I’m convinced Piers Morgan doesn’t actually believe in anything. He’s just a media hound and a limelight chaser. The only time he’s outraged is when he wants to get into the news of convince someone to come onto his shows.
He's like Dan Hodges. Started out on the left but became disliked, so gravitated towards the right. Thing is, nobody likes Piers Morgan, so he started playing into the conspiracy theory niche. "I'm fighting censorship, the GLOBALISTS are trying to cancel me" says man with international news programme...
> He literally groomed a 15 year old.
Innocent until Proven Guilty. People like you destroy other people's lives, just like when you accused Kevin Spacey.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t really work when the UK justice system is useless when it comes to this sort of stuff. He was his boss, they met when he was 15 he used his position of power to build a relationship, they even went out for lunch when he was 15. They had sex later down the line. Grooming 101. Also Kevin Spacey admitted in a interview yesterday that ‘he was a bit too handsy’ sound a bit sexual assaulty to me mate.
The issue isnt legal systems being useless it's your lack of understanding of the legal system.
Prosecution must prove the act beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence has no burden of proof.
If you accuse someone of something bring the evidence that meets to points to prove.
Truly if everything was on the civil balance of probability you wouldn't like it because someone would have sued/taken you to court for some random shite.
Courts and outcomes shouldn't be taken lightly. You only know what you've been told and you don't like that.
Your other option is to go through legal training and make/be the change you think you need but that would be some kind of effort ay
It's always tricky because it is hard to prove but it should also be hard to prove.
A lot of the time it comes down to a word on word issue.
I hate to water it down this much but pretend you're a jury member.
The case is two 5 year old brothers. Mum comes home and they've made a mess in the house. They are both blaming each other. No CCTV, neither has a record of doing that.
How are you going to decide which kid should be grounded?
Clearly doesn't do it justice but a lot of the time it isn't refuted that sex took place, the issue is consent. In a private place. Forensics show sex happened but both parties are saying it happened.
Bizarre isn’t how these creepers always get a second chance. Kevin Spacey tried justifying himself by explaining he wasn’t groping people, just gently caressing them. Just imagine working in a theatre, then along comes Kevin to gently caress you.
>I’m not sure ‘innocent until proven guilty’ works for these people.
It's a universal standard that has to apply to everyone, no matter how heinous.
Once it doesn't apply to one group, it no longer applies to anyone, and your chance of a fair trial is completely gone.
Of course, it only applies to the criminal courts, and you are free to say that Schofield is a creep who may have known this guy he had sex with from as young as 12.
>Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t really work when the UK justice system is useless
People like you basically pick and choose when it’s “useless” or not. You have a preconceived idea, based on very little except through the grapevine, heard at a distance through media outlets. Do the courts not match the outcome you would have preferred? Then the courts must be useless; they must be wrong. But I bet if the courts did match what you already had in mind they’d be working perfectly, right?
The tone of your message is quite aggressive, people deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. That is one of the rights we possess and that should be respected
Kevin Spacey was found not guilty. He admitted last night that he ‘pushed the boundaries’ and ‘was too handsy’. Just because you’re not guilty doesn’t make you innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal mantra, and it matters for criminal cases, not someone’s personal opinion. You don’t get to go on about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as if they’re not allowed to think someone’s dodgy. Despite never having interacted with him I know the local drug dealer is a drug dealer because it’s obvious, I don’t need to know his criminal history to say it.
Or another, even better example - do you honestly think OJ didn’t do it?
You may be right, but you may also be wrong. It might be interesting to allow the person to talk to understand what happened from their point of view? If he is guilty of a crime he should be tried fairly like anyone else.
Good one, here’s the facts - https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/phillip-schofield-brother-told-tv-host-of-sexual-acts-with-child-court-hears
Oh god your one of them, it was literally in the court hearing did you even read the article? Nevermind…
How about sky news ?
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/phillip-schofield-said-f-stop-to-his-brother-when-he-told-him-about-sex-act-with-teenage-boy-court-hears-12845054
Or the independent ? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/phillip-schofield-brother-court-trial-b2310198.html
Sorry I don't consider them reliable sources of information either. Also, this is to do with his brother right? That's not the point of this post is it?
Well let's unpack this for a second. You've both jumped on a side story about his brother. I believe the original article is about Philip and all I said was to let the man speak to hear the facts. This is obviously very difficult for you to accept but unfortunately you're going to have to 😊
Milly Dowler and her family were allegedly targeted by The Sunday People in 2002, when Piers Morgan was the most powerful news executive in the Mirror Group stable, and editor of its sister paper, the Daily Mirror.
Yes the news of the world closed down because of it. The mirror group were also accused of involvement and he admitted listening to the voicemails. So it’s you that’s wrong. Both of them need to be kept well away from teenagers.
Wrong yet again. I rather think you googled in a hurry and fell victim to their very suspiciously confused preview of the wiki article on the overall subject. The sentence about Morgan's admission refers to him hearing Paul McCartney's voicemail. Honestly mate, it's kind of embarrassing how hard you want to hang onto this despite being wrong *over and over*.
Yeah maybe. Good thing neither of us are. The point is he's bad enough that you can show everyone his awful character *without lying*. When you choose to do that, all you do is give him ammunition to shoot down your arguments and convince people maybe he's not so bad because the shit being said about him isn't true.
I’m convinced Piers Morgan doesn’t actually believe in anything. He’s just a media hound and a limelight chaser. The only time he’s outraged is when he wants to get into the news of convince someone to come onto his shows.
You're only just figuring this out now? What convinced you, was it the thousands of pieces of evidence?!
100%. He is also a massive contrarian.
Yes, a complete and utter contrarian.
Oh no he isn't.
He's like Dan Hodges. Started out on the left but became disliked, so gravitated towards the right. Thing is, nobody likes Piers Morgan, so he started playing into the conspiracy theory niche. "I'm fighting censorship, the GLOBALISTS are trying to cancel me" says man with international news programme...
He was a tabloid editor, so yeah. Our press class is incredibly poor all round.
Well, yeah
Grifters do tend to love the grift
Oh fuck off Piers giving cunts like this a platform. He literally groomed a 15 year old.
> He literally groomed a 15 year old. Innocent until Proven Guilty. People like you destroy other people's lives, just like when you accused Kevin Spacey.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t really work when the UK justice system is useless when it comes to this sort of stuff. He was his boss, they met when he was 15 he used his position of power to build a relationship, they even went out for lunch when he was 15. They had sex later down the line. Grooming 101. Also Kevin Spacey admitted in a interview yesterday that ‘he was a bit too handsy’ sound a bit sexual assaulty to me mate.
The issue isnt legal systems being useless it's your lack of understanding of the legal system. Prosecution must prove the act beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence has no burden of proof. If you accuse someone of something bring the evidence that meets to points to prove. Truly if everything was on the civil balance of probability you wouldn't like it because someone would have sued/taken you to court for some random shite. Courts and outcomes shouldn't be taken lightly. You only know what you've been told and you don't like that. Your other option is to go through legal training and make/be the change you think you need but that would be some kind of effort ay
Yes that’s a better way of putting it, it’s so frustrating that sex cases are so hard to prove.
It's always tricky because it is hard to prove but it should also be hard to prove. A lot of the time it comes down to a word on word issue. I hate to water it down this much but pretend you're a jury member. The case is two 5 year old brothers. Mum comes home and they've made a mess in the house. They are both blaming each other. No CCTV, neither has a record of doing that. How are you going to decide which kid should be grounded? Clearly doesn't do it justice but a lot of the time it isn't refuted that sex took place, the issue is consent. In a private place. Forensics show sex happened but both parties are saying it happened.
Bizarre isn’t how these creepers always get a second chance. Kevin Spacey tried justifying himself by explaining he wasn’t groping people, just gently caressing them. Just imagine working in a theatre, then along comes Kevin to gently caress you.
We have seen powerful rich nonces get away with it there whole life. I’m not sure ‘innocent until proven guilty’ works for these people.
>I’m not sure ‘innocent until proven guilty’ works for these people. It's a universal standard that has to apply to everyone, no matter how heinous. Once it doesn't apply to one group, it no longer applies to anyone, and your chance of a fair trial is completely gone. Of course, it only applies to the criminal courts, and you are free to say that Schofield is a creep who may have known this guy he had sex with from as young as 12.
>Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t really work when the UK justice system is useless People like you basically pick and choose when it’s “useless” or not. You have a preconceived idea, based on very little except through the grapevine, heard at a distance through media outlets. Do the courts not match the outcome you would have preferred? Then the courts must be useless; they must be wrong. But I bet if the courts did match what you already had in mind they’d be working perfectly, right?
If you don't like the entire Justice system just fuck off somewhere else. I heard China has quite a different Justice system, maybe start there.
The tone of your message is quite aggressive, people deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. That is one of the rights we possess and that should be respected
Kevin Spacey was found not guilty. He admitted last night that he ‘pushed the boundaries’ and ‘was too handsy’. Just because you’re not guilty doesn’t make you innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal mantra, and it matters for criminal cases, not someone’s personal opinion. You don’t get to go on about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as if they’re not allowed to think someone’s dodgy. Despite never having interacted with him I know the local drug dealer is a drug dealer because it’s obvious, I don’t need to know his criminal history to say it. Or another, even better example - do you honestly think OJ didn’t do it?
Using ‘Kevin spacey is innocent’ as a defence?
You may be right, but you may also be wrong. It might be interesting to allow the person to talk to understand what happened from their point of view? If he is guilty of a crime he should be tried fairly like anyone else.
He’s a cunt. He also knew about his brother having sexual acts with a teenage boy and didn’t say a word.
Maybe you should stop being so judgemental and wait till you have all the facts before labelling someone as a "cunt"
Good one, here’s the facts - https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/phillip-schofield-brother-told-tv-host-of-sexual-acts-with-child-court-hears
I'm sorry but I don't consider the guardian as a reliable source of information
Oh god your one of them, it was literally in the court hearing did you even read the article? Nevermind… How about sky news ? https://news.sky.com/story/amp/phillip-schofield-said-f-stop-to-his-brother-when-he-told-him-about-sex-act-with-teenage-boy-court-hears-12845054 Or the independent ? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/phillip-schofield-brother-court-trial-b2310198.html
You should probably read their username.
Sorry I don't consider them reliable sources of information either. Also, this is to do with his brother right? That's not the point of this post is it?
> source? > no, not one that proves you right
Well let's unpack this for a second. You've both jumped on a side story about his brother. I believe the original article is about Philip and all I said was to let the man speak to hear the facts. This is obviously very difficult for you to accept but unfortunately you're going to have to 😊
It says something if the only interviewer you can get is Piers Morgan
Get Fruitbat on as a special guest and I might watch it.
Two cunts I do not give a fuck about. I'd rather watch Tumbleweed.
New Unitedkingdom Philip Scofield mega thread imminent...
One hacked a murdered teenager’s phone and the other cheated on his wife with a teenage boy who he was grooming from the age of 15.
> One hacked a murdered teenager’s phone No, he didn't. People really need to stop parroting this.
He was the editor at the time so he would have been more than ok with the practice
No he wasn't, it was a different paper. Give it up already 🤣
Milly Dowler and her family were allegedly targeted by The Sunday People in 2002, when Piers Morgan was the most powerful news executive in the Mirror Group stable, and editor of its sister paper, the Daily Mirror.
Good on you for admitting being wrong. eta: Actually, you're still wrong come to think of it. Was News of the World.
Yes the news of the world closed down because of it. The mirror group were also accused of involvement and he admitted listening to the voicemails. So it’s you that’s wrong. Both of them need to be kept well away from teenagers.
Wrong yet again. I rather think you googled in a hurry and fell victim to their very suspiciously confused preview of the wiki article on the overall subject. The sentence about Morgan's admission refers to him hearing Paul McCartney's voicemail. Honestly mate, it's kind of embarrassing how hard you want to hang onto this despite being wrong *over and over*.
Not as embarrassing as being a fan of piers Morgan lol.
Yeah maybe. Good thing neither of us are. The point is he's bad enough that you can show everyone his awful character *without lying*. When you choose to do that, all you do is give him ammunition to shoot down your arguments and convince people maybe he's not so bad because the shit being said about him isn't true.