Piers Morgan

[RingoMcCartney]

My favourite part of this is that Ringo has edited it twice and is still wrong.

Swizzlestick made a single post .

It made no attempt to counter or offer an alternative viewpoint to any points made by Damo , Jacub or myself.

He played the men not the ball. I was correct.

Enjoy your Ferrero Rochers!

[Jakubclaret]

Swizzlestick made a single post .

It made no attempt to counter or offer an alternative viewpoint to any points made by Damo , Jacub or myself.

He played the men not the ball. I was correct.

Enjoy your Ferrero Rochers!

That’s quite a common theme with some posters, no efforts are made to engage or offer alternative viewpoints & debate, it’s jump in, throw some derogatory insults about, belittle & ridicule & disappear again until the next thread emerges & repeat mode is activated, the poster you mentioned/quoted is always at it.

[Beaver]

Missing him already. Alex has a very large chip on his shoulder

[Firthy]

Anybody know what happened to the Piers Morgan thread ??

[Jakubclaret]

anybody who seriously entertains the idea that diana was assassinated has shyte for brains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1 ... wcoates459

No other ideas or theories apart from that insightful input.

[claretblue]

I don’t know much about her but a quick search puts the Wedding on 12th October with the announcement on the 15th October?

pregnant pause!

[evensteadiereddie]

Swizzlestick made a single post .

It made no attempt to counter or offer an alternative viewpoint to any points made by Damo , Jacub or myself.

He played the men not the ball. I was correct.

Enjoy your Ferrero Rochers!

Phew, he got the joke eventually. Not sure what the "ambassadorial" stuff was meant to be - other than yet another mistake - but the penny finally dropped.

[IanMcL]

It is all very sad. I do feel for the young man. However, he has proved to be gullible.
Just right for the Army - could achieve great rank!

What Ms Markle doesn't understand is that this is the British Constitution she is trying to upset.
State Church. Head of state - King or Queen. Head of Church King or Queen.

However, we do not have a country run by the monarch. The monarch has to comply with the state and the Church.
The role is to sign the laws and have tea with Arch of Canterbury (not to be confused with Arch Sussex)

Don't mess with the state - you won't come out well.

Edward told he 'had to' abdicate. Princess Margaret told she could not marry Group Capt Townsend.

Diana of Wales? Who knows.
I watched the British House of Cards!
Anything is possible.

If you stop being Royal, then your titles are no longer applicable and your privileges are gone. Your children are just ordinary, like the rest of us. You have no purpose!

If they returned and started to serve again, then it is very likely that titles would be bestowed on the children.

You can't have Royals not complying with the system! They cease to be Royals. They belong to the state. The price of privilege.

[bfcjg]

pregnant pause!

FFS hasn't pregnancy caused enough trouble ?

[Wile E Coyote]

its all a stinking soap opera for the morons . to see the likes of sharon osbourne and lorraine kelly dragging this puerile story around is a sad indictement of where we are as a society.

[Jakubclaret]

The tin foil hat wearers will never believe it was an accident.

https://youtu.be/uU77QhJSkYY
That’s quite interesting & raises some points.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://youtu.be/uU77QhJSkYY
That’s quite interesting & raises some points.

I won't waste my time watching it.

I remember the accident, I was actually up chatting to a mate that night when the accident was reported on the news.
I've never believed the conspiracy theories, nor will I ever believe them.

[Damo]

I always wonder what the people at the top table are getting away with while the proles fawn over Piers Morgan, Harry and Liz.
So long as they have football to worry about. Or something shiny to park outside their neighbours property, or have their bloated bellies rubbed by the the television salesmen, then they won't notice a thing

[evensteadiereddie]

[Devils_Advocate]

I always wonder what the people at the top table are getting away with while the proles fawn over Piers Morgan, Harry and Liz.
So long as they have football to worry about. Or something shiny to park outside their neighbours property, or have their bloated bellies rubbed by the the television salesmen, then they won't notice a thing

Very true, its how the rich stay in power and get the rest of us to accept it. Set us up against each other and let us fight amongst ourselves whilst those in their big houses from their privileged backgrounds get away with all sorts of corruption and immoral and unlawful behaviour.

