Piers Morgan cancelled.

wes

GMB have huge ethical problems imo, letting him talk about Meghan at all, considering his personal enmity towards her, due to her rejecting him. The fact GMB allowed him to harass her like this is a huge problem. Does the British media have any kind of standard of ethics? How could they allow a jilted man to harass a woman for years on air?

The whole cancel culture stuff is just nonsense to distract from the fact that a man was allowed to use the media to harass a woman who rejected him. The more I think about what happened, the worse it is.

There is something really rotten with British media.

MrStuffins

wes wrote: »

GMB have huge ethical problems imo, letting him talk about Meghan at all, considering his personal enmity towards her, due to her rejecting him. The fact GMB allowed him to harass her like this is a huge problem. Does the British media have any kind of standard of ethics? How could they allow a jilted man to harass a woman for years on air?

The whole cancel culture stuff is just nonsense to distract from the fact that a man was allowed to use the media to harass a woman who rejected him. The more I think about what happened, the worse it is.

There is something really rotten with British media.

This is a guy who orchestrated, contributed to and bragged about illegal phone hacking while he was the editor or two of the biggest tabloids in the country.

A phone hacking practice that included hacking into the voicemail of a recently murdered schoolgirl so that they could get the scoop on some of the gory details of her murder ahead of other papers.

But I guess me thinking that's wrong makes me "woke" somehow?

The man is absolute scum!

strandroad

wes wrote: »

GMB have huge ethical problems imo, letting him talk about Meghan at all, considering his personal enmity towards her, due to her rejecting him. The fact GMB allowed him to harass her like this is a huge problem. Does the British media have any kind of standard of ethics? How could they allow a jilted man to harass a woman for years on air?

The whole cancel culture stuff is just nonsense to distract from the fact that a man was allowed to use the media to harass a woman who rejected him. The more I think about what happened, the worse it is.

There is something really rotten with British media.

Imagine if Eamon Dunphy met Amy Hubermann socially just before she met Brian O'Driscoll, and if she didn't stay in touch because she didn't feel like it. Then if Dunphy went on to drag her in every gig he had on rugby, and in fact generated hundreds of columns and tweets solely about her and her perceived character, with other media following his lead and inviting him to spout off at every opportunity. Years and years of that.

It's pure stalker harassment, and it's crazy how Morgan is still getting away with it, with millions of fans loving what he does. That's UK media for you.

wes

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is a guy who orchestrated, contributed to and bragged about illegal phone hacking while he was the editor or two of the biggest tabloids in the country.

A phone hacking practice that included hacking into the voicemail of a recently murdered schoolgirl so that they could get the scoop on some of the gory details of her murder ahead of other papers.

But I guess me thinking that's wrong makes me "woke" somehow?

The man is absolute scum!

It is bizarre that so much wrong doing is being defended on the basis of a hatred of "woke", which is a term I doubt those using it as a pejorative could provide any kind of definition, beyond something they don't like.

Far too many people are willing to support any kind of horror, on the basis that those who are right wing should never suffer any consequences for the nasty **** they do, be it racism, criminality, or terrorism etc.

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is a guy who orchestrated, contributed to and bragged about illegal phone hacking while he was the editor or two of the biggest tabloids in the country.

A phone hacking practice that included hacking into the voicemail of a recently murdered schoolgirl so that they could get the scoop on some of the gory details of her murder ahead of other papers.

But I guess me thinking that's wrong makes me "woke" somehow?

The man is absolute scum!

Wrong paper. For all his faults, he wasn't involved in that one.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-piers-morgan-boast-about-phone-hacking

MrStuffins

wes wrote: »

It is bizarre that so much wrong doing is being defended on the basis of a hatred of "woke", which is a term I doubt those using it as a pejorative could provide any kind of definition, beyond something they don't like.

Far too many people are willing to support any kind of horror, on the basis that those who are right wing should never suffer any consequences for the nasty **** they do, be it racism, criminality, or terrorism etc.

To these people "woke" just means anything they disagree with.

It's a catch-all term that they can use and be applauded by like-minded individuals who have no idea what they're saying either.

Like the poster before claiming that to be against a vendetta of constant harassment by an individual on National TV, in the press and on social media based on the fact that a lady didn't want to have a relationship with the guy is considered "woke"

It's alarming!

anewme

wes wrote: »

GMB have huge ethical problems imo, letting him talk about Meghan at all, considering his personal enmity towards her, due to her rejecting him. The fact GMB allowed him to harass her like this is a huge problem. Does the British media have any kind of standard of ethics? How could they allow a jilted man to harass a woman for years on

There is something really rotten with British media.

Well, in news out, shes taken on ITV in allowing his comments on her mental health.

