In what way is cancel culture like anything as awful as a deadly disease though because I really can't think of anyone who's unfairly been deplatformed. People will be offering Piers millions of pounds to quite literally have a very public platform. He was allowed to have his say YET AGAIN (as if he hasn't said enough) in a national newspaper. He can rant until his heart is content on social media. He could even make a youtube channel and argue with the camera if he wanted to. Voluntarily leaving his job because his colleague rightly called him out for denying Meghan experienced racism and denying she was suicidal isn't being cancelled. He is an ambassador for ITV and should've been sacked on the same day he made such idiotic comments about mental health. It was a privilege he was able to sit at that desk the next day and decide to quit. Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
Piers Morgan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Piers Morgan Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I agree with everything you’ve said. People are very quick nowadays to use the word “cancer” when describing a “bad” situation. This doesn’t sit right with me. People are dying every single day from this disease, and it shouldn’t be used because the poster has such a limited vocabulary.
It’s coming to something when even a footballer has to explain to Moron how using a stupid phrase like ‘man up’ to people with mental health problems is potentially damaging and has consequences 
Is it any wonder then that Moron didn’t learn a thing from that conversation with Collymore and reaped the consequences of his comments on the Markle interview, especially as she personally complained about it and the effects that it can have for others not being believed, when they’re suicidal. I’m no fan of Markle btw, I just think anyone can become negatively affected by this man up attitude sometimes, especially when it comes to mental health and suicide. Maybe he should have taken his own advice to man up instead of walking off on GMB, or man up and apologise for his comments, not to Markle necessarily but for other people who are suicidal being believed. Seems he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
Is it any wonder then that Moron didn’t learn a thing from that conversation with Collymore and reaped the consequences of his comments on the Markle interview, especially as she personally complained about it and the effects that it can have for others not being believed, when they’re suicidal. I’m no fan of Markle btw, I just think anyone can become negatively affected by this man up attitude sometimes, especially when it comes to mental health and suicide. Maybe he should have taken his own advice to man up instead of walking off on GMB, or man up and apologise for his comments, not to Markle necessarily but for other people who are suicidal being believed. Seems he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
Last edited:
Let’s be honest, the real reason Piers gets so wound up about “cancel culture” and “wokeness” is because he was a piece of tit journalist in the 80’s and 90’s (and still is honestly) who employed disgusting practices to get stories, used words and phrases that insulted and hurt millions of minority groups and created a media image for himself of being a nasty, gobby hole.
He’s terrified that if he shuts up long enough, people will remember to turn around and call him out on everything he’s done. He’s done more than enough to be deplatformed, yet he’s still one of the most talked about people in the UK.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Free speech works both ways. It is your right to give your opinion and it is my right to disagree. It is Piers’ right to mouth off on ITV every morning, but it is also Alex Beresford’s right to call him out on it. However, Piers also had a responsibility. He hosted one of the biggest shows in the country. What he said was heard by and broadcast to millions. What he says counts. Free speech is imperative to our society, but regulating journalists and the media in what is okay and not okay to publish or say is too. Saying you don’t believe someone was suicidal, or insisting on “proof” or “names” is incredibly harmful. You’re saying to every person who was or is considering taking their own life that they need to be able to prove it. That’s disgusting, point blank.
You can whine about snowflakes and wokeness and cancelling all you want Piers, but as soon as someone spoke back to you and refused to be shouted over by you, you ran off and couldn’t take it. Don’t pull the free speech card if you’re going to run off like Mo Farah when someone says something YOU don’t like.
He’s terrified that if he shuts up long enough, people will remember to turn around and call him out on everything he’s done. He’s done more than enough to be deplatformed, yet he’s still one of the most talked about people in the UK.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Free speech works both ways. It is your right to give your opinion and it is my right to disagree. It is Piers’ right to mouth off on ITV every morning, but it is also Alex Beresford’s right to call him out on it. However, Piers also had a responsibility. He hosted one of the biggest shows in the country. What he said was heard by and broadcast to millions. What he says counts. Free speech is imperative to our society, but regulating journalists and the media in what is okay and not okay to publish or say is too. Saying you don’t believe someone was suicidal, or insisting on “proof” or “names” is incredibly harmful. You’re saying to every person who was or is considering taking their own life that they need to be able to prove it. That’s disgusting, point blank.
