Andrew Pierce - Royally Racist

The Daily Mail’s not-really-racist attitude to the Duchess of Sussex began even before she and Haz had married, typified by the infamous headline “Yes, they’re joyfully in love. So why do I get a niggling worry about this engagement picture?” Sarah “Vain” Vine, she of the bookshelf with a book by David Irving, wasn’t at all racist. She just had a NIGGling worry. She didn’t say anything racist, you understand, it was just something NIGGling.

Elsewhere, the swipes at Meg knew no bounds: “How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder … The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados”. Enter the non-racist Northcliffe House food police.

Put that together with the Mail’s deeply unsavoury pundit Andrew Pierce, add a little falsehood and misinformation, and voilà! “[Meghan] wore diamonds from Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia 3 weeks says [The Times] after he ordered murder of #JamalKhashoggi … it's not just appalling timing, why is she taking diamonds from Saudi which treats women as 3rd class citizens. So much for her worldwide equality campaign”.

And as Fred Flintstone might have put it, hold it … HOLD IT! She isn’t taking diamonds from anyone - those remain property of The Crown. Pierce should know that. He should also know how not to pretend he isn’t a nailed-on racist while being, er, a nailed-on racist. But he flunked that one badly on his LBC show yesterday evening.

A caller to The Great Man’s prog opined “You may not agree with this but I believe that Meghan Markle has never been fully accepted because of her skin colour”. Pierce summoned all his intellectual reserves to groan “Oh God, not that one again”.

He then opened mouth and inserted both feet in no style at all: “Do you look at her and see a black woman? Cos I don’t. I see a very attractive woman. It’s never occurred to me that … I never look at her and think, ‘Gosh she’s black’, in the way you look at Oprah Winfrey, you would be in no doubt. When they sit down and do that interview, you will see where [a] black woman called Oprah Winfrey, and you will see a woman who describes a woman … her mother is black, she’s from a mixed race family”. There was more.

“Of course, but I just don’t think people look at Meghan and think ‘Oh I hate her because of her skin colour’. I don’t see … I don’t buy it”. So Megs isn’t really black, so all the abuse isn’t at all racist, even Sarah Vine and her NIGGling worry. And anyway, properly black women aren’t very attractive, at least by inference. Which sums up the Daily Mail in one.

Clumsy racism that isn’t really racism. Tone deaf and out of touch. Nadine Batchelor Hunt was only slightly gobsmacked. “What the fuck have I just watched?” Owen Jones added “This is absolutely horrific on every level”. Louise Raw, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, responded “He said he doesn’t look at Meghan Markle and see a Black woman; he sees an ATTRACTIVE one. Therefore she can’t be a victim of racism. WHERE TO START”.

Russ in Cheshire summed up. “In a single week we've had: - 5 gentiles debating if Jews are a proper minority - 5 middle-aged white men debating whether a young black woman can really be a victim - And Andrew Pierce asserting on radio that Meghan Markle isn't legitimately black … Broadcasters: WTF?” WTF indeed.

Andrew Pierce may not be totally and irretrievably racist. But you can see it from there.

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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet8