Digital Spy have closed a lot of their forums and I suspect Tattle will now be getting an influx of people who used to post on there. Which is fine so long as they respect the ethos of this forum. Looking through your posting history and refusing to accept the opinions of others and posting long diatribes nitpicking everything others say is classic DS and I really hope the mods don’t allow that mentality to seep through here. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong in what you said either. You have a right to your opinion, they have a right to theirs. Accept it and move on.@JudithKuntz Wow. I mean you’re really reaching there and getting a little more angry than is really necessary. Why are you so upset about which forums I’m using? Why are you looking through my profile to see where I post the most? One of the main things about Tattle is that we can respectfully disagree without it getting personal.
I disagree with Piers Morgan and have made my view clear on that. You disagree with me. That’s okay. We’re not going to agree. But I really don’t think going into my profile and looking at what I post about or follow and calling me out for that is fair. This is a form of entertainment. We’re all here to entertain ourselves. Shouting at me because I don’t share exactly the same opinion as you, and then taking the conversation away from the actual topic and on to me personally and why I am here and what I am talking about is not what this website is for.
I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. But there is no reason for you to change the topic of conversation (Piers) and make it about me and my personal choices. I will not be saying anymore on this.
Please.@JudithKuntz Wow. I mean you’re really reaching there and getting a little more angry than is really necessary. Why are you so upset about which forums I’m using? Why are you looking through my profile to see where I post the most? One of the main things about Tattle is that we can respectfully disagree without it getting personal.
I disagree with Piers Morgan and have made my view clear on that. You disagree with me. That’s okay. We’re not going to agree. But I really don’t think going into my profile and looking at what I post about or follow and calling me out for that is fair. This is a form of entertainment. We’re all here to entertain ourselves. Shouting at me because I don’t share exactly the same opinion as you, and then taking the conversation away from the actual topic and on to me personally and why I am here and what I am talking about is not what this website is for.
I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. But there is no reason for you to change the topic of conversation (Piers) and make it about me and my personal choices. I will not be saying anymore on this.
And you did a fabulous job.Please.
A) I am not angry.
B) i have not looked at your profile. If you happen to have contributed to threads about the three people I named it’s coincidence. They are simply the best examples of threads on here I could think of.
C) I did not “get personal”. I addressed your previous post to me and highlighted your lack of understanding regarding free speech. I pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to censor opinions of Markle on a forum in which people are free to criticise “celebs”.
D) This isn’t a clash of competing opinions. It’s a clash of understanding what free speech means and not understanding what it means. That’s what I was addressing.
And I did a good job. When people can’t counter any point I’ve made & instead reduce themselves to ad hominem, I’ve scored.
Free speech matters - this forum wouldn’t exist without it. So excuse me for defending it.
I apologise if it seemed I was “getting personal” - I don’t know you from Adam. I was highlighting the flaws in your argument.
The world has reached a sorry state, if a supposed 'lived experience' is more important than the truth.His views affect the brand though. They can’t say they’re mental health ambassadors while having him sit there and accuse meghan of lying about being suicidal which is already so hard to talk about and has a massive stigma. Telling a woman of colour that her lived experiences of racism are lies because he has blind loyalty to the royal family isn’t just an opinion. Words have consequences. Sorry I’ll stop going on about meghan now!!
How do you know it's the truth? How does anyone know? He loved the Royal Family so much he hacked their phones for years ( including hacking Prince Harry's phone and printing lies about British servicemen in Iraq that put them at risk) I wonder which member of the Royal Family and army veteran could possibly have told his wife not to have anything to do with Morgan? Hmmm . PM loved Meghan before she told him to piss off. Hes on record salivating over her like some dirty uncle at a party. Why is what Meghan says lies just because Piers Morgan says so? It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that an archaic institution built on Empire and exclusively white and upper class has people who make racist comments among them. Some of it is well documented for a start!The world has reached a sorry state, if a supposed 'lived experience' is more important than the truth.
So many of the things in the 'interview' have already been proven to be lies. Why should anything she said be true? She and Harry can't even get their stories straight!How do you know it's the truth? How does anyone know? He loved the Royal Family so much he hacked their phones for years ( including hacking Prince Harry's phone and printing lies about British servicemen in Iraq that put them at risk) I wonder which member of the Royal Family and army veteran could possibly have told his wife not to have anything to do with Morgan? Hmmm . PM loved Meghan before she told him to piss off. Hes on record salivating over her like some dirty uncle at a party. Why is what Meghan says lies just because Piers Morgan says so? It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that an archaic institution built on Empire and exclusively white and upper class has people who make racist comments among them. Some of it is well documented for a start!
