Is Piers Morgan justified?

Carrera said:

Piers Morgan was forced to quit his job as Daily Mirror Editor after having published fake pics of U.K. soldiers abusing Iraqi POW's. Morgan finally confessed he'd been taken in by the fake pics but insisted there was genuine evidence to suggest Iraqi prisoners had been ill-treated. He said the fake pics did represent genuine incidents and that investigations revealed abuse was widespread. The BBC then showed footage of traumatized Iraqi captives being hooded and treated with little dignity.
Now it turns out Morgan was correct to have made his allegation, although he was taken to the cleaners at the time, called irresponsible, reckless, unpatriotic and biased.
The abuse has indeed taken place. Photos have been shown throughout the Arab world of Iraqi prisoners being maltreated while in a vulnerable position. True, this doesn't seem like a systematic policy of abuse, but the damage has been done.
In all cases where POW's are abused, there is evidently a clear failure of discipline at the top. The damage done is virtually irreversible. It harms the economy, damages relations with the Arab world and puts more ethical, professional soldiers at risk.
Piers Morgan should now demand an apology and be reinstated as editor of The Mirror.

I take my hat off to you, Sir.
An excellent post.
And a bloody good analysis.

You are very perceptive to highlight this because I can clearly recall Piers Morgan saying, when he was fired, that he believed that the British soldiers were guilty of something.

He mentioned the Lancashire regiment at the time - as being the culprits in the doctored photos.
Are the current photos pertaining to the same regiment as Morgan claimed.

Let me research this and I'll come back to you.

but you make an excellent point.

Carrera said:

Piers Morgan was forced to quit his job as Daily Mirror Editor after having published fake pics of U.K. soldiers abusing Iraqi POW's. Morgan finally confessed he'd been taken in by the fake pics but insisted there was genuine evidence to suggest Iraqi prisoners had been ill-treated. He said the fake pics did represent genuine incidents and that investigations revealed abuse was widespread. The BBC then showed footage of traumatized Iraqi captives being hooded and treated with little dignity.
Now it turns out Morgan was correct to have made his allegation, although he was taken to the cleaners at the time, called irresponsible, reckless, unpatriotic and biased.
The abuse has indeed taken place. Photos have been shown throughout the Arab world of Iraqi prisoners being maltreated while in a vulnerable position. True, this doesn't seem like a systematic policy of abuse, but the damage has been done.
In all cases where POW's are abused, there is evidently a clear failure of discipline at the top. The damage done is virtually irreversible. It harms the economy, damages relations with the Arab world and puts more ethical, professional soldiers at risk.
Piers Morgan should now demand an apology and be reinstated as editor of The Mirror.

I don't know to what you refer , but some time ago photographical evidence can be dimissed by the courts as being manipulated and corrupted in certain circumstaces with Abode.
Can't wait for Morgan to defend on behalf of his Paper.
I just love libel and defamation.

Well, thanks Lim. It's just I recall that Piers Morgan had his sources at the time and immediately after the article he printed, detectives interviewed him. Once the pics turned out to be fraudulent, Piers was savaged (as much as Harry, for that matter).
The very General who has just apologised over British troop behaviour called Piers irresponsible at the time the article came out. Piers was accused of placing U.K. troops lives at risk in Iraq over a dodgy, contrived story and fake pics. Morgan was slammed on the media and finally resigned, unrepentant.
Prior to all of this he led the way in transforming the Mirror into a more upmarket journal. The Mirror was the first paper to attack the whole idea of going to war in Iraq and finally began to savage the Bush Administration as a whole, exposing the whole neo-conservative philosophy and publishing well-researched articles that linked Bush and Rumsfeld to oil industries with specific aims in Iraq.
The Mirror savaged Blair and was the first rag to come up with the term "Poodle Blair". They even had a front page header with the title "Walkies: Blair meets Bush as White House."
I think Morgan did a damned good job in the field of journalism and should be reinstated as editor. He's been justified and reported the whole truth of the matter. The people who abused these Iraquis were thugs not soldiers but, of course, they made up a very small minority and the truth is most U.K. servicemen have behaved reasonably well in Iraq, given the circumstances.

limerickman said:

I take my hat off to you, Sir.
An excellent post.
And a bloody good analysis.

You are very perceptive to highlight this because I can clearly recall Piers Morgan saying, when he was fired, that he believed that the British soldiers were guilty of something.

He mentioned the Lancashire regiment at the time - as being the culprits in the doctored photos.
Are the current photos pertaining to the same regiment as Morgan claimed.

