Dumped British TV host Morgan pours more scorn on Meghan suicide, racism claims

[Chiphigh]

Isn't it amazing how a multi millionaire leftist woke joke can play the race baiting virtue signaling victim card and the leftist media will play along with the stupidity. . 

 

Harry picked a real winner. 

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Not exactly the same, they did it to the aborigines/first peoples because they were barbarians - or heathens (of no religion of importance), they effectively tried to do the same as China is now with their Uighur problem - and try to 'civilize' them to where their identities were destroyed.  The settlers were more likely to be treated like Scotland before home-rule -- ruled from London...  in an arrogant way where they thought they knew best....  The only reason why Canada got self-rule as early as 1967 was because the UK had only two options left after the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada.... they could suppress it and eventually lose control and the US (which was still seen as an adversary) would eventually expand north... or they could try and implement self-rule in hopes of maintaining a bulwark against the expansion of the US.

Heathens, yes, that was a major issue. Does that make them racists, would depend on your definition. Also many whites were killed due to being non-catholics, and later non-christians, all over Europe.

 

You made a typo BTW, by 1967 US was no longer considered an adversary, you're 100 years off.

It was simply a very intolerant time towards anybody who was wrong, be it thinking, science, religion, clothing, etc. And sure, skin colour was probably part of that, but I'd say not the dominant reason.

[AgMech Cowboy]

On 3/11/2021 at 4:20 PM, JonnyF said:

It's the content of the character that makes someone amazing or boring.

Which is exactly what Martin Luther King was trying to get across. He'd be an Uncle Tom today under the BLM, LaBron James views. Thank you for your highlight this.

[spidermike007]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

Thanks, and you can imply I am a racist if that makes you feel better. I don't think anyone is denying this "Most of the historical stories and accounts I have read, point toward an arrogant, cruel, and condescending attitude towards India, by the colonists.", what I am saying is that the same attitude existed towards other countries like Ireland, USA, Canada, so in my book that would not be racism but simply an arrogant, cruel and condescending attitude towards all people who were in their power.

While that may be historically accurate, I think there is no doubt that a special animosity existed toward those with dark skin. After all, there was never an attempt made to close a significant number of the colonists schools. That is a special level of hatred and disrespect. 

[AgMech Cowboy]

On 3/12/2021 at 12:16 AM, stevenl said:

Reuters is exactly reporting the truth. He was dumped by ITV.

Oh stevenl, let's be like children. They DID NOT!!

An ITV spokesperson said: "Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082 

[JonnyF]

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The very definition of racism is likely to be different for every person asked. The vast majority of the white people I know deny any sort of institutional racism exists. Of course that is wrong. However, I consider the denial to be due to upbringing, indoctrination, culture, being out of touch, and not being around people of color, in addition to arrogance. 

 

Most of the historical stories and accounts I have read, point toward an arrogant, cruel, and condescending attitude towards India, by the colonists. You can define that as something other than racism if it makes you feel better. 

A few days ago you stated that white people are boring and brown people are amazing.

I dont think you lecturing on racism is a good idea. Unless your name is Harry.

[Surelynot]

9 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

Oh stevenl, let's be like children. They DID NOT!!

An ITV spokesperson said: "Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082 

Piers we are going to sack you......oh!....please......do me a favor then and let me say I resigned........it'll save you a fortune in compensation and it will look much better for me......okay....you can say you resigned.

[Yellowtail]

If MM claims someone said something, and Harry claims to have heard them say it, why would they not name them? 

 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If MM claims someone said something, and Harry claims to have heard them say it, why would they not name them? 

 

 

Well, let's say it was the Queen.....do you not think they would shy away from naming her?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Well, let's say it was the Queen.....do you not think they would shy away from naming her?

No, and I think Harry said it wasn't the Queen.

Typical lefty playbook. Name a group so you can effectively accuse everyone while not allowing anyone to defend themselves. Do you not see that?