You can whine about snowflakes and wokeness and cancelling all you want Piers, but as soon as someone spoke back to you and refused to be shouted over by you, you ran off and couldn’t take it. Don’t pull the free speech card if you’re going to run off like Mo Farah when someone says something YOU don’t like.
@Nottsgirl Totally agree with the above, I couldn’t have put it better 
He mentioned Alex because it was true. If Alex had sent a message he wouldn't have got a mention. He is still going to film Life Stories so any of the crew who dislike him should look for work somewhere else or grow a spine. Piers is the same in 2021 as he was when he first came in the public eye. He hasn't changed in the slightest so why did the apply for work on his show? They knew what he is like. I very much doubt over a thousand have worked on Life Stories it's a basic show filmed in a TV studio. GMB need him back to stop their ratings diving any lower and ITV need him back on GMB to increase their shares value back to what it was even two weeks ago.He’s just a whiney little witch, what a narcissist hates more than anything is to be ignored and it turns out Alex has completely ignored him since he left,So of course Morguegurn had to witch about Alex in The Daily Fail and single him out as the only one who didn’t contact him after he left,
Plus over a thousand freelance crew who worked on Life Stories signed a petition against the narc himself for his bullying behaviour, so I’m sure they’d be glad to see the back of him also. Well as Alex said previously, she (or he) has the right to ghost you if they want
No, he hasn't changed and should fully be held accountable for his actions. Why should they have him back just for the sake of ratings when the comments he made should be a sackable offence? And why does Alex owe him a message? I'm sure he couldn't care less. Why does Piers have immunity from everything yet the colleagues he allegedly bullied have to 'man up' to use his words. You're acting like its Piers' world and we just live in it. I for one hope he gets whats coming for his decades of misconduct though of course he won't.
You can’t think of anyone who’s been ‘unfairly’ deplatformed?
Well, that’s an interesting way to put it. People have been deplatformed, but you get to decide whether it’s fair or not. Right?
That, right there, is the problem. Summed up in your one sentence. One group of people using their imagined moral superiority to condemn others for saying things that they personally don’t want to hear or agree with. This is a shameful state of affairs in a 21st century democratic country that can only stay democratic if free speech remains unimpeded - the exact same freedom of speech and expression that allowed us to become democratic in the first place. And no....freedom of speech does not provide immunity from consequences. But those consequences ought to be dissenting argument from others who are also exercising their right to speak...not losing your job because you dared to express a view that others don’t share. Did Morgan break the law? No. So exactly why should he be sacked? (Which he wasn’t, btw, he resigned. GMB asked him to resign if he refused to apologise - which means they had no actual grounds to sack him).
Morgan didn’t actually deny Markle was the victim of racism - he wanted the evidence. What exactly is wrong with that? She and her gutless husband made a very serious accusation & didn’t feel even slightly inclined to provide any evidence whatsoever. Not only that, they didn’t even manage to get their stories straight. She says she was pregant when these “concerns’ were raised...he says they were still only dating. A MASSIVE discrepancy. We also know, as a matter of objective fact, that Archie is not a prince because he’s not entitled to be one yet so any decent person interested in the actual truth rather than Markle’s personal version of it would have to be skeptical - at least until they know the full story...which H&M have been very careful to make sure we can’t have. How convenient.
And regarding the mental health issue...Morgan was clear about what he meant. He acknowledged that only she can testify to her state of mind but it stops being HER truth the moment she involves other people...which she did in order to make yet another baseless, unsupported but very serious accusation against people she knows full well cannot actually defend themselves.
Morgan was suspicious of her claim as, frankly, most thinking people are. It would “look bad” for the institution if she received psychiatric help even though her husband has freely admitted on television that he’s been in therapy for years? Really? Even though the BRF have been determinedly and very publicly committed to breaking down the stigmas associated with mental health? And, let’s be frank...how much WORSE would it look for the institution if, having prevented her from receiving medical care that she is LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, the wife of the 6th in line to the throne, pregnant with the 7th, died at her own hand in one of their palaces? Never mind “looking bad for the institution“, that would finish it. That piece of inescapable logic is being ignored by everyone.
