This is what I love about Piers Morgan

Encouraged

From 4:28 on wards in this video, I love how he sticks with his point. I'd have stopped after 5:23, but Piers continues to use this point against the bloated American.

That's what one needs to do in an argument. If you feel your point is right, it's not enough just to take the view "oh I'm sure the audience sees my point". If the other party makes an attempt to dismiss your point, I think it's important keep using that argument against over and over unless they refute. In doing so you make them go around in circles, and thus they make a fool of themselves. And in truth the discussion can not develop until an agreement is made on such a point.

Once again at 5:55, just when I would have said to myself "okay that's enough", Piers continues to use his very own reply against him. This is so crucial to arguments. It's amazing the way people don't listen, or deflect. It's got a lot more to do with calling people out on their bull**** than it is to do with knowing your facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZa4V9T4lg

Also, at 4:07 you can see the guns campaigner itch his ear as he is most likely lying. Though I'm not too sure of that having looked up a list of Australian massacres.

frag420

This is what I love about Piers Morgan...is what I would say after the news of his death emerges!!

Until then he is a attention seeking twat!

Encouraged

frag420 wrote: »

This is what I love about Piers Morgan...is what I would say after the news of his death emerges!!

Until then he is a attention seeking twat!

Well somebody didn't watch the video.

Morgan worships at the temple of his own narcissism.

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

Morgan worships at the temple of his own narcissism.

And that's probably about the nicest thing that someone could say truthfully about him.

o1s1n

I'm amazed this guy wasn't lynched (let alone still making money in the public eye) after publishing fake photos of British troops torturing Iraqis.

blade1

He should be shot with a ball of his own shît!

Chips Lovell

Encouraged wrote: »

I love how he sticks with point. I'd have after 5:23, but Piers continues to use this point against him.

Hi Piers

McMurphy

Wasn't it Morgan that hacked a dead persons voicemail, or am I thinking of another lowlife bellend?

Blazer

My missus loves watching GMB in the morning with Piers and Suzanne.
There's nothing I like better than being woken up early by the kids and coming downstairs to listen to Piers having a rant.
I sit on the couch daydreaming about smashing Morgan's face in and occasionally switching to fantasizing about Suzanne but mostly its about smashing Piers Morgan's face in.

lapua20grain

Any wanker that hacks a dead young girls phone shouldn't be revered regardless how you think he can handle himself in a debate.

Agricola

Morgan worked out a long time ago that being a grade A cúnt can be a very well paying gig.

mzungu

Encouraged wrote: »

From 4:28 on wards in this video, I love how he sticks with point. I'd have after 5:23, but Piers continues to use this point against him.

That's what one needs to do in an argument. If you feel your point is right, it's not enough just to take the view "oh I'm sure the audience sees my point". If the other party makes an attempt to dismiss your point, I think it's important keep using that argument against over and over unless they refute. In doing so you make them go around in circles, and thus they make a fool of themselves. And in truth the discussion can not develop until an agreement is made on such a point.

Once again at 5:55, just when I would have said to myself "okay that's enough", Piers continues to use his very own reply against him. This is so crucial to arguments. It's amazing the way people don't listen, or deflect. It's got a lot more to do with calling people out on their bull**** than it is to do with knowing your facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZa4V9T4lg

Also, at 4:07 you can see the guns campaigner itch his ear as he is most likely lying. Though I'm not too sure of that having looked up a list of Australian massacres.

Welcome to Boards, Piers. :pac::pac:

Franz Von Peppercorn

His finest hour was 2003 and Iraq so I still have some regard for him.

Manic Moran

Looking at that clip you like, Piers seems a little ill-informed and a jerk.

Firstly, saying that the Australian buyback was successful. It is estimated that barely a third of the firearms which were supposed to have been handed in were actually so. had Piers bothered to investigate what proportion of the estimated total that 600,000 covered. There are a number of reasons there have been few mass shootings in Australia since then, the firearms availability isn't actually a significant factor. His point is further undermined by the detail that since Australia is one of the largest importers of private firearms in the world, there were more guns in circulation at the time of the interview than there were are the time of Port Arthur.

No, the interviewee's not lying and Piers is demonstrably and factually incorrect. If a mass shooting is defined as "four dead by gunfire in a single incident", which seems to be the common definition, the last one before that video was posted was in 2014, New South Wales, with five dead including the shooter. Such shootings in Australia have typically been murder-suicides, not the random spree-shooting we normally associate with the term. That's fairly easy to verify. (Ironically, there was a seven-dead incident the week following that interview, but obviously it's irrelevant to the exchange there)

As for the bit at 5:30 which you like, Piers is being an ass, and the interviewee was quite correct. (a) It wasn't the NRA's call. (b) In the list of fights that can be fought, there are far more important things for them to be going after (and things far more likely to be won) than the rather narrow issue of restrictions in the name of Presidential security, and (c) the reality is that it was quite probably the most secure room in the world at that time and Pier's ridiculous hypothetical is beyond addressing. Contrary to Piers' position, the NRA's position is not that there can not be any restrictions on 2A, just as there may be restrictions on 1A. The point of contention is where that line of restrictions should be.