[billd766]

42 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Well, let's say it was the Queen.....do you not think they would shy away from naming her?

But it wasn't the Queen, unless you have better resources than most of the media.

So we could go back to Yellowtail's post and start again.

 

48 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If MM claims someone said something, and Harry claims to have heard them say it, why would they not name them? 

 

 

 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

But it wasn't the Queen, unless you have better resources than most of the media.

So we could go back to Yellowtail's post and start again.

 

 

Well let's say it was the queen........???? Did that go over your head?

[thaibeachlovers]

mistake

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Well let's say it was the queen........???? Did that go over your head?

Because your source for the statement says it was not... it was staff.... and the reason why he obviously would not name them is because the staff would not be household names - or public figures ... and thus add no value other than bringing unwanted public attention to someone who may not be use to handling it...   Also the question/statement, while racist, was likely more born out of stupidity rather than racial animus.

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

If MM claims someone said something, and Harry claims to have heard them say it, why would they not name them? 

 

 

I suspect a conversation DID take place around the likely color of the babies skin. Just as it did in my family, and with friends due to our mixed race marriage. Everybody seemed to enjoy speculating this, and we enjoyed the guessing as much as anybody. Totally normal, not offensive in the slightest. 

 

What Meghan managed to do, is to weaponize the innocent words by detonating the R bomb. Meaning she could never be doubted, and must be telling the truth. So Meghan wins and the British Royal family are a bunch of racists. End of.

Except that many other claims and statements she made during the interview have been proven to be lies or inaccurate, throwing her account of the British racists into question. Inaccuracies such as

1)Archie is not a Prince due to royal protocol, not racism.

2)Meghan did see her half sister more recently than she claimed, and they were photographed together.

3)There was no real wedding 3 days before the $25m real thing. It was a dress rehearsal. (really reminds me of Pammy Anderson this one - can imagine her doing that back in the day!)

So if she was wrong about almost everything in the interview, stands to reason this racist claim should be taken with a pinch of salt too.

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I suspect a conversation DID take place around the likely color of the babies skin. Just as it did in my family, and with friends due to our mixed race marriage. Everybody seemed to enjoy speculating this, and we enjoyed the guessing as much as anybody. Totally normal, not offensive in the slightest. 

 

What Meghan managed to do, is to weaponize the innocent words by detonating the R bomb. Meaning she could never be doubted, and must be telling the truth. So Meghan wins and the British Royal family are a bunch of racists. End of.

Except that many other claims and statements she made during the interview have been proven to be lies or inaccurate, throwing her account of the British racists into question. Inaccuracies such as

1)Archie is not a Prince due to royal protocol, not racism.

2)Meghan did see her half sister more recently than she claimed, and they were photographed together.

3)There was no real wedding 3 days before the $25m real thing. It was a dress rehearsal. (really reminds me of Pammy Anderson this one - can imagine her doing that back in the day!)

So if she was wrong about almost everything in the interview, stands to reason this racist claim should be taken with a pinch of salt too.

Except that Harry confirmed the comment and also said racism was a large reason why they left.

[bkkcanuck8]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Except that Harry confirmed the comment and also said racism was a large reason why they left.

Harry has also said that it he did not want the same thing to happen to his family as with Dianna, and that the British press (and the racism in it) was creating the same fundamental problems with the treatment of his family as with his mother.  Let's face it, growing up in the Royal environment as it is - is a rather dysfunctional place to bring up children (even if it is a life of privilege).   That off the had comment probably had very little to do with it - other than the shock value at the time - which may have left an impression on him...

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I suspect a conversation DID take place around the likely color of the babies skin. Just as it did in my family, and with friends due to our mixed race marriage. Everybody seemed to enjoy speculating this, and we enjoyed the guessing as much as anybody. Totally normal, not offensive in the slightest. 

 

What Meghan managed to do, is to weaponize the innocent words by detonating the R bomb. Meaning she could never be doubted, and must be telling the truth. So Meghan wins and the British Royal family are a bunch of racists. End of.