Let me research this and I'll come back to you.

but you make an excellent point.

Carrera said:

Well, thanks Lim. It's just I recall that Piers Morgan had his sources at the time and immediately after the article he printed, detectives interviewed him. Once the pics turned out to be fraudulent, Piers was savaged (as much as Harry, for that matter).
The very General who has just apologised over British troop behaviour called Piers irresponsible at the time the article came out. Piers was accused of placing U.K. troops lives at risk in Iraq over a dodgy, contrived story and fake pics. Morgan was slammed on the media and finally resigned, unrepentant.
Prior to all of this he led the way in transforming the Mirror into a more upmarket journal. The Mirror was the first paper to attack the whole idea of going to war in Iraq and finally began to savage the Bush Administration as a whole, exposing the whole neo-conservative philosophy and publishing well-researched articles that linked Bush and Rumsfeld to oil industries with specific aims in Iraq.
The Mirror savaged Blair and was the first rag to come up with the term "Poodle Blair". They even had a front page header with the title "Walkies: Blair meets Bush as White House."
I think Morgan did a damned good job in the field of journalism and should be reinstated as editor. He's been justified and reported the whole truth of the matter. The people who abused these Iraquis were thugs not soldiers but, of course, they made up a very small minority and the truth is most U.K. servicemen have behaved reasonably well in Iraq, given the circumstances.

Now then Carrera, if you were Piers Morgan, on which side of the fence would you like to pursue an issue? As a Claimant or Defendent in this issue, or both in part, of which you will have no success. They are in law seperate issues. Therefore I suggest that your integrity should be of the first issue.....

Carrera said:

Piers Morgan was forced to quit his job as Daily Mirror Editor after having published fake pics of U.K. soldiers abusing Iraqi POW's. Morgan finally confessed he'd been taken in by the fake pics but insisted there was genuine evidence to suggest Iraqi prisoners had been ill-treated. He said the fake pics did represent genuine incidents and that investigations revealed abuse was widespread. The BBC then showed footage of traumatized Iraqi captives being hooded and treated with little dignity.
Now it turns out Morgan was correct to have made his allegation, although he was taken to the cleaners at the time, called irresponsible, reckless, unpatriotic and biased.
The abuse has indeed taken place. Photos have been shown throughout the Arab world of Iraqi prisoners being maltreated while in a vulnerable position. True, this doesn't seem like a systematic policy of abuse, but the damage has been done.
In all cases where POW's are abused, there is evidently a clear failure of discipline at the top. The damage done is virtually irreversible. It harms the economy, damages relations with the Arab world and puts more ethical, professional soldiers at risk.
Piers Morgan should now demand an apology and be reinstated as editor of The Mirror.

I haven't followed all this as well as you obviously have, but something doesn't sound right. If Piers Morgan had strong evidence that abuses were taking place, then surely he was justified to publish the story, and being genuinely fooled by fake pictures is hardly a sackable offence, is it?

However, if he published the story knowing that the pictures were fake, or if he had any doubt about the story's veracity, then that's at best poor journalism and at worst grossly irresponsible, because it stirs up ill-feeling which could endanger people on both sides. If this is the case, then the coincidence of the story actually being true doesn't change a thing, and Morgan deserves no apology or reinstatement.

mjw_byrne said:

I haven't followed all this as well as you obviously have, but something doesn't sound right. If Piers Morgan had strong evidence that abuses were taking place, then surely he was justified to publish the story, and being genuinely fooled by fake pictures is hardly a sackable offence, is it?

However, if he published the story knowing that the pictures were fake, or if he had any doubt about the story's veracity, then that's at best poor journalism and at worst grossly irresponsible, because it stirs up ill-feeling which could endanger people on both sides. If this is the case, then the coincidence of the story actually being true doesn't change a thing, and Morgan deserves no apology or reinstatement.

If I recall what happened correctly - the DM published photos of the Queens Lancashire soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqi prisoners.
It transpired that the photos had been false - and the DM put pressure on
Morgan to resign.
However throughout this story, Morgan said that he had information which stated that British soldiers had been abusing Iraqi prisoners.
The pressure came on when the Army inestigated the published photos in the DM and found them to be staged/false.

Now I'll leave it to the legal eagles to decide if Morgan has a cause.
(Fred C, might offer his eminent view).

To me, a layman, it seems that at the very minimum that Piers statement about prisoner abuse by British soldiers has now been vindicated.
Whether this is sufficient to launch a challenge, I'll leave this to m'learned friend.

