Piers Morgan: Star of Covid-19 Biased, Brain-Dead, Bullying Media Coverage … 

Comment: 

Piers Morgan is insufferable at the best of times, but his treatment of Piers Corbyn in the above interview/attack,  is utterly disgraceful.  As for his sidekick, Susanna Reid, she’s a stereotypical female  birdbrain – as a female myself, I take no pleasure in admitting that some of us are birdbrains, but facts are stubborn things; she (like Piers Morgan) is always on the side of whatever is in fashion at any given moment.  The really culpable member of the above attack-pack, however, is the doctor, Hilary Jones, who is the undisputed media expert on all things health-related (which makes him a promoter of every sin under the sun, but that’s for another time – you’ll get my drift… Clue:  he wouldn’t be the  undisputed media health expert if he were encouraging young people to “wait for marriage”.  Get it, now?)

Be that as it may, for the purpose of this conversation, reflect on the reliability of Dr Jones’s accusation that Piers Corbyn’s remarks were “dangerous”, including his mention of Hydroxychloroquine

Doesn’t it strike you as odd, to say the least, that we have to “believe” in the Covid-19 virus?  As one commentator said on another blog:  “If  they have to convince us that there’s a pandemic, there isn’t one.”   Let’s be clear: there’s a virus all right – no question about that, but it’s not remotely deadly, as is being falsely claimed for the purpose of keeping us all in fear and thus easy to control.  In other words, there’s a virus all right but it’s a political virus.  The evidence is all around us, and as tangible as the people you see when you venture out of your home (now that we’re allowed – for now) and find yourself surrounded by people wearing assorted face-coverings – but don’t try to convince them they’re useless because, invariably, they’ll reply, well, if masks don’t work, why do surgeons wear them?  

Anyway, whether or not you might agree with Piers Corbyn’s (or his brother’s) politics, was he treated fairly in the Good Morning Britain interview in the video above?

Finally, it would be good if those of you with Twitter accounts would post the link to this thread on Piers Morgan’s Twitter Feed.  Sending anything via the alleged “have your say” links on the ITV website  is an utter waste of time, as I’ve discovered more than once. I seriously doubt if anyone ever reads those messages.  It seems to me that they’re there merely to give the illusion of listening to the viewers. In fact, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t give a toss about what any of us think…   If they did,  there would have been a doctor with an alternative take on the pandemic/lockdown instead of allowing Hilarious Hilary to take centre-stage, yet again, without challenge.   

Or, maybe you disagree?  Let’s hear it! 

**********************************************************************************

USA Shootings in Texas & Ohio: Can These Massacres Be Prevented? How?

We discussed the subject of gun ownership in the USA back in 2015  here

Watching the news reports over this weekend, of the mass shootings in two American towns, it is unfathomable to many of us that  people of faith support, and even advocate, gun ownership – perhaps because it has never been the culture here in the UK.  However, in America, it is considered a very important constitutional right to bear arms.  Here’s the young American Jewish commentator, Ben Shapiro, debating the issue with Piers Morgan in 2017…

Comment: 

We know that the gun lobby, big guns business (so to speak), makes it very difficult for politicians to propose a ban on gun ownership, never mind the Second Amendment right to bear arms, cherished by the American people.   My own gut feeling is that, with the extent of the killing sprees now taking place almost routinely across the USA, a President – preparing for possible re-election – who boldly proposed doing whatever is reasonably possible to deal with the problem of widespread gun ownership, would be onto a winner.  Surely, the sheer number of deaths caused this weekend alone, in two different parts of the United States, would be sufficient to cause a change in the American mindset about the Second Amendment? 

Personally, I’d like to see a courageous President move to end widespread gun ownership, by whatever constitutional means are available, and if you agree, let’s hear it.  But if you disagree (and I can already see some of our American bloggers bristling with indignation 😀 ) then please suggest your preferred solution – but make it one that would truly make a difference…

Final thought:  I have a young (teenage) relative who says he would dearly love to move to the USA when he’s finished his education.  I keep reminding him of the two things that would be very different if he did so;  one, the gun culture (don’t get impatient – with anyone! If the bus is late, so be it! If that hamburger is cold, smile at the waiter and tip him/her anyway!) And the second – well, that’s irrelevant to the present discussion, so I’ll leave that hanging there for another day 😀 

For the purposes of this conversation, please, simply answer the questions in the headline –  can these massacres be prevented?  And if so, how

Same-Sex & Sibling “Marriage”…

Notice the failure of Piers Morgan and his pro-same-sex marriage guest to answer the question about the brother and sister who want to marry. After all, if “luv” is all that matters, why not? 

What does the uncomfortable (they were manifestly taken-aback) inability of Morgan and guest to answer the question, tell us?  That those who bleat on about “discrimination” and “gay rights” really haven’t thought it through? What then?

Also for this thread, consideration to be given to the “extremism” bill being proposed by Theresa May who refuses to define “extremism” and to rule out applying it to those of us who refuse to go along with the LGBT agenda.  We’re all at risk of being labelled “extremists” since, it seems, one of the British values she is determined to promote (and which from which nobody will be permitted to dissent) is the “tolerance” which has led to the legalisation of immorality of every imaginable kind and then some. Somebody asks me what I think of men who decide to go into hospital and return a woman, and I don’t reply “great, that’s his, or, er, rather, her choice”  then – unless I’m misinterpreting her rather muddled non-response to the interviewer’s persistent questioning –  I’m in danger of breaking the law of the land.  Check out her recent interview on BBC  Radio 4…