Piers Morgan
Posted by: MichaelC on 14 May 2004
Bye
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Deploy the little shit to Basra. An RAF flight leaves sunday
Let him explain to the locals it was all a fake. While wearing body armour, helmet, weapon, etc.
Regards
Mike
Let him explain to the locals it was all a fake. While wearing body armour, helmet, weapon, etc.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by long-time-dead
Surely an act of treason........
Then the punishment gets severe.
EDIT : Sh** - just realised that the Death Penalty for treason was abolished.
Therefore - send him to Basra
Then the punishment gets severe.
EDIT : Sh** - just realised that the Death Penalty for treason was abolished.
Therefore - send him to Basra
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by Steve Toy
He deserves to take the place of Maxine Carr behind bars - she deserves to come out; he deserves to go in.
Sending him to Basra is all a bit too Shariah law-esque to me.
Regards,
Steve.
Sending him to Basra is all a bit too Shariah law-esque to me.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Alex S.
One of the most unfortunate things about the Mirror debacle is it throws up a big smoke screen that the government can hide behind and obscure the real issues just as Hutton did.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by BigH47
LTD death penalty for High Treason may still be on the books in Scotland. I could only find references to it be removed in England & Wales.
Howard
Howard
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by matthewr
The photos were fake (and seemed fake pretty much from the start) but it should not be forgotten that the allegations of abuse are still subject to a Military investigation.
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Rasher
At least for once a tabloid hack has been sacked. I still blame the great british public for buying this shit. That is the bottom line.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Mick P
If there was any justice, the British Army should be able to sue Morgan for putting them in even more danger. That alas is a pipe dream but these bloody pinkos have a lot to answer for.
Even if you do not agree with the war, you should not publish photographs that will enflame the situation.
A man was decapitated the other day because photos such as this were released and although it may be a breach of democracy, there is a strong case for preventing this sort of thing being published.
Regards
Mick
Even if you do not agree with the war, you should not publish photographs that will enflame the situation.
A man was decapitated the other day because photos such as this were released and although it may be a breach of democracy, there is a strong case for preventing this sort of thing being published.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Derek Wright
Ultimately it is a failure of government that P Morgan did what he did.
My understanding is that the UK is at war and as such the government is able to apply D Notices or the equivalent to prevent publication of information that can give aid to the enemy.
AS soon as information re atrocities arrived at the various offices of government, the bad news should have been passed upwards and the appropriate D notices issued so that the media would not go to town in telling the world about the atrocities. In parallel with this a ton weight of retribution should have been dropped on the people carrying out the atrocities.
After the war is over (as if it ever will) the news can be published.
In times of war the right to information is overtaken by the need to protect national security.
Yet another example of disfunctional government that we have to suffer in the UK.
Derek
<< >>
My understanding is that the UK is at war and as such the government is able to apply D Notices or the equivalent to prevent publication of information that can give aid to the enemy.
AS soon as information re atrocities arrived at the various offices of government, the bad news should have been passed upwards and the appropriate D notices issued so that the media would not go to town in telling the world about the atrocities. In parallel with this a ton weight of retribution should have been dropped on the people carrying out the atrocities.
After the war is over (as if it ever will) the news can be published.
In times of war the right to information is overtaken by the need to protect national security.
Yet another example of disfunctional government that we have to suffer in the UK.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Alex S.:
One of the most unfortunate things about the Mirror debacle is it throws up a big smoke screen that the government can hide behind and obscure the real issues just as Hutton did.
I agree, and with the government on the ropes the Mirror could not have picked a worse time to (if you'll pardon the expression) 'shoot' themselves in the foot and that of journalism in general.
The Mirror has opposed the war after all and at a time when all our attention should be turned on what Blair has been doing in our name, it will provide a priceless opportunity for the pro-war lobby to hammer Morgan into the dust whilst giving the government breathing space.
That said, he is a tosser (I remember a particularly humourless performance on HIGNFY a few years back) and was bound to get his comeuppance eventually.
Regards,
JonR
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by bigmick
He's a smug tosser and for that alone it's good to see him ejected, though I fear that he will now be popping up more frequently on my bloody TV. Such hoaxes are not restricted to pinkos as witnessed by the publishing of the Zinoviev letter by the Daily Rag.