There was fury over Piers's article and pics. It was felt the story would endanger the lives of British troops in Iraq and it was also felt that if the Daily Mirror had any actual evidence to back up prisoner abuse claims in Iraq, the said information should have been forwarded to the authorities, not broadcast.
Then the pics turned out to be a set-up. Piers Morgan admitted he had been hoodwinked but continued to claim he had sources that assured him abuses had taken place.
Finally he stepped down but never repented over the story. But during the whole period in question Morgan was roasted by the Government, the media and the press. Even the BBC didn't hold back. It was even suggested the Mirror should be fined or put out of print.
All along he had been right as I suspect the entire Mirror analysis of the neo-conservatives and the corruption of Bush Junior and Rumsfeld has been spot-on.

mjw_byrne said:

I haven't followed all this as well as you obviously have, but something doesn't sound right. If Piers Morgan had strong evidence that abuses were taking place, then surely he was justified to publish the story, and being genuinely fooled by fake pictures is hardly a sackable offence, is it?

However, if he published the story knowing that the pictures were fake, or if he had any doubt about the story's veracity, then that's at best poor journalism and at worst grossly irresponsible, because it stirs up ill-feeling which could endanger people on both sides. If this is the case, then the coincidence of the story actually being true doesn't change a thing, and Morgan deserves no apology or reinstatement.

limerickman said:

If I recall what happened correctly - the DM published photos of the Queens Lancashire soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqi prisoners.
It transpired that the photos had been false - and the DM put pressure on
Morgan to resign.
However throughout this story, Morgan said that he had information which stated that British soldiers had been abusing Iraqi prisoners.
The pressure came on when the Army inestigated the published photos in the DM and found them to be staged/false.

Now I'll leave it to the legal eagles to decide if Morgan has a cause.
(Fred C, might offer his eminent view).

To me, a layman, it seems that at the very minimum that Piers statement about prisoner abuse by British soldiers has now been vindicated.
Whether this is sufficient to launch a challenge, I'll leave this to m'learned friend.

These are different issues indeed, and not matched in a construction. Morgan cannot contest ( well he can) that in the first instance a photograph was published in the Daily Mirror of alleged brutality taking place in the back of an MOD vehicle. It transpires that this type of vehicle ( Bedford TK series?) was not taken, or used in Iraq. Therefore the slight on our troops, and in particular the Lancashire Regiment based at Fulwood Barracks were defamed in many ways, as would be the Ministry of Defence.
The responsibility of the Editor is to ascertain a providence before publishing any photograph or article. Therefore he resigned.
However, if it transpires, that at some later date, some anti Geneva conventions have been transgressed by our troops in another circumstance, then Morgan cannot come back with the spurious retort "I told you so".
One case will not relate to the other in any construction whatsover, and any defence of this sort will be struck out at the pre trial hearing.

So from what you guys are saying, it seems that it was appropriate for Morgan to step down, simply because he hadn't ascertained with 100% certainty that the story was true (because he was fooled by the pics), and the story's turning out to be true now doesn't change matters, as the above reason for which he had to step down still stands. Although it strongly suggests that he wasn't just pulling the story out of thin air.

It seems that the injustice he suffered was being so violently grilled by a range of parties who (incorrectly) dismissed the possibility of abuses taking place out of hand. For this, some kind of reparation is probably in order, although the issue is muddied considerably because it is likely that all this unfair attention he recieved contributed to his being forced to to resign. In any case, I think he probably falls somewhere between the two extremes of "totally guilty" and "totally innocent".

mjw_byrne said:

So from what you guys are saying, it seems that it was appropriate for Morgan to step down, simply because he hadn't ascertained with 100% certainty that the story was true (because he was fooled by the pics), and the story's turning out to be true now doesn't change matters, as the above reason for which he had to step down still stands. Although it strongly suggests that he wasn't just pulling the story out of thin air.

It seems that the injustice he suffered was being so violently grilled by a range of parties who (incorrectly) dismissed the possibility of abuses taking place out of hand. For this, some kind of reparation is probably in order, although the issue is muddied considerably because it is likely that all this unfair attention he recieved contributed to his being forced to to resign. In any case, I think he probably falls somewhere between the two extremes of "totally guilty" and "totally innocent".