A revolution is what we need Damo, storm the palace and parliament

[Zlatan]

This is like one of those "I'm not racist, but" comments.

I don’t understand your point in reference to the balanced viewpoint I posted, please explain. Thanks

I always wonder what the people at the top table are getting away with while the proles fawn over Piers Morgan, Harry and Liz.
So long as they have football to worry about. Or something shiny to park outside their neighbours property, or have their bloated bellies rubbed by the the television salesmen, then they won't notice a thing

I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer my query, thanks.

[evensteadiereddie]

That’s quite a common theme with some posters, no efforts are made to engage or offer alternative viewpoints & debate, it’s jump in, throw some derogatory insults about, belittle & ridicule & disappear again until the next thread emerges & repeat mode is activated, the poster you mentioned/quoted is always at it.

I can't agree with that and, to be fair, Swizzle's post was hardly a derogatory insult, belittling nor ridiculing and there's no evidence of this occurring elsewhere. I think you might be misunderstanding the concept of debate where somebody challenges a poster's thoughts fairly and the poster is sometimes not able to justify or explain their original thinking and feels a little embarrassed by that.

Either way, it's good that you're always on the lookout for such stuff. I guess there are a few options : if you find real evidence of the stuff you claim to have seen, report it to the mods or, if you can't find any, let us all carry on as usual or - as a last resort - find another board.

The first option is the best in my opinion.

UTC

[Jakubclaret]

I can't agree with that and, to be fair, Swizzle's post was hardly a derogatory insult, belittling nor ridiculing and there's no evidence of this occurring elsewhere. I think you might be misunderstanding the concept of debate where somebody challenges a poster's thoughts fairly and the poster is sometimes not able to justify or explain their original thinking and feels a little embarrassed by that.

Either way, it's good that you're always on the lookout for such stuff. I guess there are a few options : if you find real evidence of the stuff you claim to have seen, report it to the mods or, if you can't find any, let us all carry on as usual or - as a last resort - find another board.

The first option is the best in my opinion.

UTC

That’s hardly surprising, you would find an argument in a empty room, I don’t need to cause trouble or report anything to the mods I can either ignore or block which I do frequently, telling tales & reporting everything I disagree with to the mods is frankly childish, I know I’m a grown adult, the earlier quoted post was nasty & left no scope for further debate so I simply ignored as I will be ignoring you from now on, I’m too long in the tooth for this kind of caper arguing with random strangers at the drop of a hat, have a good day.

[aggi]

So, let's get this straight. If you don't appreciate the Monarchy, you're left-wing. If you do, you're right-wing ?

Mmmmmm...

I guess there is some truth in that. The traditional role of the Labour party is a more equal redistribution of wealth, the traditional role of the Conservative party is to ensure that those who are currently the richest stay the richest.

On that basis you can see where support for the royal family is likely to come from.

[Boss Hogg]

Not sure there’s much truth in that. Plenty of people on both sides like the monarchy and there are plenty on both sides that don’t. I don’t fit what you are suggesting.

[evensteadiereddie]

That’s hardly surprising, you would find an argument in a empty room, I don’t need to cause trouble or report anything to the mods I can either ignore or block which I do frequently, telling tales & reporting everything I disagree with to the mods is frankly childish, I know I’m a grown adult, the earlier quoted post was nasty & left no scope for further debate so I simply ignored as I will be ignoring you from now on, I’m too long in the tooth for this kind of caper arguing with random strangers at the drop of a hat, have a good day.

Wow, that's a truly astonishing and quite alarming response. The advice was harmless and well-intentioned, I'm sorry you've chosen to take offence..

Anyhoo....I hope your day improves.

A Newcastle defeat might help.


UTC

[elwaclaret]

A little light research into the British constitution proves most of her claims are half truths at best. The child will become a Prince as Grandchild to Prince Charles just being the quickest to dispel.