As Matthew said probably best to wait to see comes out of the testimony of these soldiers before one starts crying foul. The photos looked fake from the off, but it'll be more interesting to see if the claims are similarly bogus. May well be. As I remarked elsewhere it's all a minor diversion from the big picture.
Seems a bit tenuous to suggest that there was any meaningful link between the fake photos and the decapitation. Certainly more tenuous than the link between the publishing of a fake dossier and the bombing of several thousand innocent Iraqis.
As Matthew said probably best to wait to see comes out of the testimony of these soldiers before one starts crying foul. The photos looked fake from the off, but it'll be more interesting to see if the claims are similarly bogus. May well be. As I remarked elsewhere it's all a minor diversion from the big picture.
Seems a bit tenuous to suggest that there was any meaningful link between the fake photos and the decapitation. Certainly more tenuous than the link between the publishing of a fake dossier and the bombing of several thousand innocent Iraqis.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Roy T
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by bigmick
Much like a squadron of bombers in fact
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Piers Morgan has gone.....good riddance I say.
When the ego of people like him (and I include other hypocrits like the detestable Paul Foot and John Pilger)becomes more important than the truth, then we really do need to be careful
Laurie S
When the ego of people like him (and I include other hypocrits like the detestable Paul Foot and John Pilger)becomes more important than the truth, then we really do need to be careful
Laurie S
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Kevin-W
Well, I'm going to disagree with the lot of you.
And, broadly, have some sympthy with what he did.
I have met Piers Morgan a couple of times, and actually spent an afternoon "shadowing' him not long after he took over the Mirror.
There's a bumptiousness about him which can be a bit wearing, and he is a bit pleased with himself.
But then again he is probably the most talented newspaper editor of his (ie the post-MacKenzie) generation, a great risk-taker, imaginative, energetic and really, really tenacious to boot. This means that he is the sort of Editor the "great and the good", and governments, really hate (but which journalists really love). I reckon they were opening the champagne at No.10 last night: they've got the head of another media dissenter.
I know a little bit about how newspapers work, and about how editors' minds work, and I reckon that Morgan (initially, at least) printed them in good faith (ie, believing them to be genuine). It could even be argued that he was acting in the public interest - by highlighting something the government and military establishment would rather not have highlighted. Morgan could have saved his skin by apologising and retracting but he chose to persist until the bitter end, but one of the things that makes/made him a good editor is that very unwillingness to backtrack.
What would your reaction be if those pictures were genuine? After all, as Matthew has already pointed out, the matter of abuse of Iraqis by the British is being investigated. Just because that particular set of pictures was fake, don't mean to say it don't happen.
The minor tragedy of this is that a very talented editor has poleaxed, by his own arrogance and intransigence, his own career, and that he'll be annoying everyone by appearing on crap TV shows - and he's a much better tabloid editor than he is telly presenter, as anyone who's seen his Tabloid Tales show will attest.
The major tragedy is that the press has been [further] discredited, and that a too-powerful-by-half government, which took its citizens into a war on the basis of a lie, has lost another critic. I rather suspect we shall see a cowed and compliant Mirror from now on. That really is something to worry about - so think about that before you start crowing.
And as far that "treason" stuff, well, do you realise how much you all sound like Melanie Philips when you mention that?
Kevin
PS At least there's anotther job for me to go for!
And, broadly, have some sympthy with what he did.
I have met Piers Morgan a couple of times, and actually spent an afternoon "shadowing' him not long after he took over the Mirror.
There's a bumptiousness about him which can be a bit wearing, and he is a bit pleased with himself.
But then again he is probably the most talented newspaper editor of his (ie the post-MacKenzie) generation, a great risk-taker, imaginative, energetic and really, really tenacious to boot. This means that he is the sort of Editor the "great and the good", and governments, really hate (but which journalists really love). I reckon they were opening the champagne at No.10 last night: they've got the head of another media dissenter.
I know a little bit about how newspapers work, and about how editors' minds work, and I reckon that Morgan (initially, at least) printed them in good faith (ie, believing them to be genuine). It could even be argued that he was acting in the public interest - by highlighting something the government and military establishment would rather not have highlighted. Morgan could have saved his skin by apologising and retracting but he chose to persist until the bitter end, but one of the things that makes/made him a good editor is that very unwillingness to backtrack.