At last you might be getting somewhere. I want you to first of all seperate the issues, which you string together as one unit, or one part trying to prove and substantiate another part as a reasonable excuse, because that would be the case heard. He cannot claim qualified privilige (see Reynolds v The Times, and others) as a defense here. He was fired (resigned) by his employers for gross misconduct, and he did pull the story accompanying the picture out of fresh air.
We know that some people were against the war, and some for it, and a few don't knows.
It is only reasonable that he should be brought before investigative bodies to substantiate, or not his behaviour.
In my opinion he would be a foolish man to go to the very large expense to try to prove his virtually untenable case. On the other hand the MOD (H.M. Government) might pursue him, and their case would be watertight.
Another matter which could arise, but I doubt it, is that he could claim for wrongful dismissal.
As to your spurious point that at some later date some maltreatment did take place. This conjectural point, on the balance of probabities, would be of no importance as during the heat of battle it is not unusual for the odd instance to occur. Morgan never pointed these instances out, so the defense is totally flawed.
Getting the hang of it now?

FredC said:

At last you might be getting somewhere. I want you to first of all seperate the issues, which you string together as one unit, or one part trying to prove and substantiate another part as a reasonable excuse, because that would be the case heard. He cannot claim qualified privilige (see Reynolds v The Times, and others) as a defense here. He was fired (resigned) by his employers for gross misconduct, and he did pull the story accompanying the picture out of fresh air.
We know that some people were against the war, and some for it, and a few don't knows.
It is only reasonable that he should be brought before investigative bodies to substantiate, or not his behaviour.
In my opinion he would be a foolish man to go to the very large expense to try to prove his virtually untenable case. On the other hand the MOD (H.M. Government) might pursue him, and their case would be watertight.
Another matter which could arise, but I doubt it, is that he could claim for wrongful dismissal.
As to your spurious point that at some later date some maltreatment did take place. This conjectural point, on the balance of probabities, would be of no importance as during the heat of battle it is not unusual for the odd instance to occur. Morgan never pointed these instances out, so the defense is totally flawed.
Getting the hang of it now?

Well if, as you say, the pictures landed on his desk and he just made up a story to go along with them, then he deserves everything he gets, and the fact that his fabrication turned out to be true doesn't work in his defence at all.

Abuses of people that happen "in the heat of battle" is one thing, but the claims are about rather more systematic stuff than that. For one thing, in the heat of battle you don't get soldiers posing and having their pictures taken.

mjw_byrne said:

Well if, as you say, the pictures landed on his desk and he just made up a story to go along with them, then he deserves everything he gets, and the fact that his fabrication turned out to be true doesn't work in his defence at all.

Abuses of people that happen "in the heat of battle" is one thing, but the claims are about rather more systematic stuff than that. For one thing, in the heat of battle you don't get soldiers posing and having their pictures taken.

I doubt very much that 'the pictures landed on his desk'. It is of my opinion that some verbal discourse would have taken place previously, and no doubt some financial reward that was agreeable to both parties would have been resolved. Morgans and his newspaper, published without witness a false fabricated contrivance with the sole intention of (various, I shall not go into this) duping the readers, and indeed the Nation.
You're other points, as I have previously pointed out are of no relevance.
Now then Mr Byrne, if you so wish, why don't you construct a case on behalf of Morgan in a legal application.

mjw_byrne said:

Abuses of people that happen "in the heat of battle" is one thing, but the claims are about rather more systematic stuff than that. For one thing, in the heat of battle you don't get soldiers posing and having their pictures taken.

You are correct to a point.. In the heat of battle there may not be “posing” but afterwards there may be ongoing/long term psychological effects. It is quite easy to act as an armchair general as Captain Limerickman an others have done. However, it is really difficult to say what one would do if one just had a buddy blown up by a sniveling coward terrorist and some prisoner under your control becomes uncooperative, spits at you etc.. I say again, I wonder what world reaction would be if coalition soldiers were lopping off heads with a butter knife instead?

zapper said:

However, it is really difficult to say what one would do if one just had a buddy blown up by a sniveling coward terrorist and some prisoner under your control becomes uncooperative, spits at you etc.. I say again, I wonder what world reaction would be if coalition soldiers were lopping off heads with a butter knife instead?

The people attacking your troops are defending their country.

Remember, your lot are the invaders.

FredC said:

You're other points, as I have previously pointed out are of no relevance. Now then Mr Byrne, if you so wish, why don't you construct a case on behalf of Morgan in a legal application.

No doubt they are irrelevant to Mr. Morgan's legal situation, but relevant in a casual discussion about how right/wrong he was, like this one.

zapper said:

...act as an armchair general as Captain Limerickman an others have...

