Meghan and Harry to step back from front line Royalising

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by Moose, Jan 8, 2020.

  1. If my life depended on naming more than half a dozen members of the royal family and correctly allocating them on a family tree, I would be a dead man.
    Charles, Queenie, Philip, Andrew, Harry, Megan, Harry's bald brother, his thin wife, Catherine Ahern, Ralf Little....actually was easier than I thought.
     
    WillisWasTheWorst likes this.
  2. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Its making less grammar mistake's thats important

    Get us a Crunchie, Antony.
     
    The undeniable truth likes this.
  3. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Who's Catherine Ahern? Was she married to Henry VIII?
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  4. Maninblack

    Maninblack Reservist

  5. Rookery Refugee

    Rookery Refugee First Year Pro

    "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean freedom from the impact of your speech.

    Freedom of speech means that they can't lock you up in Central China for speaking out against the government in Hong Kong. It means they can't come into your flat in Yangon, drag you out and beat you to death in the street because you posted on social media that the military makeover is illegal. It also means that if you're Nigel Farage you can say nearly whatever you like about the EU, Brexit or other politicians - and they can similarly do the same back at you. It also means that someone like Morgan can scream he doesn't believe Meghan from the mountaintops and she can't haul him in front of a judge and get him to pay damages.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean that if you're a broadcaster and you say things that enrage a significant portion of the customer base that your employer can't sack you. It doesn't mean that the regulatory bodies (Ofcom, the FCC, whatever) won't investigate you if they get shedloads of complaints. This is true of any job. If I work in a Starbucks and whilst I'm serving up lattes I tell the customers that they're wearing ugly clothes, or they shouldn't wear fur, or that cricket is boring and only tosspots watch it - Starbucks can sack me.
     
    WatfordTalk and Filbert like this.
  6. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    They can, but should they?

    And Starbucks isn’t a national broadcasting company, to whose journalistic role freedom of speech might be said to be fundamental.
     
  7. Rookery Refugee

    Rookery Refugee First Year Pro

    "Should" is an entirely different question.

    Personally, I don't like the blending of "opinion" and news/journalism. Most early morning talk shows are only loosely connected to actual journalism. They are mostly opinion shows. Pure entertainment with a news-looking skin. In that environment, who really knows what's best for business? But it has very little to do with journalistic integrity, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. It's blowhards, drummed up controversy, makeup, singing, dancing and little dogs jumping through flaming hoops. I hate all of them. People can claim it was a horrible decision - and they may be correct - but no one's freedom was trampled on.

    In this case there's plenty of speculation that Morgan was looking for a way out and this fell into his lap when someone asked him to apologise.
     
  8. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    I don’t agree. Whatever you think of the quality of the product, he expressed an opinion on a matter of public interest in a manner which wasn’t illegal, offensive or hateful and he has gone. It was insensitive both to his employer’s interests and perhaps more broadly but I think that is trampling on freedom of speech/the press. Admittedly it’s somewhat different if he resigned rather than being forced out.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
    iamofwfc and zztop like this.
  9. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    Absolutely 100 per cent correct.
     
  10. Rookery Refugee

    Rookery Refugee First Year Pro

    My understanding is that many people (not claiming "most") felt that it was offensive with respect to mental health concerns. Honestly, I've only seen snippets on more conventional news so I can't really render an opinion. I have no idea (for example) if he said anything mitigating with respect to that issue generically or not. That aside, one thing I've learned over the years is that Person A can't really judge what's offensive to Person B. We can all have opinions on whether we think it should be or not.
     
  11. reg_varney

    reg_varney Academy Graduate

    Yes, Fergie with the big balding Texan toe-sucking incident was pure Tabloid Gold
     
    CYHSYF likes this.
  12. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    That’s a very loose sense of “offensive” though. I amended my post to add that I think he has been insensitive, and I would stand by that, but I don’t think that warrants him losing his job. After all, he was hired to be controversial.

    Mrs Keighley says, and I am sure she is right, that he’s gone because ITV paid shedloads for the interview and didn’t want him casting aspersions on it, even afterwards. Which goes back to your original point about the role of employers. I still think he had the right to say what he said, though, even if it wasn’t a very sensible career choice (although he’s apparently already bagged a new job).
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  13. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    Whether someone is offended is irrelevant. The right to offend is at the heart of any free society. It may be bad manners but not a crime
     
    dynamo380 and iamofwfc like this.
  14. Rookery Refugee

    Rookery Refugee First Year Pro

    I think we completely agree. If someone charges Morgan with a crime, we should break out the torches and the pitchforks.
     
  15. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    Sorry, poor choice of word by me. Of course no one has suggested that Morgans rant was criminal!
     
  16. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

  17. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett First Year Pro

    Whatever anyone thinks of Piers Morgan he is not stupid .
    He knows how it all works , what can be said, what can't without ramifications.
    Maybe he wanted out anyway and took his chance ?.

    As for Princess Tippy Toes who claimed that she never googled King Harry
    and wasn't aware of Royal family protocols.
    Well this would be believable if she hadn't mentioned that Princess Eugene was
    a friend of hers ,prior to hooking up with H ,and is so familiar with that family she
    referred to Sarah Ferguson as ,"Fergie" who as we are all aware is the estranged wife of
    Andrew who has some very serious questions that need answering.