She lied about getting married three days before the wedding. She lied about the reason Archie doesn’t have a title. She lied about the reason he didn’t get security. She lied about KP not defending her from stories she considered inaccurate (the ”Kate cried” story actually says that KP vehemently denied it happened). She lied about holiday parties for the tabloids. She lied that BP left her unsupported (she had an entire team created just for her including the Queen’s own personal secretary who was due to retire). She lied about being denied her “voice” given that she made more speeches during her short tenure than almost any of them put together...not to mention guest edited Vogue in which she freely promoted her own political agenda (a seriously irregular thing for a representative of a monarchy that must always remain neutral to do). She lied about being told she wasn’t allowed out...as proven by her endless trips abroad (on a passport she pretended was taken from her, presumably). And on and on it goes.
And yet, in spite of these glaring lies and inconsistencies, you genuinely think that a commentator - paid to share his opinion - should be summarily sacked for voicing doubt?
Witch hunting was outlawed centuries ago. Even our more primitive ancestors finally figured out that accusing & convicting anyone of a crime without a fair and balanced investigation of the evidence is wrong. How desparately tragic that here we are again...the accustion is enough and the justification for this? Well, it’s “Meghan’s truth”. The fact that Meghan and the truth certainly appear to be uneasy bedfellows seems not to trouble her supporters at all. And that, in itself, is troubling.
Sharing experiences of racism and poor mental health is one thing. Making allegations of extreme wrong doing on the part of others while deliberately obfuscating the details so that they can’t be checked and then smugly sitting back and watching the reputations of your husband and child’s family sink into tit is something else altogether.
That is nasty. That is shameful. That is low and that is gutless.
But it’s fine with “the woke” so that’s OK.
JFC
Last edited:
I couldn’t have put it better myself!! @JudithKuntz
Likewise. Couldn’t agree more.
Going back to free speech and witch hunting and who can say what: if I work in Tesco, I have every right to walk into work and shout about how much I hate Malteasers and how everyone else should too. However, Tesco also have the right to watch the public reaction to me expressing my opinion and decide what my future at the company will look like. If I continually shout about how much I hate Malteasers and the public bite back and accuse me of spreading hate about Malteasers and I begin to do damage to Tesco’s brand, then Tesco are well within their rights to sack me. It’s their company and they have a right to protect it. I have a right to say what I want but my employer has a right to disagree with me and sanction me for it, ESPECIALLY if I’m doing it on company time in my uniform, as a representative of the company.
It’s not much different with ITV. I’m no Meghan fan, in fact I don’t give a toss about any of the family. This thread is about Piers and suddenly it’s become another Meghan bashing thread. Take Meghan out of the situation and it was a matter of time before Piers got sacked or was made quit. He was a representative of ITV, the host of one of their biggest shows. In the public’s eye, he represented what ITV stood for.
The key point in all of this that Piers fans seem to continually forget is YES Piers is entitled to his views and is entitled to say what he wants. But ITV are also entitled to sack him if those views are deemed to be affecting their brand. It’s the same for any company- and would be the same for any of us.
It’s not much different with ITV. I’m no Meghan fan, in fact I don’t give a toss about any of the family. This thread is about Piers and suddenly it’s become another Meghan bashing thread. Take Meghan out of the situation and it was a matter of time before Piers got sacked or was made quit. He was a representative of ITV, the host of one of their biggest shows. In the public’s eye, he represented what ITV stood for.
The key point in all of this that Piers fans seem to continually forget is YES Piers is entitled to his views and is entitled to say what he wants. But ITV are also entitled to sack him if those views are deemed to be affecting their brand. It’s the same for any company- and would be the same for any of us.
Very murky area around cancel culture and consequences for your behaviour it seems 
Why are you still repeating this rubbish?
Google "itv stock price" please. It fell from 126p to 121p when he left. It was 127p on Friday and it's 126p right now.
ITV do not need him back to increase their shares value back to what it was, it's exceeded that already!!
If you work at Tesco, you're employed to sell the Maltesers, not comment on them.
Piers was employed to give his opinion, and it's wrong of GMB to expect him to apologise for it!
I think he’s a grade A bleep. Happy to be opinionated about other situations, but such a hypocrite. Can’t stand him.
I’m still yet to know who the ‘woke brigade’, whatever that means, have unfairly and successfully cancelled.
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!!
Last edited:
Thank
Thankyou for putting so eloquently what I have been struggling to say. XYou can’t think of anyone who’s been ‘unfairly’ deplatformed?
Well, that’s an interesting way to put it. People have been deplatformed, but you get to decide whether it’s fair or not. Right?