Gregor Samsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Wrong paper. For all his faults, he wasn't involved in that one.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-piers-morgan-boast-about-phone-hacking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal#Daily_Mirror_allegations

On 22 July, former Daily Mirror financial journalist James Hipwell spoke to The Independent, claiming that the practice had been "endemic" at the Mirror during his time there under the editorship of Piers Morgan.

"They would call a celebrity with one phone and when it was answered they would then hang up. . . . After they'd hacked into someone's mobile, they'd delete the message so another paper couldn't get the story. There was great hilarity about it."

Sandor Clegane

The irony of Morgan complaining about peoples right to free speech and people not wanting others to say anything back is astounding, the man just ran off and quit his job because someone exercised there right to free speech and told him some things he didn't want to hear.

The man is literally the definition of what he himself criticizes :pac:

SHOVELLER

He is their equivalent of dunphy. An overpaid mouth. Empty vessels make the most noise.

fryup

but that's his job to air his views, he's a social commentator...personally speaking i've no problem with the man, there's far more annoying people on TV

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Most peopled would be fired that did the same in work

He wasn't Most because he are Best.

NeuralNetwork

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

I bet this is just a PR stunt for his rumoured, impending launch on the British counterpart to Fox News that’s due to launch soon “GB News” - their first delve into tabloid television.

And there we go:

“Andrew Neil would be ‘delighted’ to talk to Piers Morgan about GB News role”

https://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/andrew-neil-would-be-delighted-to-talk-to-piers-morgan-about-gb-news-role-1094147.html

I cannot understand how the women either side of him ever stayed as long as they have, he cuts them off and they stand there blushing and awkward like giggling 1980's top of the pops groupies.

He cut his teeth in a salacious industry that demands, encourages and rewards tactics that would make J Edgar hoover seem boring. He evolved and elevated his own status and standing in celebrity and society, getting into hot tubs with the most vile of people it would seem...and yet people think putting him on panel shows, soap boxes and morning TV was going to bring out the best in the recalcitrant ****!!!

Only 44K
citizens of Britain was not happy about his work ?
From silly 67 millions ????
And that was the point to let him go ?
Seriously ?
He did his job perfectly if only 44K was not happy about it !

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Only 44K
citizens of Britain was not happy about his work ?
From silly 67 millions ????
And that was the point to let him go ?
Seriously ?
He did his job perfectly if only 44K was not happy about it !

Are you ali g ? or just as bad with grammer as Morgan was/is with ethics...:D yo me as got 44 kay sayz peeeers is well rotten init...

MrStuffins

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only 44K
citizens of Britain was not happy about his work ?
From silly 67 millions ????
And that was the point to let him go ?
Seriously ?
He did his job perfectly if only 44K was not happy about it !

He resigned

stefanovich

MrStuffins wrote: »

He left.

Hardly cancelled!

Edit: good to see him get a slap! C*nt of the highest order!

He left after a conversation with management. He was cancelled they just let him quit instead of firing him.

He said he valued freedom of speech more than his job.

What’s wrong with people having a different opinion? I thought himself and Reid balanced each other out quite well.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only 44K
citizens of Britain was not happy about his work ?
From silly 67 millions ????
And that was the point to let him go ?
Seriously ?
He did his job perfectly if only 44K was not happy about it !

I’d say it was 10 angry communists with a script.

Dempo1

Ghastly, hidious individual but he's not wrong when it comes to the Duchess

gmisk

stefanovich wrote: »

He left after a conversation with management. He was cancelled they just let him quit instead of firing him.

He said he valued freedom of speech more than his job.

What’s wrong with people having a different opinion? I thought himself and Reid balanced each other out quite well.

"Himself and Reid balanced each other out quite well"
He never shut up she barely spoke...perfect balance....lol

Good riddance to him.... no doubt he will pop up on that new right wing news channel.

Junkyard Tom

It's getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between consequences-for-being-a-bastard with being 'cancelled'.

Strumms

Zaph wrote: »

That guy did what every right thinking person wished they could do - he put Piers Morgan in his place, and did so in a calm, rational manner. I'm not sure what you were watching, but the rest of us saw a bully being called out on his bullsh*t and not being able to take it.

I’m sure what I’m watching It’s... a debate, on a tv show. One person trying to shoutout or shut down and disable another’s persons ability to air a view, opinion etc in that context and setting isn’t in the public interest... isn’t very democratic...isn’t very pro free speech... you can think what you like about Morgan, I’m no fan but it doesn’t make the individual being referenced blameless in that moment.... let Morgan have his say and enable people to have their opinion of him.

It’s all very well calling out Morgan as whatever but that doesn’t grant a hall pass to the mouthpiece... he is there to carry out a function on tv... to enable the interest and enjoyment of the public...that show... had I been watching I’d be turning off.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between consequences-for-being-a-bastard with being 'cancelled'.