    PC Dixon of Dock Green signing off
     
    wfcmoog, dynamo380 and iamofwfc like this.
  18. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    I read an article yesterday about Harry using the "P" Word to address a Pakistani colleague while he was at Sandhurst, and he added that he used the word "WITHOUT MALICE"

    I have no reason to disbelieve Harry and I am sure that he did indeed say it "WITHOUT MALICE", just as I would also be willing to bet that whoever enquired about the possible colour of Archie's skin also made that enquiry "WITHOUT MALICE"

    This revelation makes me wonder why Harry has chosen to believe that whoever made the now infamous enquiry did so "WITH MALICE" Because I suspect he knows full well that it was a perfectly innocent enquiry that was almost certainly said "WITHOUT MALICE"
     
  19. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

  20. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    You mean the same offended Harry that went to a party dressed as a Nazi to meet his mates dressed as the Black and White minstrels and members of the KKK?
    I wonder what Megan's opinions on that are?
     
    davisp2, dynamo380, Otter and 3 others like this.
  21. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    This notion of "offended" grates with me as I can't get my head around why anybody should feel offended with what Piers Morgan said and I disagree with what he says all the time. He clearly said that if she suffered mental health problems then she should have got the help she needed, but he said that he didn't believe almost all of what she said in the interview.

    If Boris came out and said that he felt suicidal when dealing with the stresses and strains of brexit or covid, is everybody suddenly obliged to believe him without question? Or could it be considered as an exaggeration in search of sympathy? And if someone takes the latter route, why is that "offensive" to those that are suffering mental health issues?

    I don't get the logic.

    If anything, I wonder if mental health charities are always comfortable with celebrities come out with these "suicidal" proclamations, particularly if they didn't get the help they needed but still end up living in their multimillion £ mansions, signing their £100m Netflix deals, and fly about on private jets apparently completely untouched by mental health issues now - because it runs the risk of trivialising mental health issues for others.
     
  22. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Being rich isn’t necessarily a protection against mental health problems. But otherwise I agree with your post.
     
    CarlosKickaballs likes this.
  23. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    I wasn't implying that at all.
     
  24. Teide1

    Teide1 Squad Player

    Edward v111 and Mrs Simpson
    Princess Margaret and group Captain Townsend
    Charles and Diana/Camilla
    Andrew and goodness knows
    Megan and the UK

    All major Royal horribilias which would have been kept quiet hundreds of years ago but
    Because of the British press, television and now media on the end of everyone’s fingernail
    Command too much discussion!

    having said that why did Megan marry into the most high profile family in the world and think
    that she could just pop round the corner and meet her friends when she fancied! Naivety!
     
  25. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Well, I don’t understand why it would be “trivialising” mental health for someone who has mansions and private jets to raise the issue then. Or were you saying that with those resources a person should be able to access the help they need in likely contrast to someone who is disadvantaged (if so, I agree).
     
  26. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Would a cancer charity want lots of publicity from people that have seemingly "fully recovered" from cancer without treatment? I think it is an easy concept but if you don't agree, that's fine.

    I'm just emphasising that I'm not implying being rich protects from mental health issues.
     
  27. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    So you're saying that Meghan's suicidal thoughts were just a one off and that she has now recovered from her MH problems having removed hersefl from the supposed cause of them?

    I didn't see the interview, so I don't know exactly what was said.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
  28. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    No, I'm not saying that.

    I've said what I said.
     
  29. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    OK well, you may think it is an "easy concept' but t I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe other posters can enlighten me.
     
  30. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Don't worry about it.

    I'm not.
     
  31. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    I simply asked for an explanation of your comment regarding celebrity interventions "trivialising" MH issues for those who are raising money in the spirit of what I thought was an interesting debate but if you're not prepared to give one I guess that is your prerogative.

    My position is that I accept that there are questions about Meghan in particular but I don't think one can generalise about celebrities/the wealthy and MH issues overall.

    i'll end there because there will be others who will wish to contribute to this thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
    WatfordTalk likes this.
  32. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    Wealth certainly does not protect anyone from mental health problems, but it does give a lot of options to seek help.
    Even the poorest person can call the Samaritans for help, how can a multimillionaire say they could not get support.
     
  33. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Agreed.

    Wasn't the point about not getting support a specfic dig at the Royal Family though? Ie they didn't want to aknowkedge the issue because it would 'harm the brand'?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
  34. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    I think the point ZZ was making is that Meghan appears to have gone from suicidal to jolly without any professional mental health intervention and this could stop others who are struggling with head-f**k issues from seeking clinical help - which might not be a good thing
     
    lendal and zztop like this.
  35. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Right. Well I certainly agree with that. However, I still think that that is something specific to her particular case and its progression rather than having anything much to do with her status as a celebrity and/or as someone who is wealthy. That is, I'm not sure her case is very helpful to the MH cause but it seems to me that there are celebities with "private jets, mansions, Netflix contracts" etc whose speaking out on MH issues can be useful. Stephen Fry might be a case in point (albeit not as wealthy as Meghan).
     

Share This Page