General Limerickman, surely? Or "armchair captain", of course 😉

zapper said:

...difficult to say what one would do if one just had a buddy blown up by a sniveling coward terrorist...

Why is it that the terrorist is a "sniveling coward", but when a coalition soldier blows an Iraqi civilian away he's just doing his job, fighting for his country, defending freedom (LOL!) etc.? Look up "terrorism" in a dictionary and decide whether G. W. Bush is guilty of it or not.

Besides, terrorists are often anything but cowardly. Flying a plane into a building or strapping TNT to yourself and charging the enemy takes serious courage. Launching wave after wave of cruise missiles in the enemy's general direction does not.

mjw_byrne said:

General Limerickman, surely? Or "armchair captain", of course 😉

More like Captain Morgan!

Quoted post said:

Why is it that the terrorist is a "sniveling coward", but when a coalition soldier blows an Iraqi civilian away he's just doing his job, fighting for his country, defending freedom (LOL!) etc.? Look up "terrorism" in a dictionary and decide whether G. W. Bush is guilty of it or not. Besides, terrorists are often anything but cowardly.

You make me laugh. Let's see, planting roadside IED's, firing weapons while hiding in schools and religious temples. Then calling the media if a brick is damaged on one of these structures and blaming the mean U.S. for damaging theses sites??? Using women and children as human shields.. Yes, real examples of bravery. 🙄 I have never heard of a soldier from the U.S or the U.K. for that matter using human shields.. Nice try M.J. 🙄

Quoted post said:

Flying a plane into a building or strapping TNT to yourself and charging the enemy takes serious courage.

No, that would be defined by the word...Lunatic, go ahead, look it up. 🙄

Quoted post said:

Launching wave after wave of cruise missiles in the enemy's general direction does not.

What year/month are you living in jr...Cruise missiles are used to soften up a country for invasion, we are already there genius... 🙄 🙄

zapper said:

You make me laugh. Let's see, planting roadside IED's, firing weapons while hiding in schools and religious temples. Then calling the media if a brick is damaged on one of these structures and blaming the mean U.S. for damaging theses sites??? Using women and children as human shields.. Yes, real examples of bravery. 🙄 I have never heard of a soldier from the U.S or the U.K. for that matter using human shields.

I didn't say they were ALL brave, just that they weren't all cowards. I'm sure there are also [censored] fighting on both sides.

zapper said:

No, that would be defined by the word...Lunatic, go ahead, look it up. 🙄

No, it is actually brave. You might also think it is evil/foolish/malicious or whatever, but it is still brave.

zapper said:

What year/month are you living in jr...Cruise missiles are used to soften up a country for invasion, we are already there genius... 🙄

No [censored], Sherlock. I never said Cruises were still being used, did I? You're grasping at straws because you don't have a decent argument, which, admittedly, is hardly surprising.

mjw_byrne said:

I didn't say they were ALL brave, just that they weren't all cowards. I'm sure there are also [censored] fighting on both sides.

No, it is actually brave. You might also think it is evil/foolish/malicious or whatever, but it is still brave.

No [censored], Sherlock. I never said Cruises were still being used, did I? You're grasping at straws because you don't have a decent argument, which, admittedly, is hardly surprising.

Well done Mr. Byrne.

I've got the score as follows Oxford University 3 Virginia Tech 0

Just a little addenda here. The Americans don't have their families with them to use as human shields........... otherwise.
Anyway who says the Iraqis do this, surely they are only defending their homes. If some incursor came down your road blasting away, you would defend your family surely. Oh no, the Evil Terrorists are cowards. I'm [censored] sure that I would get the gun out of the safe to defend our lot, if you're going to go take a few along on the ride.
It's obvious you don't study law, so what do you study?

FredC said:

Well done Mr. Byrne.

I've got the score as follows Oxford University 3 Virginia Tech 0

Just a little addenda here. The Americans don't have their families with them to use as human shields........... otherwise.
Anyway who says the Iraqis do this, surely they are only defending their homes. If some incursor came down your road blasting away, you would defend your family surely. Oh no, the Evil Terrorists are cowards. I'm [censored] sure that I would get the gun out of the safe to defend our lot, if you're going to go take a few along on the ride.
It's obvious you don't study law, so what do you study?

You have an interesting point - American families would make excellent human shields due to their bulk. OK OK, only kidding.

As you correctly surmise, I am no lawyer. I'm a maths guy.