What would your reaction be if those pictures were genuine? After all, as Matthew has already pointed out, the matter of abuse of Iraqis by the British is being investigated. Just because that particular set of pictures was fake, don't mean to say it don't happen.
The minor tragedy of this is that a very talented editor has poleaxed, by his own arrogance and intransigence, his own career, and that he'll be annoying everyone by appearing on crap TV shows - and he's a much better tabloid editor than he is telly presenter, as anyone who's seen his Tabloid Tales show will attest.
The major tragedy is that the press has been [further] discredited, and that a too-powerful-by-half government, which took its citizens into a war on the basis of a lie, has lost another critic. I rather suspect we shall see a cowed and compliant Mirror from now on. That really is something to worry about - so think about that before you start crowing.
And as far that "treason" stuff, well, do you realise how much you all sound like Melanie Philips when you mention that?
Kevin
PS At least there's anotther job for me to go for!
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by rodwsmith
Like everyone I am delighted that Piers Moron has been given the push for showing the world photographs of things that turned out not to be what he had claimed they were.
But there's an irony in that Mssrs Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Blair and Hoon appear to have got away with exactly the same thing. I know which worries me more.
But there's an irony in that Mssrs Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Blair and Hoon appear to have got away with exactly the same thing. I know which worries me more.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Ian Hughes
Stephen Fry once defined the word "Countryside" as the killing of Piers Morgan
How perceptive that man is.....
How perceptive that man is.....
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by matthewr
I agree with most of what Kevin says and would add that almost without exception everyone who worked for Morgan seemed to absolutely love the guy -- which is saying something in the world of hackery where most bosses are revlied by their staff.
But he once put my best mate on his front page beneath the single word headline "Hypocrit!" so I find it hard to like him.
"do you realise how much you all sound like Melanie Philips when you mention that?"
Although there are quite a few people here who think sounding like Philips is actually a good thing.
Matthew
But he once put my best mate on his front page beneath the single word headline "Hypocrit!" so I find it hard to like him.
"do you realise how much you all sound like Melanie Philips when you mention that?"
Although there are quite a few people here who think sounding like Philips is actually a good thing.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by bigmick
Eughhhh! Please stop mentioning that woman's name. I've got to try and eat dinner yet.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by velofellow
The government and the press are equally dismal for the same reason-they have no competition.Blair is not the man we hoped for back in '97 but do we really want the tories back?As far as buying a decent national newspaper in this country it's imposssible;each is busy peddling opinion as fact.Cheers Tony
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Kevin-W
Stephen Fry once defined the word "Countryside" as the killing of Piers Morgan
How perceptive that man is.....
Admittedly, that was a good joke (on the 30th Anniversary edition of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue), but Fry, much as I have some sympathy for his sufferings at the hands of Dacre's vile gang at the Mail, is a smug Oxbridge git who likes to put himmself forward as aa modern polymath, rather than a truly peceptive commentator.
Kevin
How perceptive that man is.....
Admittedly, that was a good joke (on the 30th Anniversary edition of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue), but Fry, much as I have some sympathy for his sufferings at the hands of Dacre's vile gang at the Mail, is a smug Oxbridge git who likes to put himmself forward as aa modern polymath, rather than a truly peceptive commentator.
Kevin
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Don Atkinson
I know a little bit about how newspapers work, and about how editors' minds work, and I reckon that Morgan (initially, at least) printed them in good faith (ie, believing them to be genuine).
Yep, I could go along with that
It could even be argued that he was acting in the public interest - by highlighting something the government and military establishment would rather not have highlighted.
Nope. He was selling newspapers without much thought of the other consequences.
Morgan could have saved his skin by apologising and retracting but he chose to persist until the bitter end, but one of the things that makes/made him a good editor is that very unwillingness to backtrack.
He should never have published. However, having published and realised his mistake, he should have apologised profusely, got the real truth into every Arabic newspaper on earth, then resigned. That would have been the mark of a good editor....
What would your reaction be if those pictures were genuine?
Disgust at the perpetrators who should be courtmartialed, punished and dishonourably discharged
After all, as Matthew has already pointed out, the matter of abuse of Iraqis by the British is being investigated.
It was being investigated long before Morgan got his hands on the fakes.