That, right there, is the problem. Summed up in your one sentence. One group of people using their imagined moral superiority to condemn others for saying things that they personally don’t want to hear or agree with. This is a shameful state of affairs in a 21st century democratic country that can only stay democratic if free speech remains unimpeded - the exact same freedom of speech and expression that allowed us to become democratic in the first place. And no....freedom of speech does not provide immunity from consequences. But those consequences ought to be dissenting argument from others who are also exercising their right to speak...not losing your job because you dared to express a view that others don’t share. Did Morgan break the law? No. So exactly why should he be sacked? (Which he wasn’t, btw, he resigned. GMB asked him to resign if he refused to apologise - which means they had no actual grounds to sack him).
Morgan didn’t actually deny Markle was the victim of racism - he wanted the evidence. What exactly is wrong with that? She and her gutless husband made a very serious accusation & didn’t feel even slightly inclined to provide any evidence whatsoever. Not only that, they didn’t even manage to get their stories straight. She says she was pregant when these “concerns’ were raised...he says they were still only dating. A MASSIVE discrepancy. We also know, as a matter of objective fact, that Archie is not a prince because he’s not entitled to be one yet so any decent person interested in the actual truth rather than Markle’s personal version of it would have to be skeptical - at least until they know the full story...which H&M have been very careful to make sure we can’t have. How convenient.
And regarding the mental health issue...Morgan was clear about what he meant. He acknowledged that only she can testify to her state of mind but it stops being HER truth the moment she involves other people...which she did in order to make yet another baseless, unsupported but very serious accusation against people she knows full well cannot actually defend themselves.
Morgan was suspicious of her claim as, frankly, most thinking people are. It would “look bad” for the institution if she received psychiatric help even though her husband has freely admitted on television that he’s been in therapy for years? Really? Even though the BRF have been determinedly and very publicly committed to breaking down the stigmas associated with mental health? And, let’s be frank...how much WORSE would it look for the institution if, having prevented her from receiving medical care that she is LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, the wife of the 6th in line to the throne, pregnant with the 7th, died at her own hand in one of their palaces? Never mind “looking bad for the institution“, that would finish it. That piece of inescapable logic is being ignored by everyone.
She lied about getting married three days before the wedding. She lied about the reason Archie doesn’t have a title. She lied about the reason he didn’t get security. She lied about KP not defending her from stories she considered inaccurate (the ”Kate cried” story actually says that KP vehemently denied it happened). She lied about holiday parties for the tabloids. She lied that BP left her unsupported (she had an entire team created just for her including the Queen’s own personal secretary who was due to retire). She lied about being denied her “voice” given that she made more speeches during her short tenure than almost any of them put together...not to mention guest edited Vogue in which she freely promoted her own political agenda (a seriously irregular thing for a representative of a monarchy that must always remain neutral to do). She lied about being told she wasn’t allowed out...as proven by her endless trips abroad (on a passport she pretended was taken from her, presumably). And on and on it goes.
And yet, in spite of these glaring lies and inconsistencies, you genuinely think that a commentator - paid to share his opinion - should be summarily sacked for voicing doubt?
Witch hunting was outlawed centuries ago. Even our more primitive ancestors finally figured out that accusing & convicting anyone of a crime without a fair and balanced investigation of the evidence is wrong. How desparately tragic that here we are again...the accustion is enough and the justification for this? Well, it’s “Meghan’s truth”. The fact that Meghan and the truth certainly appear to be uneasy bedfellows seems not to trouble her supporters at all. And that, in itself, is troubling.
Sharing experiences of racism and poor mental health is one thing. Making allegations of extreme wrong doing on the part of others while deliberately obfuscating the details so that they can’t be checked and then smugly sitting back and watching the reputations of your husband and child’s family sink into tit is something else altogether.
That is nasty. That is shameful. That is low and that is gutless.
But it’s fine with “the woke” so that’s OK.
JFC
A well written post. I agree pretty much with all of it. Meghan lied about almost everything through the Oprah interview in the worst way using veiled accusations of fascism. She is a very toxic personYou can’t think of anyone who’s been ‘unfairly’ deplatformed?
Well, that’s an interesting way to put it. People have been deplatformed, but you get to decide whether it’s fair or not. Right?