Well that just proves that anyone you think is a bastard is being cancelled

MrStuffins

stefanovich wrote: »

He was cancelled they just let him quit instead of firing him.

Walking off in a huff because someone rightfully called you out on your creepy behaviour, straight out of the Harvey Weinstein handbook, is not being "cancelled".

He said he valued freedom of speech more than his job.

He was free to speak. He chose to storm off, have a cry, and then resign in embarrassment.

MrStuffins

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between consequences-for-being-a-bastard with being 'cancelled'.

Not at all.

This is quite clearly not being "cancelled" or anything to do with being "woke".

The dude launched a vendetta because he wanted a relationship with Markle and she had no interest.

It's not called being cancelled, it's called being a creep

Harry Palmr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only 44K
citizens of Britain was not happy about his work ?
From silly 67 millions ????
And that was the point to let him go ?
Seriously ?
He did his job perfectly if only 44K was not happy about it !

Most tv shows get dozens of complaints at most. 44 thousand means the suits take notice.

anewme

He has also received negative press for his comments about one of the presenters wearing a mini skirt yesterday.

Baggly

Mod

Thread moved to Current Affairs / IMHO.

Please read and observe the local charter.

Snickers Man

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

He never really bothered me that much but I haven't seen much of him really. I find it odd that someone with Irish parents and I think even an Irish passport is so invested in the royal family, I knew loads of 2nd gen Irish people when I lived over there and none of them gave a sh*t about the firm and usually had more republican leanings than your average born and bred son of Eireann!

Yeah. His original name is O'Meara.

The shame! The shame!

Snickers Man

MrStuffins wrote: »

I had to look up what Dead Naming was

"Deadnaming is the use of the birth or other former name (i.e. a name that is "dead") of a transgender or non-binary person without their consent"

Maybe you have to be a certain age, but I was greatly amused a few years back when a "whistle blower" at Croydon Council started addressing the Conservative member of the council cabinet in charge of local education, a respectable widow called Mrs Gatland, as "Ms McGuire".

Turned out that the Irish born Mrs Gatland was originally called Maria McGuire, that she had joined the IRA in the early 1970s, had been involved romantically with Daithi O'Conaill, future chief of staff of the Provisionals and had accompanied him on a mission to continental Europe to procure arms for that organisation.

She subsequently left the Provos, and wrote her memoirs, in which she was complementary about the likes of Daithi O'Conaill and Ruairi O Bradaigh but was scarifying about the then Chief of Staff Sean McStiofain. Following that, she disappeared, according to loyal provos into a British Government backed "witness protection program" for its own exposed agents in the IRA.

Actually she went to England, got married, became a successful businesswoman with her husband and then joined the Conservative Party, as many successful business people do. Until her sordid past was exposed in the 1990s.

I didn't realise that revealing a former miscreant's true identity was called "Dead naming"!

Sand

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

He never really bothered me that much but I haven't seen much of him really. I find it odd that someone with Irish parents and I think even an Irish passport is so invested in the royal family, I knew loads of 2nd gen Irish people when I lived over there and none of them gave a sh*t about the firm and usually had more republican leanings than your average born and bred son of Eireann!

It's his job to be the sensible right leaning neoliberal who thinks the UK is about spitfires, the royal family and old fashioned common sense. To roll his eyes in mock exasperation at those madcap left leaning neoliberals who think the UK is about not hurting other peoples feelings, that there is 183 genders or that Churchill wasn't the greatest person ever to live.

It is a performance about issues that do not matter, and they'll simply bring in another guy like him to take over the role. Maybe that Laurence Fox actor, who is being groomed to take on the mantle. But I hear he is planning a run for London mayor, weirdly enough.

partyguinness

I am just grateful to have a full time job and where morning TV is of no relevance to me whatsoever. Out of the house at 8:30 every morning.

Radio all morning long.

stefanovich

partyguinness wrote: »

I am just grateful to have a full time job and where morning TV is of no relevance to me whatsoever. Out of the house at 8:30 every morning.

Radio all morning long.

Talk or music? Not sure which is worse in this country.

James Brown

Like the Fox news people he's an actor playing a role and making a nice living off it.
This, in my book, makes him much worse than a genuine honest bigoted scum bag.
These people do damage to society.

osarusan

Couldn't care less about the Royal family stuff so didn't see what happened there, but did see the clip of Morgan wilting under the mildest of comments.

He is an amoral scumbag, an utter pr!ck, so it's good to see him suffer.

partyguinness

stefanovich wrote: »

Talk or music? Not sure which is worse in this country.

Talk- current affairs. I am a news addict.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the Royal family stuff so didn't see what happened there, but did see the clip of Morgan wilting under the mildest of comments.