But it has done what it was intended to do, cause a stink which guarantees her future as a celeb in America. Job done.

[aggi]

Not sure there’s much truth in that. Plenty of people on both sides like the monarchy and there are plenty on both sides that don’t. I don’t fit what you are suggesting.

Agreed there will be plenty of exceptions. More just how, from an ideological viewpoint, you can see why thoughts on them would differ.

[Colburn_Claret]

Agreed there will be plenty of exceptions. More just how, from an ideological viewpoint, you can see why thoughts on them would differ.

Historically the Labour Party/Socialists, were never anti monarchy. If you have no Queen, then there's no Earls, Dukes, Counts, Barons, Knights or Lords.
How many ex Labour MPs have been knighted or ennobled to the house of Lords.
There's strong arguments for getting rid of the second house, which I'd agree with overall, but this anti Monarchist stance by the Labour Party today, is purely left wing, momentum, Corbynist driven.
Therein lies the problem they have, they stopped representing their supporters, and started representing themselves. By being anti Royalist they might garner a few votes, but they could lose an awful lot more.

Was the questions raised by Starmer driven by a search for the truth, or a political stunt to harass the monarchy?
The answer to that depends on how you view them both. You know how I feel without asking, and as I said in an earlier post, it would be a shame to have this thread pulled for the sake of another political nuclear fallout

[elwaclaret]

The Hanoverian line have plenty to answer for, the George’s set the tone, pigs in the trough.
However George V and Edward VIII did us great service through the war. Now with a constitutional monarchy they serve a duel purpose... they can under extreme circumstances refuse to accept a PM’s request for law changes or refuse to grant permission to use the armed forces.... both great failsafe measures for democracy.

The current queen has been the standout British Royal not just in longevity but also as a figurehead. For me the next republican crisis will come with a change of monarch.

[aggi]

Historically the Labour Party/Socialists, were never anti monarchy. If you have no Queen, then there's no Earls, Dukes, Counts, Barons, Knights or Lords.
How many ex Labour MPs have been knighted or ennobled to the house of Lords.
There's strong arguments for getting rid of the second house, which I'd agree with overall, but this anti Monarchist stance by the Labour Party today, is purely left wing, momentum, Corbynist driven.
Therein lies the problem they have, they stopped representing their supporters, and started representing themselves. By being anti Royalist they might garner a few votes, but they could lose an awful lot more.

Was the questions raised by Starmer driven by a search for the truth, or a political stunt to harass the monarchy?
The answer to that depends on how you view them both. You know how I feel without asking, and as I said in an earlier post, it would be a shame to have this thread pulled for the sake of another political nuclear fallout

I know Corbyn is the bogey man but the labour party have had a long history of prominent republicans. Tony Benn is the obvious in more recent years and Keir Hardie wasn't much of a fan of the royal family either.

Anyway, back to Piers Morgan, a man who was so respectful of this country's institutions that he published faked pictures of the military during a war.

[Colburn_Claret]

I know Corbyn is the bogey man but the labour party have had a long history of prominent republicans. Tony Benn is the obvious in more recent years and Keir Hardie wasn't much of a fan of the royal family either.

Anyway, back to Piers Morgan, a man who was so respectful of this country's institutions that he published faked pictures of the military during a war.

I accept that Aggi, and whilst I disagreed with Tony Benn on the royal issue, he's actually someone I respected and liked. But whilst the Labour Party has always had its left wingers it is only in these last few years that they ever got the power and steered the ship on the course they wanted to go. People would be more accepting of a Party the supported the crown, despite carrying a few objectors, than a Party that stood on the platform of ending the Monarchy.

[tim_noone]

Smoke Screen.

[elwaclaret]

I know Corbyn is the bogey man but the labour party have had a long history of prominent republicans. Tony Benn is the obvious in more recent years and Keir Hardie wasn't much of a fan of the royal family either.

Anyway, back to Piers Morgan, a man who was so respectful of this country's institutions that he published faked pictures of the military during a war.

