"I find it very hard to feel sorry for you":Piers Morgan challenges Michalla McCollum

Ironicname

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

What exactly is the point in bringing her on only to insult her??

Her agent would have requested air time to promote her book. I'm glad to see a presenter not stick to the usual softball questions.

She wasn't insulted, she was pressed on her answers. The fact that she came across as an idiot was down to her answers, not because of the questions.

Effects

Effects wrote: »

He hacked a dead child's phone, for a start.

No he didn't.

Lantus

As a human I do feel sorry for her.

There are thousands of gullible Irish entering fake Facebook competitions every day for non existent lidl vouchers and holidays who post heart warming personell stories about relatives opening themselves to further scams.

You'd think people would know better. I'm still sympathetic. We need to enable people with critical thinking that questions everything.

B_ecke_r

B_ecke_r wrote: »

bit rich from someone who hacked a dead girl's voicemail, I know who i would rather see make a few quid between the two of them.

Does the fact that he didn't do that change your mind at all?

Dick_Swiveller

Ironicname wrote: »

Her agent would have requested air time to promote her book. I'm glad to see a presenter not stick to the usual softball questions.

She wasn't insulted, she was pressed on her answers. The fact that she came across as an idiot was down to her answers, not because of the questions.

Don't agree. He crossed a line and was giving his opinion on her behaviour rather than asking her any questions. The programme is just a platform for that idiot to grandstand and belittle those with whom he disagrees.

I'm not saying what she did was right, but she seems a decent enough person trying to make a bit of money for herself. What's wrong with that?

If people are willing to buy her book, can you blame her??

Eric Cartman

Lantus wrote: »

As a human I do feel sorry for her.

There are thousands of gullible Irish entering fake Facebook competitions every day for non existent lidl vouchers and holidays who post heart warming personell stories about relatives opening themselves to further scams.

You'd think people would know better. I'm still sympathetic. We need to enable people with critical thinking that questions everything.

This os drinking the koolaide that she peddled that it was her first time and she was tricked into it.

The quantity that she smuggled, her actions and the company she has kept after she got out both suggest that neither of those things are true.

tjhook

I'd generally be of the opinion that once somebody's paid their debt to society, that's it. And from the interview, she didn't exactly strike me as a deep thinker, so there could be a certain amount of sympathy for bad decisions taken.

Melissa Reid paid her price, and is presumably just getting on with life. I hope she can make something more of her life.

But I'm less than impressed by Michaella's self-promotion and attempts to cash in on her notoriety. She wants to spread "awareness"? Give me a break. Very few dim young ones will read her book, but they will see her glammed up, giving TV interviews and being promoted for her new book, following her crimes. It's the opposite of the message she claims she wants to spread.

And as for the term "The Peru Two" - It's a lousy attempt to create a parallel with the "Guildford Four" or "Birmingham six". You don't hear Fred and Rose West being called the "Gloucestershire Two".

Ironicname

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

Don't agree. He crossed a line and was giving his opinion on her behaviour rather than asking her any questions. The programme is just a platform for that idiot to grandstand and belittle those with whom he disagrees.

He asked her numerous questions that she couldn't answer.

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

I'm not saying what she did was right, but she seems a decent enough person trying to make a bit of money for herself. What's wrong with that?

She can come across as anything she wants to. The fact is, she is trying to profit from a very serious crime and she should be held to account for that by answering some tough questions.

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

If people are willing to buy her book, can you blame her??

That flies in the face of what you said above: if piers morgans audience watches him because he grandstands, can you blame him?

I have absolutely no issue with journalists and presenters asking difficult questions and bringing people to task for their actions.

I would actually regard that as important and we should have more people like him.

I'd take Piers Morgan's interview style over Ryan Tubridy or anyone else on national television.

Niallof9

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Ok, my mistake. Still, she made a big mistake and paid for it.

What right does that Morgan clown have to attack her like that? Is he an angel?

Also, how many of the lads here throwing abuse at her, and condemning her as "drug trafficking scum", take cocaine when they're on a night out?

Do they realise that they're contributing to cartel crime in South America because of their selfishness? It's very easy to judge others, eh?

she served three years of six. There's men and women rotting in peruvian prisons and other jails worldwide. She didn't really pay the price at all.

And now she's profting from it. If you defend her, and use the strawmen of other things you have to then apply the same principles to other law breaking individuals. its this sort of thinking in Ireland, and in the UK that has lads like Leon Wright walking about. Her age isn't a defence. She was 19 ffs, well old enough to understand law.

she's profited for breaking the law while most folk break their backs living within the law and doing our best to abide by them. Thats why loads of us have zero respect for this type of person.

Bob Harris

Bob Harris wrote: »

Richard & Judy he is not.

You say that as if it is a bad thing

tjhook

tjhook wrote: »

I'd generally be of the opinion that once somebody's paid their debt to society, that's it.

Ok. When the boys involved in the Anna Kriegel murder are released, would you be ok with them releasing a book which paints them in a sympathetic light and when doing the promotional rounds are not asked any questions which might offend or make them look bad?

As you said, the other girl is getting on with her life and that is fine. But if this woman wants to profit from her experience and willingly puts herself in the limelight, it is essential that she is not allowed to whitewash away the seriousness and the negativity of what she did

tjhook wrote: »

And as for the term "The Peru Two" - It's a lousy attempt to create a parallel with the "Guildford Four" or "Birmingham six". You don't hear Fred and Rose West being called the "Gloucestershire Two".

