Jingsamichty

Review in today's Telegraph of Piers Morgan's new volume of diaries. Ho ho.

Oink

If there was ever a more worthy candidate for a film adaptation, I can't think of one.

Jingsamichty

No actor would be able to do justice to the chisel-jawed, swoonsome and brave Piers though, so he'd have to be reluctantly persuaded into starring in his own movie. Probably he'd deserve an Oscar too, not that he'd think about that of course.

Oink

Although of all the dastardly things we’ve ever exported to North America, from the snaggle-toothed war brides to Herman’s Hermits, Piers must rate as the best.

Partially discharged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Sullivan_(pitchman)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtpKjgwi4Sc

Oink

Nice try, but not even in the same sport let alone division as Piers. You'll have to do better. George Michael or Trisha might be close.

dbd33

I suggest "Jeffrey Archer: Stranger than Fiction". He and Mr. Morgan seem to have a lot in common.

Jingsamichty

Piers Morgan comes across as though he was bullied at school and sees his celebrity status as somehow showing the bullies that he's the real winner.

dbd33

Refer #52. Has he also a fragrant woman?

Jingsamichty

Oh, a large selection of, no doubt.

Partially discharged

Agreed..the two I listed are merely annoying and twee...Piers is in a division of his own smugness..he was so annoying that he didn't last long on America's Got Talent. An absolute first class twunt in my mind....he totally rubs me the wrong way.

Jerry Springer was born in the UK..would he count? Conrad Black wishes he was born in the UK.

Oink

Shame we couldn't have exported Jimmy Savile to them. You'd of thought the premise of Jim'll Fix It would have gone down a storm there.

Steve_

Piers Morgan is talking total bollocks as he generally does and the reason he's doing it is because it's the only reason anyone bothers to watch his crap TV show.

Bear in mind this is the guy fired from the Daily Mirror for publishing faked pictures of prisoner abuse and refusing to apologize.

Yes the US has more firearm-related deaths than other countries but it's not clear that tougher gun laws would make much difference. Canada has one-seventh the rate of firearm-related homicide the US does, but on the other hand, California has comparable gun laws to Canada and has a rate of firearm-related homicide higher than the US national average. This indicates that culture is a sizable factor.

You can't take the UK and compare with the US, because you can prove anything with a sample size of two. Plenty of countries have gun laws almost identical to the UK because they're former British colonies, e.g. Trinidad and Tobago or Jamaica, both of which have sky high firearm-related homcide rates far in excess of the US.

Take a representative sample and there is no correlation.

A lot of the arguments used recently are total myths, e.g. Australia. Australia had a declining homicide rate and there is no indication the changes made by the 1996 legislation caused it to decline more rapidly. Also claims there have been no mass shootings since 1996 are not true, there was one in 2002 at Monash University, they have decided that only if there are four or more fatalities does it qualify as a "mass shooting" which is obviously bollocks.

Canada had a mass shooting in 1989, another in 2005 and another in 2006. So that is three in a 24 year period, so multiply by nine to get the population of the US and that would be 27 in a 24 year period, i.e. more than one a year.

Steve_

Because it's pointless and easily evaded.

There have been countless mass shootings with firearms with a low magazine capacity, most recently at the Navy Yard where he had a pump-action (i.e. not semi-automatic) shotgun with (depending on what ammo he used) a seven-shot magazine. The guy in Cumbria who shot all those people a few years ago used a double-barrel shotgun.

The magazine capacity of gun X is a complete red herring, you were in the Army you know what it is, i.e. a metal or plastic box with a spring in it.

Personally from a sporting standpoint I don't think anyone does need magazines that hold more than ten rounds or so but trying to ban them is a fool's errand. Even if you're successful you have achieved nothing. From a technical standpoint they're only slightly more complicated than a pop can.

Steve_

No I think he's just an ego maniac.