Few charities have stuck by him
He was condemned by charities across the UK, including SAMH, for hating on Meghan Markle and questioning her account of having suicidal thoughts.
But one charity is holding onto Piers Morgan as its patron despite his notoriety.
Cat Charity The Moggery has had Morgan as a patron since 2008 despite not owning a cat himself.
Morgan left ITV's Good Morning Britain earlier this week after six years following a row over comments he made about the Duchess of Sussex with charities either severing ties or condemning his behaviour.
However Christine Bayka, chair and founder of the Moggery in Bristol, said he would remain its patron as “he hasn’t stood on any kittens heads or anything like that”.
She said: “He is entitled to his own opinions. They may not be ones that I agree with, but that’s why he is popular – because he’s opinionated – and why he was employed at ITV.”
Broacasting Regulator Ofcom received more than 40,000 complaints following the comments made by Morgan after the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey.
A number of the channel’s charity partners raised their concerns with ITV, including the mental health charity Mind, which said in a statement: “We were disappointed and concerned to see Piers Morgan’s comments on not believing Meghan’s experiences about suicidal thoughts.
“It’s vital that when people reach out for support or share their experiences of mental ill-health that they are treated with dignity, respect and empathy. We are in conversations with ITV about this at the moment.”
The Scottish Association of Mental Health also slammed his behaviour.
SAMH said: “Anyone who shares their experience of suicidal thoughts and mental ill health should be treated with compassion and empathy. We were, therefore, deeply concerned about damaging comments made by Piers Morgan yesterday in response to the interview with Meghan and Harry. Along with charity partners we have shared our concern with ITV.”
If he was patron of a mental health charity, then fair enough, I would expect him to reconsider his role. Similarly if he had done something to harm animals or something that was in clear, direct contradiction to his role as an animal charity patron then again, you would hope that it would be addressed with him. However animal rescue charities usually have NO money and I would not expect them to have to take a view on the opinions of a media presenter who has built his career and is PAID to be disruptive and irreverent because he has behaved badly on a separate issue. Especially when he had already chosen to resign. What would be the point in removing him as a patron as well? He was wrong, has behaved poorly, and has been vehemently called out on it. It is being dealt with in the sphere of his paid work in media and an obscure cat charity shouldn't have to engage in a purity spiral and cut off a vital source of income/promotion. I mean, the cats would hardly understand, would they? They would just feel a bit hungrier and there would be less room to accommodate them while being rehomed, therefore impinging on other strays and mistreated cats who need to be helped by the charity.