Except that many other claims and statements she made during the interview have been proven to be lies or inaccurate, throwing her account of the British racists into question. Inaccuracies such as

1)Archie is not a Prince due to royal protocol, not racism.

2)Meghan did see her half sister more recently than she claimed, and they were photographed together.

3)There was no real wedding 3 days before the $25m real thing. It was a dress rehearsal. (really reminds me of Pammy Anderson this one - can imagine her doing that back in the day!)

So if she was wrong about almost everything in the interview, stands to reason this racist claim should be taken with a pinch of salt too.

You don't know what was said and how it was said.

Harry's opinion on the conversation indicates your suspicions of how it went are wrong.

[Yellowtail]

So again, why not name the person who said it? 

1. Because they are people that care about themselves and nothing about who they hurt.

2. They want to string this out and milk it for all the attention they can get.

3. By blaming a group rather than an individual, they can hurt the maximum number of people.

4. If they actually named someone that person would actually be able to defend themselves and call them liars.

5. All of the above.

 

I'm guessing 5.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So again, why not name the person who said it? 

1. Because they are people that care about themselves and nothing about who they hurt.

2. They want to string this out and milk it for all the attention they can get.

3. By blaming a group rather than an individual, they can hurt the maximum number of people.

4. If they actually named someone that person would actually be able to defend themselves and call them liars.

5. All of the above.

 

I'm guessing 5.

 

If that were true, Harry would not have clarified it was not someone from the Royal family themselves but staff (probably senior staff).    In this case the who would not be important and definitely not important enough to out on national media - if the reasons for saying it was just from insensitive stupidity.  With the amount of ingrained racism that is still in the UK and the likelihood of the person being likely elder than younger - the question does not seem out of the ordinary (ordinary stupidity). 

[mogandave]

50 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If that were true, Harry would not have clarified it was not someone from the Royal family themselves but staff (probably senior staff).    In this case the who would not be important and definitely not important enough to out on national media - if the reasons for saying it was just from insensitive stupidity.  With the amount of ingrained racism that is still in the UK and the likelihood of the person being likely elder than younger - the question does not seem out of the ordinary (ordinary stupidity). 

So again, if it’s true, why not name them and be done with it?

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, mogandave said:

So again, if it’s true, why not name them and be done with it?

So basically, you are advocating to take someone that is an employee (royal staff - even if senior) breach employment privacy regulations (not sure what the UKs are but we have them in other countries) -- through them to the dogs...  If that is what you are advocating, you are not a very good person.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If that were true, Harry would not have clarified it was not someone from the Royal family themselves but staff (probably senior staff).    In this case the who would not be important and definitely not important enough to out on national media - if the reasons for saying it was just from insensitive stupidity.  With the amount of ingrained racism that is still in the UK and the likelihood of the person being likely elder than younger - the question does not seem out of the ordinary (ordinary stupidity). 

double post 

[mogandave]

26 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

So basically, you are advocating to take someone that is an employee (royal staff - even if senior) breach employment privacy regulations (not sure what the UKs are but we have them in other countries) -- through them to the dogs...  If that is what you are advocating, you are not a very good person.

 

So basically, you are advocating all employees be condemned for the (alleged) actions of one.

If that is what you are advocating, you are not a very good person. 

[bkkcanuck8]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So basically, you are advocating all employees be condemned for the (alleged) actions of one.

If that is what you are advocating, you are not a very good person. 

Sorry, but unless the actions affect someone outside and they were negligent in their duties of an employee and it breached the law... then those actions by the employee should be for internal discipline only.   Right now I cannot put a name or face to any employee (and there are 1,000s - since the Queen alone has over 1,000 - that does not include staff of Prince Philip, Prince Charles, etc.).  The question/comment was not likely malicious in nature, and out of 1,000s of employees it is likely not the only one who likely had that question in their mind.  If any of it sticks to that large of an organization, it is likely because it is not the first the public has heard of it within the Royal household. In fact when I heard it - my first thought was ... there was Prince Philip putting his foot in his mouth again.   Now that it is apparently a staff member it should be treated as an internal matter only.  The punishment of throwing one person out as red meat to 'save the rest' does not fit the 'crime'... .. It is not worth violating employee privacy rights (and I would suspect would be against the law).