That, right there, is the problem. Summed up in your one sentence. One group of people using their imagined moral superiority to condemn others for saying things that they personally don’t want to hear or agree with. This is a shameful state of affairs in a 21st century democratic country that can only stay democratic if free speech remains unimpeded - the exact same freedom of speech and expression that allowed us to become democratic in the first place. And no....freedom of speech does not provide immunity from consequences. But those consequences ought to be dissenting argument from others who are also exercising their right to speak...not losing your job because you dared to express a view that others don’t share. Did Morgan break the law? No. So exactly why should he be sacked? (Which he wasn’t, btw, he resigned. GMB asked him to resign if he refused to apologise - which means they had no actual grounds to sack him).
Morgan didn’t actually deny Markle was the victim of racism - he wanted the evidence. What exactly is wrong with that? She and her gutless husband made a very serious accusation & didn’t feel even slightly inclined to provide any evidence whatsoever. Not only that, they didn’t even manage to get their stories straight. She says she was pregant when these “concerns’ were raised...he says they were still only dating. A MASSIVE discrepancy. We also know, as a matter of objective fact, that Archie is not a prince because he’s not entitled to be one yet so any decent person interested in the actual truth rather than Markle’s personal version of it would have to be skeptical - at least until they know the full story...which H&M have been very careful to make sure we can’t have. How convenient.
And regarding the mental health issue...Morgan was clear about what he meant. He acknowledged that only she can testify to her state of mind but it stops being HER truth the moment she involves other people...which she did in order to make yet another baseless, unsupported but very serious accusation against people she knows full well cannot actually defend themselves.
Morgan was suspicious of her claim as, frankly, most thinking people are. It would “look bad” for the institution if she received psychiatric help even though her husband has freely admitted on television that he’s been in therapy for years? Really? Even though the BRF have been determinedly and very publicly committed to breaking down the stigmas associated with mental health? And, let’s be frank...how much WORSE would it look for the institution if, having prevented her from receiving medical care that she is LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, the wife of the 6th in line to the throne, pregnant with the 7th, died at her own hand in one of their palaces? Never mind “looking bad for the institution“, that would finish it. That piece of inescapable logic is being ignored by everyone.
She lied about getting married three days before the wedding. She lied about the reason Archie doesn’t have a title. She lied about the reason he didn’t get security. She lied about KP not defending her from stories she considered inaccurate (the ”Kate cried” story actually says that KP vehemently denied it happened). She lied about holiday parties for the tabloids. She lied that BP left her unsupported (she had an entire team created just for her including the Queen’s own personal secretary who was due to retire). She lied about being denied her “voice” given that she made more speeches during her short tenure than almost any of them put together...not to mention guest edited Vogue in which she freely promoted her own political agenda (a seriously irregular thing for a representative of a monarchy that must always remain neutral to do). She lied about being told she wasn’t allowed out...as proven by her endless trips abroad (on a passport she pretended was taken from her, presumably). And on and on it goes.
And yet, in spite of these glaring lies and inconsistencies, you genuinely think that a commentator - paid to share his opinion - should be summarily sacked for voicing doubt?
Witch hunting was outlawed centuries ago. Even our more primitive ancestors finally figured out that accusing & convicting anyone of a crime without a fair and balanced investigation of the evidence is wrong. How desparately tragic that here we are again...the accustion is enough and the justification for this? Well, it’s “Meghan’s truth”. The fact that Meghan and the truth certainly appear to be uneasy bedfellows seems not to trouble her supporters at all. And that, in itself, is troubling.
Sharing experiences of racism and poor mental health is one thing. Making allegations of extreme wrong doing on the part of others while deliberately obfuscating the details so that they can’t be checked and then smugly sitting back and watching the reputations of your husband and child’s family sink into tit is something else altogether.
That is nasty. That is shameful. That is low and that is gutless.
But it’s fine with “the woke” so that’s OK.
JFC
rascism not fascism. Typo
Last edited:
What is the latest on this one?
Could you stop making up your own facts, please.
Morgan wasn’t sacked. He resigned. It’s interesting to consider what would have happened had he refused to resign or apologise but since that didn’t happen we shall never know. Had he stood up, unzipped his pants and pissed all over Beresford he would not have been “asked to resign”....he’d have been sacked. So there’s a legal difference & in the context of this discussion it matters. They didn’t have the legal grounds to sack him & he broke no law.
