Piers Morgan out - there *is* a God!

Yes, you see, they have am instant appeal to some, but don't really have
a great screen presence that says they are a great actor.

I think one of the often forgotten great actors of the modern age is Tom
Hanks. I really had a lump in my throat after watching Forrest Gump. And
yet he'll turn his hand to an opposite role, such as Apollo 13.

When I think of the 'greats', I'm thinking of Jimmy Stewart, James
Mason, John Mills, Jack Hawkins, Peter Sellers and so on. Basically most
actors that became famous before about 1970.

After that each decade has seen a gradual decrease in such characters,
there are a few, but nothing like the number we have seen in the past.

Perhaps the technology used in film these days is contributing to this?
It certainly seems to be more of a part of the feature lists, and the
actors are becoming secondary in importance now.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

I look eagerly to the day when one of those vacuous third-rate
'celebrities' dies of some horrible jungle disease or wild animal.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

(Andy Hewitt) wrote in message

Paging Champ.

 

Andy Hewitt wrote in

I think it's a lot to do with the difference between an actor and a movie
star. Movie stars get bums on seats. Actors engage you.

The best actors in Hollywood today are those that spend some time in
theatre. Kevin Spacey is a prime example.

 

Why the strong feelings? The photos episode, or PM or the Daily
Mirror generally?

See, of all the tabloid editors, he was the one I liked best (or,
disliked least).

 

Where does/did Yelland score for you or others? Wade? Hill?

If hateful tabloid editors is your bag then king of the pig sty must be
the truly despicable Paul Dacre.

Probably the reason some people are reacting to PM in this way is he's
the /only/ tabloid editor they know of.

 

"We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"

--
Dan L (Oldbloke)
My Bike 2000 Honda CB500
M'boy's Bike 1990 Suzuki TS50X (Heavily fortified)

BOTAFOT #140, DIAABTCOD #26

 

Nah, he is the only tabloid editor that I know of that was sacked
yesterday. Were there any more?

But you are correct he is (was?) the most infamous and if people will
stick their heads above the parapet...

 

For me it was the photos episode. I'm sure that when the photos were
published they considered the possibility that they were fake. The
pictures were fake and PM was in charge so has to carry the can. He
took a gamble, lost and paid the price.

It was an attempt to sell more papers which had a negative effect on
the UK's realtionship with all arabic nations and quite possibly put
people's safety at risk.

Don't worry there will be another one along shortly.

 

You think policemen are looking younger as well, don't you?

 

LOL.

 

Well, yes relatively they are, but that's another story. FWIW, the
attitude of the Police has changed a lot too, they certainly don't have
the respect they had when I was younger.

 

Yes, him too.

Perhaps it's because a lot of the old school actors learnt their craft
on the stage, and possibly had a much longer, and harder, learning
curve.

 

Strange isn't it? Publishing fake photos believing them to be true gets you
sacked. On the other hand behaviour such as publishing 'dodgy dossiers' and
conspiring to mislead the British people about the basis for the Iraq war
(where ARE those WMD?) gets John Scarlett promoted. Failing to be aware (or
lying about not being aware) of a report by the International Red Cross
about torture and abuse of prisoners is not seen as grounds for dismissal of
goverment ministers.

Before we rejoice too much in the departure (at the behest of American
investors) of a newspaper editor who made a mistake we should ask ourselves
whether we are really likely to benefit. I generally dislike the tabloid
press but I think we are at risk of sitting back while an ever more
restrictive and repressive approach to news management is employed by a
government which really doesn't want you to know what it is doing in your
name and with your money.

If there had been no basis whatsoever to the Mirror stories about
mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British troops I would have been
delighted in Piers Morgan's departure. Sadly, this is not the case. There
is ample evidence of brutality to prisoners by British troops and reckless
(and possibly deliberate) killing of civilians including women and children.
Without the Mirror story we might never have known about it. We are now
being reassured that it has all been dealt with - however there is a
complete lack of any specifics about what has been done. With Morgan being
forced to go the goverment must be breathing a sigh of relief - there is now
less pressure on them to account to us for their conduct of the war and they
can continue assisting Bush with the process of liberating the Iraqis -
liberating them from their oil, their right to self-determination and, in
many cases, their lives.

Tony

 

I was under the impression that Morgan was employed for specific attributes
he has: He's quite bright and utterly ruthless. "Let him off the leash and
see how much damage he can do to the other tabloids' ratings before we have
to sack him."

Yelland was a bland tit and Wade the antidote. She's a female PM.

I personally couldn't care less because he'll simply be replaced by some
other wanker, I'll never read those rags anyway, and can't really understand
why people would choose to.

 

Ahhh - so before the photos our relations with arabic nations were pretty
good then? As for 'putting people's safety at risk' - the ultimate logic of
this argument is that we should never attempt to expose wrongdoing by our
troops in case it puts their safety at risk. The problem here is that the
photos may be fake but the maltreatment and killing of prisoners and
civilians is real. It is also worth contemplating the implicit
colonialism/racism in a view that regards the safety of British troops as
more important than the safety of Iraqi civilians who are at risk of
arbitrary arrest, beatings and worse. It is also worth asking ourselves who
is most responsible for putting British soldiers's lives at risk - Piers
Morgan or Tony Blair? Their lives would not be at risk if we had refused to
join the USA in the unneccessary and illegal invasion of Iraq.

They would also be considerably less at risk if the US (and the UK as its
principal ally) showed the slightest interest in International law and its
duties as an occupying power.

Tony

 

http://members.tripod.com/duckyfuzz/lyrics.popstars.html

 

I saw him do support at one of the gigs i went to last year (Neil
Hannon iirc), enjoyed it and meant to follow up and get some of his
stuff and never did, thanks for the reminder.
--
Lady Nina
Three passions have governed my life: The longings for love, the search for knowledge
and unbearable pity for the suffering of humankind. (Bertrand Russell)

CG125.

 

Equal bottom.

Equal bottom.

Almost certainly. I think there's also a reaction to the Mirror's
Anti-War stance; people get very irrational when they think that a
given thing has put "our boys" lives at risk.

Course, they don't seem to notice that Blair and Bush put them at the
most risk, by invading Iraq.

 

Not you, specifically. I was referring to the OP, who could hardly
contain his glee.

I have no real problem with the sacking. I just can't understand why
anyone would particularly dislike Morgan over any other tabloid
editors.

I suspect that's it's a politically-motivated dislike, rather than any
other reason.

No, I think it was an attempt to reveal truth. Of course, they don't
mind if that sells papers too.

If you're that bothered about the UK relationship with all Arabic
nations, you might want to lobby your MP about our support of Israel.
In particular, our non-reaction to Israel's repeated ignoring of UN
Security Council resolutions.

You want to have a word with Bush and Blair if that's your concern.