Just because that particular set of pictures was fake, don't mean to say it don't happen.
Correct. see answer to "what would your reaction...." BUT
a picture is worth a thousand words etc etc and these pictures have caused significant damage to the operation in Iraq and put our soldiers in unecessary danger. This is now taking a lot of effort and resource to rectify. All detracting from the real operation.
Cheers
Don
Yep, I could go along with that
It could even be argued that he was acting in the public interest - by highlighting something the government and military establishment would rather not have highlighted.
Nope. He was selling newspapers without much thought of the other consequences.
Morgan could have saved his skin by apologising and retracting but he chose to persist until the bitter end, but one of the things that makes/made him a good editor is that very unwillingness to backtrack.
He should never have published. However, having published and realised his mistake, he should have apologised profusely, got the real truth into every Arabic newspaper on earth, then resigned. That would have been the mark of a good editor....
What would your reaction be if those pictures were genuine?
Disgust at the perpetrators who should be courtmartialed, punished and dishonourably discharged
After all, as Matthew has already pointed out, the matter of abuse of Iraqis by the British is being investigated.
It was being investigated long before Morgan got his hands on the fakes.
Just because that particular set of pictures was fake, don't mean to say it don't happen.
Correct. see answer to "what would your reaction...." BUT
a picture is worth a thousand words etc etc and these pictures have caused significant damage to the operation in Iraq and put our soldiers in unecessary danger. This is now taking a lot of effort and resource to rectify. All detracting from the real operation.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Steve O
Piers Morgan always was and always will be a pompous prick.
A bit of "countryside" is very much in order.
A bit of "countryside" is very much in order.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Bubblechild
What interesting and confusing times we live in.
I don't really care whether Piers goes or stays: surely if you read the Mirror you're only half-interested in reality.
Greater transparency and accountability in the workings of both our government and our military would be something I'd welcome. I think it's possible that these stories may move things in that direction.
Whilst I hate to see actions that inflame the situation on either side - more hatred, prejudice and violence is the last thing anyone needs right now - surely it's the acts themselves, not whether they've been misleadingly represented in the news, that deserve investigation.
While we're on the subject, I still haven't heard a convincing argument that explains how our presence in Iraq (and our absence from other crisis areas) is justified. It certainly seems increasingly unrealistic to use some abstract moral high ground as an explanation.
When I think of the difference that could have been made had the money spent on the war been allocated elsewhere, I feel terribly saddened - the more so when I think of the current alternatives to Blair.
I don't really care whether Piers goes or stays: surely if you read the Mirror you're only half-interested in reality.
Greater transparency and accountability in the workings of both our government and our military would be something I'd welcome. I think it's possible that these stories may move things in that direction.
Whilst I hate to see actions that inflame the situation on either side - more hatred, prejudice and violence is the last thing anyone needs right now - surely it's the acts themselves, not whether they've been misleadingly represented in the news, that deserve investigation.
While we're on the subject, I still haven't heard a convincing argument that explains how our presence in Iraq (and our absence from other crisis areas) is justified. It certainly seems increasingly unrealistic to use some abstract moral high ground as an explanation.
When I think of the difference that could have been made had the money spent on the war been allocated elsewhere, I feel terribly saddened - the more so when I think of the current alternatives to Blair.
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Well, I'm going to disagree with the lot of you.
And, broadly, have some sympthy with what he did.
To quote the Commanding Officer of the QLR, "We are measuring the ego of one editor against the lives of British Soldiers." Nice one Colonel. Nuff said.
quote:
What would your reaction be if those pictures were genuine? After all, as Matthew has already pointed out, the matter of abuse of Iraqis by the British is being investigated. Just because that particular set of pictures was fake, don't mean to say it don't happen.
They were not genuine. If they were, in the Great Scale of Things, they are pretty mild: no deaths, no mutilation, no faces to identify as being humiliated.
The abuse of Iraqis is being investigated. I suspect that the guy that tried to blow up my mate Chris B. in a minibus in Basra a couple of weeks ago, is not being sought. There is a great deal of faux indignation here. Reality check: the prison that was the recent scene of US prisoner abuse saw, on one day, the execution ( murder ) of 2000 Iraqis under Saddam.
Lets get some perspective.
Regards
Mike