Of course as a society we don’t run on ‘lived experience’. That’s why we have courts and trials. But when a person of colour says that a member of a white upper class family who exist because of colonialism expressed a racist comment (as they have done in the past), I am going to believe them. Because 99.9% of the time, people of colour who share their stories about racism are telling the truth. Whether you think she’s fabricated the entire interview. Whether you despise the person or not, if they’re not white, they’ll have a story to tell. Realistically she can’t prove it because she’ll say it’s true and they’ll say it’s a lie. I find it absurd that we are taking a white man’s word for it that she’s lying though. And after the summer of BLM, it looks bad on itv to have someone sit there and deny her experiences of racism. I mean piers wasn’t going into the interview neutral anyway after she so cruelly and nastily.... didn’t text him back after they met once. So he was already hysterical from the get go.So many of the things in the 'interview' have already been proven to be lies. Why should anything she said be true? She and Harry can't even get their stories straight!
Ignoring Meghan Markle, we have to get away from 'lived experience' and 'his truth', 'her truth' etc focus on THE truth.
I would not be surprised if she had a restraining order against him, he is massively obsessed with her.Can you imagine if Piers ever got Meghan on Life Stories??
I couldn't give a shit about Piers Morgan, so I'm not taking 'a white man's word' for anything. I watched Meghan Markle say that a member of the Royal Family had several conversations about her child's skin colour whilst she was pregnant, and Harry say a conversation (that she was not party to) was had before they were married. It's clear enough to me that they can't even get their story straight, never mind anything else. Therefore, I'n NOT going to believe them.Of course as a society we don’t run on ‘lived experience’. That’s why we have courts and trials. But when a person of colour says that a member of a white upper class family who exist because of colonialism expressed a racist comment (as they have done in the past), I am going to believe them. Because 99.9% of the time, people of colour who share their stories about racism are telling the truth. Whether you think she’s fabricated the entire interview. Whether you despise the person or not, if they’re not white, they’ll have a story to tell. Realistically she can’t prove it because she’ll say it’s true and they’ll say it’s a lie. I find it absurd that we are taking a white man’s word for it that she’s lying though. And after the summer of BLM, it looks bad on itv to have someone sit there and deny her experiences of racism. I mean piers wasn’t going into the interview neutral anyway after she so cruelly and nastily.... didn’t text him back after they met once. So he was already hysterical from the get go.
The most obvious and recent example of that I can think of was Roxanne Pallett's accusations against Ryan Thomas in Big Brother. I actually think she believed what she was saying but it was absolutely wrong in every way. It could have easily destroyed Ryan Thomas if it hadn't been caught on camera for everyone to see. The way everyone was ready to believe her. The way they rallied around her. It made me sick at the time.The world has reached a sorry state, if a supposed 'lived experience' is more important than the truth.
Where does it stop? When a rapist or murderer's 'lived experience' is that the victim asked them to attack or murder them? What do we do then? Let them off scot free, because that's their 'lived experience' or do we seek the truth?
Bit off topic - I really do think that women like Roxanne who lie (and she obviously has some sort of mental problem for her to do it multiple times in the past too) are a minority in the grand scheme of things. Of course there will always be women who falsely accuse men of all sorts but most women don't lie so I don't think she should be used as an example of 'omg its so common for women to lie so lets not believe them unless they have video evidence of them being assaulted'. Nearly all women have had an inappropriate encounter with a man. Ask your friends who are of an ethnic minority if they've ever experienced racism and I'm sure the answer will be yes. Its just an everyday occurance unfortunately and its not inherently a bad thing to believe 'lived experience'. If you're taking something to court then there would need to be a substantial amount of evidence to prosecute of course. And even when people are ready to believe women, its usually followed up with 'ooh well were you wearing a low cut top or a short skirt?' There is some sort of anxiety that the majority of allegations are false when its quite the opposite - only around 4%. Thank fuck there were cameras because it would've been so awful for Ryan to lose his career over a lie and I'm not saying he doesn't matter or that Roxanne isn't disgusting but false allegations like that really aren't as common as we believe. I'm glad that she's lost her career over this of course.The most obvious and recent example of that I can think of was Roxanne Pallett's accusations against Ryan Thomas in Big Brother. I actually think she believed what she was saying but it was absolutely wrong in every way. It could have easily destroyed Ryan Thomas if it hadn't been caught on camera for everyone to see. The way everyone was ready to believe her. The way they rallied around her. It made me sick at the time.
Piers was absolutely right not to apologise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?