Encouraged

blade1 wrote: »

He should be shot with a ball of his own shît!

So are ye guys rooting for the bloated guns campaigner?

Tom Mann Centuria

I agree with him on gun control, but otherwise he's a ©unt.

Silent Running

Things I love about Piers Morgan..... Naffink!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Encouraged wrote: »

Well somebody didn't watch the video.

Nobody has endless time. People have to sift things out. If you’ve realised previously that you don’t like someone then, yeah, you’re probably not going to waste your time watching a video that features that person prominently.

Gimme A Pound

Like a lot of agent provocateurs whose politics usually slant to the right, I may not particularly like him overall, but he has said some things I agree with.

banana_bear

Encouraged wrote:

So are ye guys rooting for the bloated guns campaigner?

I'd love to be simple minded enough to see everything in black and white only. If you're not for one, you must be for the other.

OneEightSeven

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't it Morgan that hacked a dead persons voicemail, or am I thinking of another lowlife bellend?

lapua20grain wrote: »

Any wanker that hacks a dead young girls phone shouldn't be revered regardless how you think he can handle himself in a debate.

It was the News of the World who hacked Milly Dowler's phone, Morgan hacked phones for the Mirror.

blade1

Encouraged wrote: »

So are ye guys rooting for the bloated guns campaigner?

No but in this case an exception should be made as long as a bazooka is used.

Church on Tuesday

He's not wrong is his opinion about gun control but he is, and always will be, an insufferable pompous bellend.

o1s1n

o1s1n wrote: »

I'm amazed this guy wasn't lynched (let alone still making money in the public eye) after publishing fake photos of British troops torturing Iraqis.

Is this meant to be ironic? Morgan was given fake photos by a "reputable" source - allegedly a British soldier named Stuart MacKenzie who was courtmartialed and subsequently had the charges quietly dropped - and published them. Photos quickly revealed to be fake and Morgan disgraced. Very shortly afterwards real photos of British troops torturing people emerged but because of earlier stunt their publication was widely avoided.

A cynic might suggest that after the outrage which greeted the Abu Ghraib revelations British military intelligence realised real photos of British torture existed, and decided to release fake ones to Morgan to discredit the impending publication of the real photos of torture. The fact that many of the real torture photos were of the same Lancashire regiment that the fake photos focused on was not coincidental. As dirty tricks go it was smart, yet obvious to many at the time when the real photos emerged.

The fakes that finished an editor and the truth that won't go away

.... The fakes contaminated legitimate concerns, however, and eased pressure on ministers just as they were facing calls to admit what they knew of genuine abuses by both British and US forces....The QLR's 'quiet satisfaction' over the fake Iraqi abuse pictures may be short-lived. Raymond Whitaker reports on the case against its soldiers, first revealed by the 'IoS', who will be charged over the death of Baha Mousa

The Independent on Sunday was the first newspaper to reveal the death of an Iraqi in British military custody. On 4 January this year Robert Fisk reported that eight young Iraqis arrested at a Basra hotel last September had been kicked and beaten so severely that one of them, Baha Mousa, had died.

The story was backed up not only by the testimony of Kifah Taha, himself beaten so badly that he suffered kidney failure, but by official documents, including a letter of condolence from the commander of British forces in Basra and an offer of £4,500 compensation.... And the unit in question? The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, which yesterday was reported to be "quietly satisfied" at having seen off Piers Morgan, sacked after the Daily Mirror admitted photographs it had published of QLR soldiers apparently mistreating Iraqis were fake.

The IoS kept pursuing the issue of brutality in Iraq, revealing on 11 January that the Ministry of Defence was investigating nine more deaths at the hands of British soldiers. Several took place in custody, others on the streets. Other cases involving serious injury, rough handling by troops or opening fire in possible breach of the rules of engagement came to light, involving the QLR and three other regiments. Last week, the Parachute Regiment was also said to be under investigation.

The question of whether some British soldiers in Iraq had dishonoured the service received little attention, however, until the scandal of the Abu Ghraib prison abuses erupted in America. Adam Price, a Plaid Cymru MP who had taken up the issue, prised details out of the MoD in a series of parliamentary questions. A Birmingham human rights lawyer, Phil Shiner, last week brought 20 cases involving alleged mistreatment of Iraqis by British troops to the High Court, seeking an independent judicial review. A full hearing is due in late July...

Vian Bakir, Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror

Encouraged

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nobody has endless time. People have to sift things out. If you’ve realised previously that you don’t like someone then, yeah, you’re probably not going to waste your time watching a video that features that person prominently.