Shows how fec’d the system became that traditional Labour paper hired Morgan in the first place. The main thing that has ever stopped me becoming a republican, despite my Painite views IS the system we run. It might not be much but at least there is someone to balance the complete lack of empathy shown too often from the toffs in Parliament who have no idea of what the people of the country face day to day either... family, university Westminister and repeat. Cartwright wanted a return to pre-Norman folkmoots and hundreds in the early 1800’s... I still think it was as good a call as the Norman method that still dominates our lives.

[Damo]

I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer my query, thanks.

Apologies. I've already contributed far more to the thread than I wanted to, given the subject. And I've quickly nipped in and out without reading most of the replies (im currently snowed under with work)
Reading back, you post was well balanced (Naive in my opinion maybe. There have been plenty of examples of the mob not letting go of historical thought crimes) and my sharp response was incorrect and uncalled for.
I was wrong in my reply, and I'm sorry

[Zlatan]

Apologies. I've already contributed far more to the thread than I wanted to, given the subject. And I've quickly nipped in and out without reading most of the replies (im currently snowed under with work)
Reading back, you post was well balanced (Naive in my opinion maybe. There have been plenty of examples of the mob not letting go of historical thought crimes) and my sharp response was incorrect and uncalled for.
I was wrong in my reply, and I'm sorry

Thank Damo, I appreciate the explanation. No need to apologise though.

[Damo]

Thank Damo, I appreciate the explanation. No need to apologise though.

Thanks pal

[houseboy]

Your view is one shared by many, especially on the left. Only I don't think any of you appreciate the sacrifice the Queen and others in the household make. You say it's a life of luxury, and on the face of it, it is, but if you accept the responsibility it becomes more a gilded prison. Make no bones about it, we may be her subjects, but she serves this country, and the commonwealth. We all work 40 hour weeks if we're lucky with 5 or 6 weeks holiday. When not at work we can do whatever takes our fancy. They don't choose the time or place of their work. Protocols, and the government dictate it. They live under a spotlight, that very rarely gets turned off, even when they get a holiday. If that's luxury I suggest you try it.
All the left can see is the money, and the palaces and the cars, they can never see or grasp the sacrifices, the work, and the benefits they bring this country. I'm sure you're looking forward to retirement, the Queen is 94 and still going strong. None of the rest of her household will retire at 66 either. Its a life sentence. She's free to abdicate, as her family are free to quit, just like Harry, but they don't because of a sense of duty. That's another idiom the left will never grasp.

You’re right bud I don’t understand the sacrifice, because I don’t believe there is one. Yes, politically I am a left winger, but my view of the royals isn’t coloured by that. Even when I was young and non political I could never understand why an accident if birth gives you so much privilege. I would swap life styles in a heartbeat because they have no worries. You talk of responsibility and you are right but with the amount of privilege and the money they still receive (despite unbelievable wealth) they should expect nothing else. I genuinely and honestly do not understand the devotion given to these people. These thoughts don’t come from political beliefs or jealousy but simply a genuine lack of understanding why many of the general public still put up with this anachronistic institution.
Please take my comments at face value and certainly not as a personal attack on your beliefs, which are your own and you have a right to.

[Jimmymaccer]

Really!?

[Colburn_Claret]

You’re right bud I don’t understand the sacrifice, because I don’t believe there is one. Yes, politically I am a left winger, but my view of the royals isn’t coloured by that. Even when I was young and non political I could never understand why an accident if birth gives you so much privilege. I would swap life styles in a heartbeat because they have no worries. You talk of responsibility and you are right but with the amount of privilege and the money they still receive (despite unbelievable wealth) they should expect nothing else. I genuinely and honestly do not understand the devotion given to these people. These thoughts don’t come from political beliefs or jealousy but simply a genuine lack of understanding why many of the general public still put up with this anachronistic institution.
Please take my comments at face value and certainly not as a personal attack on your beliefs, which are your own and you have a right to.

I'm not taking issue with you HB or anyone else, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I would argue with you saying they have no worries, because you're confusing no monetary worries, with real worries, this weeks spectacle only the latest example of the stresses HM has to contend with.

