The hugely overblown story that is the stepping back from front line Royal duty of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex rumbles on, and today’s front pages show that it is in danger of becoming a soufflé inflated beyond the limits of viability. Why that might be is in no small measure down to those pundits who have been shooting their mouths off, when not always in possession of the facts. Their number includes Piers Morgan.
Shall I pick an argument on Twitter?
Go on then Piers, why not?
But former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Morgan overreached himself when he mockingly brought up the R-word. Posting images of positive Hal and Meg front pages - there was a brief moment when such things happened - he observed “'Nasty racist British press had it in for Meghan from the start.’” Who might have been listening to that?
Carole Cadwalladr of the Observer might have been. And, to no surprise at all, she had her own raft of images to Tweet out - showing Morgan’s obsessive and hectoring pursuit of the Duchess of Sussex. "Maybe not all the press [Piers Morgan]. Maybe just parts of it” she mused. Morgan didn’t like that one bit. He wasn’t being beaten by a mere woman.
“Where was I racist?” he demanded. Where to begin? Apart, that is, from pointing out that having to ask the question in the first place is not a good look. Ms Cadwalladr responded “I dunno Piers. I thought you were just being a bully. But since you’re asking, maybe when you starting persecuting a young woman with a different colour skin to yours?”. Ouch!
Come on Percy, let’s have a bit of the old wit! “Criticising tax-payer funded public figures when they behave badly or hypocritically is not ‘bullying’ or ‘persecuting’, as you should know given how much you do it yourself”. Very good, Piers. The problem is that the “bad” or “hypocritical” behaviour is as you have judged beforehand. It’s a circular argument.
Moreover, it didn’t stop Ms Cadwalladr. “Well, they no longer take taxpayers' money so what's your excuse now? Oh that's right, you don't have one. We all await your upcoming critique of tax-payer-funded Donald Trump, however”. Morgan won’t be saying boo about the Combover Crybaby any time soon. But Hal and Meg? You guessed it.
“They ARE taking taxpayers’ money. And will continue taking it, to the tune of millions of pounds a year. I know accuracy isn’t your strong point but at least try to be informed”. Did Piers Morgan just call “accuracy” on someone else? And does he not know the difference between Sovereign Grant and Crown Estates? He wasn’t convincing anyone.
And Ms Cadwalladr was one of their number. “Trolling a young mother for clicks while your mate, Donald Trump threatens to start World War 3. Keep it classy, Piers”. By this time, The Great Man was close to bursting. Which means he was also close to losing it.
So it came to pass. “Meghan’s 38, luv. And I don’t see any sign of WW3, just a bunch of ill-informed hysterical Twitter twerps like you shrieking about it, as you do about everything”. Waaah! Patronising, misogynistic, sexist, gratuitously abusive, all wrapped up in one bawling, petulant, desperate admission that this is a campaign which has developed not necessarily to his advantage. Poor Piers suffers another dent to his manhood.
But all those court cases haven’t caught up with him yet, so that’s all right, then.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at