[Sujo]

27 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Sorry, but unless the actions affect someone outside and they were negligent in their duties of an employee and it breached the law... then those actions by the employee should be for internal discipline only.   Right now I cannot put a name or face to any employee (and there are 1,000s - since the Queen alone has over 1,000 - that does not include staff of Prince Philip, Prince Charles, etc.).  The question/comment was not likely malicious in nature, and out of 1,000s of employees it is likely not the only one who likely had that question in their mind.  If any of it sticks to that large of an organization, it is likely because it is not the first the public has heard of it within the Royal household. In fact when I heard it - my first thought was ... there was Prince Philip putting his foot in his mouth again.   Now that it is apparently a staff member it should be treated as an internal matter only.  The punishment of throwing one person out as red meat to 'save the rest' does not fit the 'crime'... .. It is not worth violating employee privacy rights (and I would suspect would be against the law).

Also decency, to allow an internal review.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Sorry, but unless the actions affect someone outside and they were negligent in their duties of an employee and it breached the law... then those actions by the employee should be for internal discipline only.   Right now I cannot put a name or face to any employee (and there are 1,000s - since the Queen alone has over 1,000 - that does not include staff of Prince Philip, Prince Charles, etc.).  The question/comment was not likely malicious in nature, and out of 1,000s of employees it is likely not the only one who likely had that question in their mind.  If any of it sticks to that large of an organization, it is likely because it is not the first the public has heard of it within the Royal household. In fact when I heard it - my first thought was ... there was Prince Philip putting his foot in his mouth again.   Now that it is apparently a staff member it should be treated as an internal matter only.  The punishment of throwing one person out as red meat to 'save the rest' does not fit the 'crime'... .. It is not worth violating employee privacy rights (and I would suspect would be against the law).

So we are to believe that one of the thousands of employees made a comment that has or at least had MM contemplating suicide? 
 

So why do you think MM, O and Harry wanted to make it appear it was one of the royals? To protect one of the thousands of employees? 

If it were one of the thousands of employees, why would MM and Harry not just have them terminated? 

 

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So we are to believe that one of the thousands of employees made a comment that has or at least had MM contemplating suicide? 
 

So why do you think MM, O and Harry wanted to make it appear it was one of the royals? To protect one of the thousands of employees? 

If it were one of the thousands of employees, why would MM and Harry not just have them terminated? 

 

Come the crunch, let's face it, who gives a FF.

[mogandave]

9 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Come the crunch, let's face it, who gives a FF.

Were I a rolling doughnut I certainly would...,

I 

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

So we are to believe that one of the thousands of employees made a comment that has or at least had MM contemplating suicide? 
 

So why do you think MM, O and Harry wanted to make it appear it was one of the royals? To protect one of the thousands of employees? 

If it were one of the thousands of employees, why would MM and Harry not just have them terminated? 

 

No, I said nothing of the sort.... but not being born a Royal, dealing with the the the pressures of being one (especially in the modern era with that nasty tabloid press that you have there) anyone that is even moderately susceptible to depression could be pushed to the edge or over (and it is not an uncommon ailment).  I don't know what the support is like in the palace -- but I doubt it is that great (as it was not in general society as a whole for most of the last century).  I am lucky myself since I am more of a water off a ducks back -- I doubt I am susceptible to depression (never done drugs either - maybe it is related).... but in my limited conversations on the topic - many people I know have at one point or another have been affected by it (many many).  It is not a healthy environment for anyone normal and it is best that if you can - to get as far away from it as you can.