Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Piers Morgan
51 Answers
Piers has long been a divisive character, but I’m among those who think him a brilliant broadcaster who’s compelling to watch. Ironically, I reckon quitting the way he did plays into the hands of Meghan who he so disapproves of. But I don’t think he enjoyed the early mornings anyway. I will struggle to watch GMB without Piers as the rest of their presenting team aren’t a patch on him. The only person I consider capable of filling his massive shoes is Jeremy Clarkson, and I doubt any money would persuade him. I’d like to see the sycophantic Lorraine Kelly finally get a long overdue axing, and Piers given her slot on his own. What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theblip. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I used to like him until he started shouting, talking over guests, particularly Tory MPs, and being completely dismissive.
What happened to impartiality within journalism? Or does that not exist anymore? It's what you'd expect by the tabloid but I wouldn't expect that from a respected TV media programme.
I'm well aware I'm in the minority here...
What happened to impartiality within journalism? Or does that not exist anymore? It's what you'd expect by the tabloid but I wouldn't expect that from a respected TV media programme.
I'm well aware I'm in the minority here...
I think Gill1941 has hit the nail squarely on the head, and is pretty much what Piers Morgan was saying when he tweeted the Churchill quote.
PM is in the position he's in now because he had the temerity to say he didn't believe her. I find it concerning that to not believe somebody can lead to the loss of a job.
We don't know what's true and what isn't, and the likelihood is we never will, but apparently we're meant to take what MM has said at face-value as though it is 100% factual, even though there are inconsistencies in what she said, and some things were not credible.
For example...
1. She didn't know who Harry was (or words to that affect) - that is just simply not credible.
2. She couldn't get any help for her mental issues - again, not credible.
3. They were married 3 days before the lavish wedding - not credible.
4. Son not being allowed to be a Prince - not true.
5. Difference in account between H&M on the colour issue - inconsistent.
At best I think she's skewed the facts to suit her narrative.
I also find it worrying that to some people, disagreeing with her is in of itself racist.
PM is in the position he's in now because he had the temerity to say he didn't believe her. I find it concerning that to not believe somebody can lead to the loss of a job.
We don't know what's true and what isn't, and the likelihood is we never will, but apparently we're meant to take what MM has said at face-value as though it is 100% factual, even though there are inconsistencies in what she said, and some things were not credible.
For example...
1. She didn't know who Harry was (or words to that affect) - that is just simply not credible.
2. She couldn't get any help for her mental issues - again, not credible.
3. They were married 3 days before the lavish wedding - not credible.
4. Son not being allowed to be a Prince - not true.
5. Difference in account between H&M on the colour issue - inconsistent.
At best I think she's skewed the facts to suit her narrative.
I also find it worrying that to some people, disagreeing with her is in of itself racist.
The bully Morgan showed his true colours when challenged face to face by someone with a different point of view. He threw a hissy-fit and walked. What a complete snowflake. And all because Meghan Markle ghosted him some years ago. Since when, he has taken every single opportunity to use his position to trash her. The man is a mouthy coward. In my most humble opinion, of course.