He is an amoral scumbag, an utter pr!ck, so it's good to see him suffer.

Doubt he's suffering too much. He'll walk into a multi million pound job. He's already a multi millionaire.

osarusan

6 wrote: »

Doubt he's suffering too much. He'll walk into a multi million pound job. He's already a multi millionaire.

Yeah, sadly there's no shortage of media who are happy to employ the kind of sh!t-stirrer he is.

alanzo27

Akrasia wrote: »

He is a typical authoritarian bully. He can dish it out but cannot take it himself

He'll make sure he has full editorial control over his guests in his next job so he can only allow sycophants, or can cut off anyone who challenges him

In my opinion he is a classic example of a narcissist. He has an angry outburst when not the centre of attention and not being agreed with, such as in this example by walking off set in retaliation. He cannot tolerate observing another point of view that is not his own and will criticise everyone around him but not accept criticism targeted towards himself.

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, sadly there's no shortage of media who are happy to employ the kind of sh!t-stirrer he is.

IMO it's just a flip of the coin as to whether or not he'd even want to join GB News / News UK. On the one hand, he'd get to be the big star for either of them, biggest fish in a very small pond. On the other hand, neither of those channels will likely get close to the viewing figures or level of guests that Piers would have had on ITV.

He's always seemed more motivated by ego and visibility rather than money, and I don't know if GB News or News UK would be a big enough draw for him until they've had a few years to establish themselves and build up a viewerbase.

I can nearly see him trying to do something less news-related for a while and try be more entertainment-based like when he did Britain's Got Talent and just general celebrity interview things or documentaries, then get back into news/current affairs stuff in a few years.

Junkyard Tom

James Brown wrote: »

Like the Fox news people he's an actor playing a role and making a nice living off it.

Outrage farming.

batman75

Piers Morgan is entitled not to believe Meghan Markle if he so chooses and he is entitled to say he doesn't believe her. However his credibility as a commentator on issues relating to Meghan Markle has to be questioned. He clearly dislikes her so he appears to be bringing his emotional judgment to the table as opposed to an intellectual argument.
His work colleague had, in Pier's eyes, the temerity to challenge his views. Pier's stormed off like a spoilt child. It looks like he thinks his word is law. Clearly this viewpoint is nonsense especially regarding Meghan Markle whom he clearly hates. I see the Daily Mail for whom he writes, are continuing their campaign against Meghan Markle. At this stage it amounts to bullying. The difference in how she is treated by the DM and how they write about Kate is startling.
I think once the Queen and Prince Phillip pass away the support for the monarchy will quickly disappear. They are the last line of the monarchy which are held in genuine respect by the people of Britain. Andrew's interview with the BBC over the Epstein scandal only serve to highlight how out of touch they can be in terms of reality. The monarchy an outdated institution from another era. Handy for tourism but little else.
Piers Morgan is entitled to defend the Royal Family as a public commentator but I think his love of the Royal Family is more to do with social climbing than a genuine love for the institution.

suicide_circus

Massive drop in viewership for GMB following Morgan's departure.

He's a prick, he blocked me on twitter :pac: , but he got this one right.

Tyrone212

suicide_circus wrote: »

Massive drop in viewership for GMB following Morgan's departure.

He's a prick, he blocked me on twitter :pac: , but he got this one right.

Self confessed Freedom of speech warrior blocks those with a different opinion.

MrStuffins

suicide_circus wrote: »

Massive drop in viewership for GMB following Morgan's departure.

He's a prick, he blocked me on twitter :pac: , but he got this one right.

Fewer gammon tuning in to your show might not necessarily be a bad thing. I'm sure Stella Artois and Union Jack manufacturers will think twice about buying ad space but I'm sure ITV will cope

stefanovich

MrStuffins wrote: »

Fewer gammon tuning in to your show might not necessarily be a bad thing. I'm sure Stella Artois and Union Jack manufacturers will think twice about buying ad space but I'm sure ITV will cope

Is gammon a racial slur?

Asdfgh2020

stefanovich wrote: »

Is gammon a racial slur?

Is this a fair definition of ‘gammon’....

Collective noun for white, middle-aged, furious-faced men who are heavily concentrated in the vast reaches of England's Brexit heartlands.

Spitting out talking points found in fascist organs like the Daily Mail (or, for those preferring something less intellectual, the Daily Express), gammon exist in a state of perpetual outrage and exasperated "I'm just an ordinary bloke, me" confusion.

MrStuffins

stefanovich wrote: »

Is gammon a racial slur?

Google it

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Is gammon a racial slur?

I’d say so since it is characteristic of one racial group.


How do know who listens to GMB anyway. Except it’s that extremely weird group of people who like the telly in the morning.