[Devils_Advocate]

God bless the Royal Family and say no to inbreeding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhQygzcw9eY

[houseboy]

I'm not taking issue with you HB or anyone else, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I would argue with you saying they have no worries, because you're confusing no monetary worries, with real worries, this weeks spectacle only the latest example of the stresses HM has to contend with.

I completely agree with your last point, they after all still human.

[RingoMcCartney]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ke-Up.html

Piers Morgan celebrates as his book 'Wake Up' about war on free speech tops Amazon best seller list as broadcaster says he is 'touched' by support.

Meanwhile...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 15666.html

ITV lost £300m in market value after Piers Morgan’s departure from Good Morning Britain

Broadcaster’s share price falls 6.5% hours after Good Morning Britain host quits breakfast programme

GMB viewing figures fell by 80,000 the day after Morgan left.






Go woke, go broke.

[nil_desperandum]

People would be more accepting of a Party the supported the crown, despite carrying a few objectors, than a Party that stood on the platform of ending the Monarchy.

Genuine question: Has that ever been a part of their manifesto? I'm not aware that it has, unless it was back in the very early days of the party when it was much more left wing.

[Colburn_Claret]

Genuine question: Has that ever been a part of their manifesto? I'm not aware that it has, unless it was back in the very early days of the party when it was much more left wing.

Deduced from Corbyns well known stance, and Starmers insistence on their being an investigation into Markles claims.
He'd be better off investigating the shenanigans in East and West Ham.
I don't think the question of the Monarchy has ever been a political or Social issue. Many Labour supporters also support the Monarchy. It's just that recent LP leaders, have failed to represent their traditional voters.
Since Labour gave up trying to represent working class man, and decided to be the Party of the oppressed gays, ethnic minorities and especially migrants, how long will it be before it might be on the manifesto. When you garner your votes from migrants that have no history or understanding of the Monarchy, then it would be far easier to mislead them on the benefits of losing HM.
Not suggesting I'm quoting facts, just my opinion.

[nil_desperandum]

Deduced from Corbyns well known stance, and Starmers insistence on their being an investigation into Markles claims.
He'd be better off investigating the shenanigans in East and West Ham.
I don't think the question of the Monarchy has ever been a political or Social issue. Many Labour supporters also support the Monarchy. It's just that recent LP leaders, have failed to represent their traditional voters.
Since Labour gave up trying to represent working class man, and decided to be the Party of the oppressed gays, ethnic minorities and especially migrants, how long will it be before it might be on the manifesto. When you garner your votes from migrants that have no history or understanding of the Monarchy, then it would be far easier to mislead them on the benefits of losing HM.
Not suggesting I'm quoting facts, just my opinion.

So the shorter answer to my question is, that it has never been in the Labour manifesto to abolish the monarchy, and I can't imagine it ever being unless it is clear from opinion polls that the public are overwhelmingly in favour of abolition.
The only Labour leaders (so far as I'm aware) to hold some Republican beliefs were Keir Hardie, George Lansbury, Michael Foot and Corbyn, and none of them were serious candidates for, or became PM.
Blair and Brown did more to restore the reputation of the Monarchy than most PMs of the modern era, and ironically, (from what I read), it was a Conservative PM who perhaps had the least comfortable relationship with the Queen. (Mrs T).

[Damo]

Even when I was young and non political I could never understand why an accident if birth gives you so much privilege. I would swap life styles in a heartbeat because they have no worries.

Wanting the state to pay for everything and control your life suggests you were quite left wing from when you were young

[houseboy]

Wanting the state to pay for everything and control your life suggests you were quite left wing from when you were young

Ha ha nice one. Suffice to say the only thing I ever got from the state was my pension. Now because I still work and also have a private pension I pay more tax than Amazon.

[aggi]

I accept that Aggi, and whilst I disagreed with Tony Benn on the royal issue, he's actually someone I respected and liked. But whilst the Labour Party has always had its left wingers it is only in these last few years that they ever got the power and steered the ship on the course they wanted to go. People would be more accepting of a Party the supported the crown, despite carrying a few objectors, than a Party that stood on the platform of ending the Monarchy.