If you watch it and are disappointed, I will do whatever you want.

ancapailldorcha

OneEightSeven wrote: »

It was the News of the World who hacked Milly Dowler's phone, Morgan hacked phones for the Mirror.

There was some overlap with Morgan's time at the Mirror:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/phone-hacking-the-piers-morgan-connection-mirror-admits-some-stories-during-morgans-tenure-may-have-9817258.html

Malachi Fresh Sideline

Malachi Fresh Sideline wrote: »

Like a lot of agent provocateurs whose politics usually slant to the right, I may not particularly like him overall, but he has said some things I agree with.[/QUOTE]
I've this opinion on him lately, he seems a breath of fresh air against the certain narrative that the media is pushing at this moment. Wasn't a huge fan of his really before hand

Manic Moran

I've this opinion on him lately, agreeing him with stuff , pointing out hypocracies on feminism, celebs, vegans and mental health(few weeks ago he agreed with some corrie actress saying some use mental health as a fashion accessory - and the celeb hounds went after him) he seems a breath of fresh air against the certain narrative that the media is pushing at this moment. Wasn't a huge fan of his really before hand..

Doesn't "Jonathan Pie" do that, though, and in a far more entertaining manner?

Blazer

Blazer wrote: »

My missus loves watching GMB in the morning with Piers and Suzanne.
There's nothing I like better than being woken up early by the kids and coming downstairs to listen to Piers having a rant.
I sit on the couch daydreaming about smashing Morgan's face in and occasionally switching to fantasizing about Suzanne but mostly its about smashing Piers Morgan's face in.

LOL

LessOutragePlz

Love to see Piers getting owned especially in this interview.

Encouraged

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Love to see Piers getting owned especially in this interview.

He is NOT owned in that interview.

Did you see the way Piers pointed out that you cannot screen for irresponsibility? And did you see (in the second half of that debate) how he ends the interview by getting the kid to answer his own ridiculous question? Very clever tactic by Piers.

And why would you love to see someone who's in the wrong (assuming you're of the opinion of restricting guns) win the argument?

Encouraged

A lot of those pro guns guys tend to look a bit gaunt. They make Piers look beautiful. Here's another one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hWs1UBlixA

Timberrrrrrrr

frag420 wrote: »

This is what I love about Piers Morgan...is what I would say after the news of his death emerges!!

Until then he is a attention seeking twat!

While i do agree with your sentiment on Morgan i really would love to see him interview Trump

The Crowman

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't it Morgan that hacked a dead persons voicemail, or am I thinking of another lowlife bellend?

Murdered 13 year old schoolgirl Milly Dowler, among others.

Timberrrrrrrr

lapua20grain wrote: »

Any wanker that hacks a dead young girls phone shouldn't be revered regardless how you think he can handle himself in a debate.

Hacked...back in the day if.your phone number was 0871234567 and you had voice mail set up it was easy to "hack" peoples voicemail. After 087 add a 5 and then the rest of the number. If the person hadn't added a pin number then it went into thier voicemail.

Dunno if it.was Morgan personally who did this.or a journalist working for him

For the record i am in no way defending him, i find him to be an annoying fvckwit and would love to see him disappear from the airwaves.

Encouraged

What I also like in this show is that Piers sits in the center. Where as Daithi on the afternoon show, is pushed to the side of the couch farthest from the guests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnSnEgtP6DM&t=4s

Leo Fatkar

Encouraged wrote: »

From 4:28 on wards in this video, I love how he sticks with his point. I'd have stopped after 5:23, but Piers continues to use this point against the bloated American.

That's what one needs to do in an argument. If you feel your point is right, it's not enough just to take the view "oh I'm sure the audience sees my point". If the other party makes an attempt to dismiss your point, I think it's important keep using that argument against over and over unless they refute. In doing so you make them go around in circles, and thus they make a fool of themselves. And in truth the discussion can not develop until an agreement is made on such a point.

Once again at 5:55, just when I would have said to myself "okay that's enough", Piers continues to use his very own reply against him. This is so crucial to arguments. It's amazing the way people don't listen, or deflect. It's got a lot more to do with calling people out on their bull**** than it is to do with knowing your facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZa4V9T4lg

Also, at 4:07 you can see the guns campaigner itch his ear as he is most likely lying. Though I'm not too sure of that having looked up a list of Australian massacres.

Yeah, he's kind of like Vincent Browne with the way he stays on the point and grills the guest, punishing them for waffling.

Capt'n Midnight

A comment I heard on the radio during the week was there's less point in watching Alan Partridge this time around when you have a real life version at breakfast.