I feel that you are over thinking that. It'd be more likely to be used because it rhymes.

tjhook

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. When the boys involved in the Anna Kriegel murder are released, would you be ok with them releasing a book which paints them in a sympathetic light and when doing the promotional rounds are not asked any questions which might offend or make them look bad?

No, and that's the point I was making in the second half of my post. I don't see where we differ. I believe in second chances for people who regret their actions. The only regret I see here is somebody who regrets getting caught.

SAMTALK

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Piers Morgan is a gob****e. If I was McCollum I would've walked off.

His whole purpose when interviewing someone is to shine the spotlight firmly on himself. The guest can barely answer a question due to his abrasive, annoying style.

McCollum was 17 when she carried the drugs for the gang. A stupid thing to do? Of course, and I'm sure she regrets it.

What exactly is the point in bringing her on only to insult her??

I would imagine she was on to promote her book !

So you think Morgan should have said welcome home, silly mistake but sure let's move on and promote your book so you can make loads of money for yourself.

If she is willing to make herself well know then she has to accept she will be grilled by interviewers , and lets be honest she is only in it for the money because very few young ones will bother reading this book

She carried the drugs for the money and now is writing this for the money.

From listening to some of her interviews I don't think there is any remorse and I have a feeling she will be seen and heard for a while yet

tjhook

tjhook wrote: »

No, and that's the point I was making in the second half of my post. I don't see where we differ. I believe in second chances for people who regret their actions. The only regret I see here is somebody who regrets getting caught.

Sorry chief, I may have misrepresented your position there. Sincere apologies for that. I misunderstood.

Boggles

SAMTALK wrote: »

So you think Morgan should have said welcome home, silly mistake but sure let's move on and promote your book so you can make loads of money for yourself.

The same Morgan who recently smoked a joint with convicted rapist Mike Tyson on a podcast love in essentially making him money.

Glaring hypocrisy aside. He is a an absolute cretin.

LoughNeagh2017

I forgot about that girl, she is the same age as me I think. Where does the time go? Our youths flashed before our eyes not that I got to experience the joys that other men got to experience, the joys of beautiful women, the joys of partying and the joys of brick laying in Australia. One could say I had the youth of a priest without the privilege of becoming a pillar of the community at the end of it. The incel existence.

JupiterKid

I have little time or respect for Piers Morgan but he is spot on in his appraisal of Michaella McCollum.

This convicted criminal really should not be granted any more publicity.

Dick_Swiveller

How many of those attacking McCollum have taken cocaine on a night out? If you have, you are directly contributing to murder, misery and violence inflicted on people in South America.

Isn't it so easy to judge others from your high horse, isn't it?

Hypocrites.

Ironicname

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

How many of those attacking McCollum have taken cocaine on a night out? If you have, you are directly contributing to murder, misery and violence inflicted on people in South America.

I suppose if you have ever shopped in Penney's you can't have an opinion on sweatshops. If you laughed at the hangover movie, you can't be against rape. If you pay your licence fee to the BBC, you can't have an opinion on paedophelia.

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

Isn't it so easy to judge others from your high horse, isn't it?

I take it you approve of Michaela McCollum's press junket so and feel that she shouldn't be judged on her past actions or made feel bad about what she did?

Dick_Swiveller wrote:

Hypocrites.

Look in the mirror.

FrancieBrady

Ironicname wrote: »

I suppose if you have ever shopped in Penney's you can't have an opinion on sweatshops.

Well if you continue to buy the product knowing who made it, you would be a hypocrite if you were giving out about sweatshops.

If you laughed at the hangover movie, you can't be against rape.

Seriously, who 'laughs' about rape?

If you pay your licence fee to the BBC, you can't have an opinion on paedophelia.

That's the type of analogy I would expect from a 5 yr old in trouble.

I take it you approve of Michaela McCollum's press junket so and feel that she shouldn't be judged on her past actions or made feel bad about what she did?

She has been judged on her past actions and got punished for them. If you don't approve of her right to making a living for herself, either use that remote and don't buy the book. You don't have 'rights' to any other actions, thankfully.

Ironicname

FrancieBrady wrote:

She has been judged on her past actions and got punished for them. If you don't approve of her right to making a living for herself, either use that remote and don't buy the book. You don't have 'rights' to any other actions, thankfully.

I have no intention of buying her book.

I have no issue with her writing a book.

The only issue I have is that people like yourself don't feel like a journalist or television presenter have a "right" to call her out and she should be allowed promote her book with no tough questions.

Thankfully I and everyone else do have a right to hold her to account for her actions and ask her questions that may make her feel uncomfortable.

If she wants to use the media for promotion, she needs to be aware that the media can be a dual edged sword. You can't complain about your dirty laundry being aired when you are the one putting yourself back in the public eye.

FrancieBrady

Ironicname wrote: »

I have no intention of buying her book.

I have no issue with her writing a book.

The only issue I have is that people like yourself don't feel like a journalist or television presenter have a "right" to call her out and she should be allowed promote her book with no tough questions.

Thankfully I and everyone else do have a right to hold her to account for her actions and ask her questions that may make her feel uncomfortable.

If she wants to use the media for promotion, she needs to be aware that the media can be a dual edged sword. You can't complain about your dirty laundry being aired when you are the one putting yourself back in the public eye.

Well at no point did I try to remove 'rights' from a presenter.

I said it earlier, neither the presenter or guest will be unhappy about the 'interview' (such as it was).

Seems to me, the only people 'unhappy' are those busting a gut to moral indignation.

statesaver

Piers is dead right.