I suspect many wouldn't really care either way. I don't think there's a huge amount of support for abolishing the monarchy but, particularly in the under 40s, there's not a huge amount of support for keeping them either.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Saw this on fb today and agree with every word.

I see you, Piers Morgan.
I see your petulant snarl, arms folded, cheeks puffed out like a constipated baby. It was always going to come to this, wasn’t it? You’ve been allowed to feast on whatever controversy you've desired for years now. You've overindulged yourself, becoming bloated and unstoppable. It finally got to the point where nobody at ITV was strong enough to pick you up and burp you any more. They created a monster, feeding the fragile ego of a bullying hack and professional narcissist, building the hollow legend of a parasitical blowhard who’s always vastly overestimated his own cultural importance. You became the epitome of everything that’s wrong with outrage punditry and social media; the traffic is all that counts, and the casualties crushed under its wheels mean nothing.

It’s been distinctly unnerving to find myself agreeing with you every now and then over the last couple of years, as the targets of your tantrumming sideshow act occasionally lined up with my own. Thankfully it only ever took five minutes, each and every time, before you’d revert to type and once again reveal your true nature. All the attacks on a dishonest and incompetent government were quickly balanced out by whatever pivot you’d then make to some other imaginary clickbait nonsense. Every time you verged on developing some actual integrity you’d undermine it, proving definitively that you’ve never had more actual substance than a wet tissue full of mucus. You’re a professional button-pusher; it was inevitable that in your manufactured fits of righteous temper, even you would occasionally prod the right ones. Even a stroppy cock is right twice a day.

As much as I’d love to declare your departure from GMB as some kind of victory, I suspect it’s anything but. You’ve spent years proving yourself as the most buoyant turd in the cesspit, and I see no reason to expect anything less than another resurgence. There’s a bidding war for your ‘talents’ going on even now between GB News and Murdoch. The future of the British press is a nightmare written in ****, where impartiality is recast as leftwing bias, peaceful protests are violent displays of Marxist extremism, and anything other than a slavish commitment to the rightwing narrative is ‘cancel culture.’ Even after everything that’s happened this week the future career of a pathetically fragile man - whose aggressive hatred of Meghan Markle is born solely out of her polite rejection of him - is being fought over like prize gammon by the two mangiest dogs in the fight.

It’s no wonder that your ego can’t handle rejection, Piers Morgan. You’ve mistaken the zeroes you can add to a broadcaster’s profit margins simply by stirring the pot as a yardstick for genuine charisma. The suggestion that a woman could meet you for a drink, and then want nothing more to do with you, is incomprehensible when viewed through the distortions of that particular prism. You got on fabulously, you insist. What you mean is that you talked at Meghan Markle for three hours and then she went home, having quietly decided that she’d rather feed herself feet-first into an industrial lathe than tolerate your company ever again. The projection in your insults at her is so tangible that we can practically taste the bitterness of it all. She’s a ‘social climber?’ Really? True or not, that’s a rich tea biscuit coming from a man who’s spent so many years sucking up to the false idols of modern celebrity that his cat’s arsehole of a mouth has physically inverted.

Nothing ever changes. Day becomes night, night becomes day, and Piers Morgan cycles between his twin roles of champion of free expression and tedious, bullying hack. The rollercoaster is all part of the act, as carefully engineered as any other, maximising clicks and revenue and engorging your bank balance ever further. I’ve no doubt that you’ll come out of this latest controversy as the frontman of whichever propaganda network emerges on top.

That’s the biggest and most grotesque irony in all of this. That it’s actually perfectly permissible to scream oppression and then use that narrative as a foundation to build a profitable media brand for yourself.

You’ve just got to be a middle-aged white man and a total, weapons-grade, copper-bottomed bellend for it to work. That’s the only piece of the puzzle Meghan Markle was missing.

[Volvoclaret]

So huw, are you a fan of his or not?