Leo Fatkar

Here we see Piers in action again. But unfortunately what's happening with the guest in this debate is a thing that women can get away with so often. And that is, that if they start losing a debate to a man, they'll start laughing at him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUGCfj9eXBY

What we see is that she's trying to piss off Piers with that sarcastic smile she does. She does it at 1:43, at 2:22 and again at 2:41. She really lets herself down with it, but she knows she can get away with it.

And then she implements a manipulation tactic at 2:58, where she accuses him of silencing her when he clearly hadn't been. In any healthy debate there has to be a certain amount of interrupting. He only interrupted her anyway to seek clarity on something she said. But she's trying to make him afraid to interrupt her. These aren't things the audience would really notice. But I think this manipulation tactic of her's might have worked... because watch at 3:58 and see how he doesn't interrupt the other host where he usually would. What I would have done there is I would have interrupted and said "no no, I wasn't holding her accountable, I was simply asking her if she condemned it".

Piers actually goes on to point out that he agrees with her on many issues, but she throws it right back in his face. Towards the end we see that after the other host backed her up, she (the guest) rubs it in his with another laugh at 4:04. Just watch it - it's almost as if she's laughing because she knows her silencing tactic worked. So I think she was possibly the one silencing him. But if he pointed out how she was doing this, he'd look paranoid. So I admire Piers for standing up to her. So many hosts wouldn't.

She did trip up though at 3:50 where she say "you can say hateful things, but...". If I were in Piers' place I would have sarcastically said "oh so it's okay to say hateful thing as long as you don't act them out"

Gffg

I know some of you mightn't like Piers Morgan, but you have to respect him for keeping his cool with this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vvW5nq2oDg

razorblunt

Blazer wrote: »

My missus loves watching GMB in the morning with Piers and Suzanne.
There's nothing I like better than being woken up early by the kids and coming downstairs to listen to Piers having a rant.
I sit on the couch daydreaming about smashing Morgan's face in and occasionally switching to fantasizing about Suzanne but mostly its about smashing Piers Morgan's face in.

Nah Suzanne knows what she's doing she pretends she hates it, with the eye rolls and the "this guy" act on twitter but she enables Piers to be an absolute gowl.

Woke Hogan

Gffg wrote: »

I know some of you mightn't like Piers Morgan, but you have to respect him for keeping his cool with this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vvW5nq2oDg

The only way I would ever respect Piers Morgan is if he interrupted his programme to list and apologise for every single one of his indiscretions as a tabloid journalist before pulling a gun out and shooting himself. Or maybe he could perform harakiri since he is an anti gun advocate.

Gffg

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The only way I would ever respect Piers Morgan is if he interrupted his programme to list and apologise for every single one of his indiscretions as a tabloid journalist before pulling a gun out and shooting himself. Or maybe he could perform harakiri since he is an anti gun advocate.

I think he's an easy target for people to hate. People wouldn't be as quick to hate, say Roy Keane, for his indiscretions. I think it's become popular, for some reason, to hate Piers Morgan.

razorblunt

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hacked...back in the day if.your phone number was 0871234567 and you had voice mail set up it was easy to "hack" peoples voicemail. After 087 add a 5 and then the rest of the number. If the person hadn't added a pin number then it went into thier voicemail.

Dunno if it.was Morgan personally who did this.or a journalist working for him

For the record i am in no way defending him, i find him to be an annoying fvckwit and would love to see him disappear from the airwaves.

He was Editor, he knew what was going on.
He was also front running his stock picks in his weekly column too.

Gffg

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Love to see Piers getting owned especially in this interview.

Even if it means that the guy who won the argument was in the wrong? and as a result more guns will be sold around America.

Woke Hogan

Gffg wrote: »

I think he's an easy target for people to hate. People wouldn't be as quick to hate, say Roy Keane, for his indiscretions. I think it's become popular, for some reason, to hate Piers Morgan.

Roy Keane is far less worthy of being hated or disliked than Piers Morgan. Keane was a bit of a thug on the football pitch but he never hacked anyone's phones, rifled through people's rubbish for gossip or sent journalists around to someone's house to intimidate them. Piers Morgan is a scum of the highest order.

Timberrrrrrrr

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Roy Keane is far less worthy of being hated or disliked than Piers Morgan. Keane was a bit of a thug on the football pitch but he never hacked anyone's phones, rifled through people's rubbish for gossip or sent journalists around to someone's house to intimidate them.[/n] Piers Morgan is a scum of the highest order.

Nah he just almost crippled another professional player ending his career.

There's a special place in hell for Morgan and Keane if it does exsist.

TCM

Deleted User wrote:

Morgan worships at the temple of his own narcissism.

I like that one.
Permission please to use it myself, without having to cite your good self.

elefant

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nah he just almost crippled another professional player ending his career.

Which player was that?

ancapailldorcha

elefant wrote: »

Which player was that?

Alf-Inge Haaland. In his book he admits to doing it deliberately and with forethought.