with decorum, however I'll finish the commenting here as it ventures into banned topics.

[Rileybobs]

Harry said nothing on this matter in interview. Did you notice?

He didn't say nothing. He addressed the question and said that he wasn't going to disclose anything further about the incident. Which to me strongly suggests that comments were made but he's unwilling to throw the family member in question under the bus, which is completely understandable.

[arise_sir_charge]

As said above nobody did ask that question of Meghan and has also said above we speculate daily on baby’s sex, eye colour, hair colour and even skin tone. The whole thing is heavily reliant on context to determine whether it was appropriate or inappropriate. That’s what Oprah should have asked but she either didn’t think or chose not to.

[Grumps]

He didn't say nothing. He addressed the question and said that he wasn't going to disclose anything further about the incident. Which to me strongly suggests that comments were made but he's unwilling to throw the family member in question under the bus, which is completely understandable.

I thought he'd already thrown a very close family member under the bus with several comments during the interview

[evensteadiereddie]

We're talking about the racist comment and Harry's reaction to it.................

[Grumps]

We're talking about the racist comment and Harry's reaction to it.................

Wow... I didn't realise that, thanks for telling us

[Rileybobs]

I thought he'd already thrown a very close family member under the bus with several comments during the interview

Who do you mean?

[evensteadiereddie]

"Wow... I didn't realise that, thanks for telling us"..............


No problem, Grumps - you seem confused. Why change tack and refer to other parts of Harry's interview ?

It should be interesting to see what examples of Harry throwing members of the family under the bus you can find.............

Point is, he didn't want to name names regarding the racist - or at best moronic - comment about the baby's skin colour. His prerogative.

[Grumps]

Who do you mean?

There was only one person he accused of breaking contact, and taking a lot of work to get any relationship back, suggesting to me something major had happened.... Might just be me putting 2 and 2 together and making 8