Piers Morgan cancelled.

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.

Bobeagleburger

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.

MrStuffins

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Seems you need to look up what "racist" or "racism" means.

Don't worry though, every day is a school day as they say.

Quantum Erasure

stefanovich wrote: »

Is gammon a racial slur?

Only if you're pale male and stale,

NSAman

Maybe we should send over Ireland’s best to itv ... with numbers plummeting surely Tubbs could replace Morgan?

stefanovich

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Only if you're pale male and stale,

White male and old.
So it’s racist, sexist and ageist. Nice.

suicide_circus

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

Brexit means Brexit, mate

Sand

stefanovich wrote: »

Is gammon a racial slur?

In the context its being used in the thread? Yes. But it's anti-white so its acceptable. The people who use it would likely have you believe white privilege exists, whilst racially abusing white people with impunity to demonstrate it doesn't.

MrStuffins

Sand wrote: »

In the context its being used in the thread? Yes.

Honestly lads, some of you need to buy a dictionary.

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Honestly lads, some of you need to buy a dictionary.

You keep telling us that but you haven’t explained why a term which can only apply to one race isn’t racist. Not that you weren’t just racist but classist as well, and indeed ageist.

Asdfgh2020

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

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.

What you describe is a caricature. I don't think you really made an open, honest attempt to understand what made the UK vote for Brexit, for example. You just imagine there are tens of millions of cartoon characters as you described above.

They have no brains, no free will, no friends or family they love, no traditions, no communities they care about. They just read the tabloids and hate Johnny Foreigner, right? It says far more about you than it does about them when you come out with simplistic rubbish like that.

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep telling us that but you haven’t explained why a term which can only apply to one race isn’t racist. Not that you weren’t just racist but classist as well, and indeed ageist.

Hope you weren't too triggered