Your Tesco/Malteser analogy is, frankly, absurd. If you behaved like that Tesco would sack you NOT for what you said but the fact that you walked around their supermarket shouting. I am pretty sure your dismissal notice would not have expressed outrage at your opinion of Maltesers but by your poor BEHAVIOUR of shouting at colleagues and customers.
A better analogy would be what would happen if you politely told every customer going through your till that Tesco was the worst supermarket chain ever and they’d be better off going to Sainsbury’s. If they sacked you for that, would they have violated your right to free expression? No - you would have violated the terms of your employment contract in which you have promised not to bring the company into disrepute....and that’s what you would have been sacked for. If you want to pit your right to free expression against their right to hold you to the terms of your employment contact then you would have to take them to a tribunal. That’s what courts and tribunals exist for...to arbitrate when the rights of individuals and/or companies come into conflict.
You misunderstand, quite severely & disastrously, what free speech actually means. The right to free expression of thoughts and ideas ends when it comes into conflict with a competing right that another holds. My right to swing my arm around ends the moment my fist comes into contact with someone’s nose. That persons right not to be physically damaged by my swinging arm is held to be of greater importance, for obvious reasons. In a similar way, my right to shout the word “fire” in a packed cinema - without justification - is in conflict with the rights of others not to be forced into being part of a panicked, possibly violent, stampede as people rush to escape.
In order to limit a freely held right we have to demonstrate real and measurable harm to another. No police officer could arrest me for swinging my arm around - they have to wait until I hurt another before they could do that. And so is the case with free speech - and this is the essence of hate laws. The N word is not illegal - no word is illegal - using it with the intent to cause distress is.
No one has the right not to be offended (where your feelings are hurt) and no one has the automatic right to be believed. No one. If you think they should have that right, are you in favour of dismantling the entire justice system, then? Should we be able to just make a complaint to the police and, without investigation, let alone a trial, the accused should be simply thrown in jail forever? End of story? I doubt you do think like that, so kindly explain why you think any other arena of life should work like that.
Markle did not sit in front of an audience of millions simply relating her experiences of racism and poor mental health. If that’s all she’d done Morgan would still be on GMB and I wouldn’t be writing this post. No. Markle made accusations. ACCUSATIONS. Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
She weaponised her supposed experiences of racism and suicidal ideation purely in order to cast aspersions on the characters of others. That is why she told those stories...to accuse, not to inform. And yet, according to you, the other people forming part of her “truth” have absolutely no right to respond at all. No right to expect other people to wait for further evidence before forming their judgements and no right to be defended. No...Markle played the race and mental health cards...and that’s all you need to hear. Never mind that her narrative makes no sense at all & is filled with demonstrable lies - her skin is one shade browner than most people in the UK therefore her word is gospel & anyone not immediately prostrating themselves before her sanctified “truth” is to be cancelled forthwith.
What you personallly think of Morgan is a matter of complete irrelevance..as is what I think of him. He did nothing wrong - not legally, morally, ethically or intellectually. He violated no one’s rights by voicing his opinion - not Markle’s, not yours, not anyone’s. Markle deliberately sought the biggest audience she could in order to provoke a reaction and she has absolutely no right to dictate what that reaction has to be. If people don’t believe her, that’s her tough luck..she simply has no right to expect people to believe her. And you have no right expecting that on her behalf....certainly not to the degree that you think someone should lose their job for voicing their thoughts.
Why do you use this forum exactly? Presumably because you agree with the ethos (as I do) that if someone seeks to monetise their private life or even just violate their own anonimity for IG likes, then to some degree they are fair game (within legal & ethical boundaries). They want to be discussed and so they are. Why, therefore, aren’t you on any of the other threads complaining about Mrs Hinch/Jameela Jamil/Jack Monroe “bashing”? What’s said on those threads is considerably worse than anything Morgan (or I) have said about Markle.
Markle is monetising her life, trading off her association with the BRF and using her entirely unearned platform to cause actual hurt to those she dislikes. If she was an influencer you’d be ripping her guts out, not demanding people be sacked for doubting her veracity.
So what’s the difference? There is none. So to use this forum, more than almost any other, to demand unearned respect for a “celeb” & violate the rights of others to voice an opinion is the absolute height of hypocrisy. It really, truly is. No one says you have to like, support or agree with Piers Morgan but the very fact that you think he should never be able to voice an opinion that you personally don’t share is considerably more arrogant than anything he has ever done.
- Status