Piers Morgan Vindicated For Meghan Comments.

[andy-hughes]

What does anyone think about the ruling - and the wider impications?

[Barsel]

naomi @ 16.39 I trust you are saying that with tongue in cheek?

[Peter Pedant]

// according to Obie Scobie, Ofcom are in breach of the Human Rights legislation,//
1) he would wouldnt he?
2) he can say that but it doesnt have to be true
3) he needs to be paid for copy and isnt giving legal advice

Apparently Piers Moron ( thx Private Eye) said that he wouldnt believe a weather report if she was reading it

and since the vocal 'other side' had a good bash - she isnt a damned liar and other convincing points

it was all free speech

In contrast to AB where some posts go down the tube on appllcation and the 'other side' are free to say whatever rubbish and piffle they wish

[choux]

Despite the fact that the Sussexes allegedly have distanced themselves from a certain book, why do I always mis-read the title as "Funding Freedom"?

[Khandro]

'Everyone is in favour of free speech,' said Winston Churchill, 'but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.'

He could have been talking about Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, two people who think they have both the right to drop endless incendiary unsubstantiated bombshells about their family AND the right to censor and silence anyone who dares to disbelieve or challenge them.

Back in March, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two hours spray-gunning the Royals to Oprah Winfrey in an explosive interview on prime-time US television.

They claimed a member of the Royal Family had been racist about their son Archie, and that their little boy had been banned from being a Prince because of his skin colour.

Back in March, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two hours spray-gunning the Royals to Oprah Winfrey in an explosive interview on prime-time US television, writes PIERS MORGAN

Spot on Piers!

[Khandro]

apologies for double-pasted para.

[naomi24]

You got it in one, Barsel.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Wonder did Andy have an emergency.
He never returned to explain the wider impications. //

No - just up to my neck in work!!

By 'wider implications', I meant the implications on a number of fronts.

First and most important, I believe this sends out a message that, just because you have married into royalty, it does not make you immune from cricitism, and it absolutely does not giveyou the right to use your power to silence such criticsm.

Secondly, there are implications for ITV, who should never have bowed to such insidious pressure in the first place, and having done so, it should own up to its moral cowardice and return Mr Morgan to his position, for which he is still being paid, while they dither about what to do next.

Now they can't fire him, and he is not going to resign, so they are painted into a corner by their venal cow-towing, and will have to find a face-saving way out - good luck with that!

And finally, this is a victory for free speech.

Mr Morgan is entitled to his opinion, indeed he is, or was at least, paid to express it - he is still being paid, just gagged by moral cowardice.

But just because a view is contrary, or may be unpopular, does not mean that it should be stifled.

We shall see where this goes - but the discussions at ITV HQ must be 'interesting' to say the very least.

[Zacs-Master]

I agree with all of your wider implications, Andy.

[jourdain2]

As do I.

[burlyshirley]

Ditto !