Harry and Meghan #155 No pics with Brenda of Aldi and Lidl, Do they exist? That is the riddle!

[mardymare]

İ don't think TRF had a hand in the result this time or last. They allowed Jason Knauf to add damning evidence and for that we are truly grateful as it unmasked the motives of a malignant narcissist and her entitled simpleton prince. Smeg will be unsufferable now. Perhaps the result will feed her already overblown ego and she will take the path that will be her epic undoing. We can only hope.
İ'm disappointed but not surprised that the Judges have interpreted so narrowly to cater to the petulant whims of a trashy actress married into royalty. İ believe they wanted to minimise any further embarassment and involvement for TRF.
İ think the Harkles are now 100% focused on disproving the bullying enquiry if Jenny Afia's starring role in the BBC documentary has anything to do with it.

 

[username123!]

I think they are saying that those lies did not change the fact that her privacy was breached so the court is ignoring those lies.

However the world is not ignoring them, everyone now knows what a shady character she is. In that sense the appeal has been well worth it for the Mail.

I doubt they will be stupid enough to take any more new legal action having technically won this case but been so burnt in being exposed, to get there.

Oh totally get that, I’m just surprised that although it may not change the fact her privacy was encroached surely it opens up the question of how much more did she potentially control the narrative of what she’s now calling her privacy? And therefore a trial to delve deeper - It’s very surface level. However, I doubt the royal family would have wanted much more of this going on

 

[Nuttynana]

I think no one should be surprised by the judgment. It was pretty obvious how it would be. Her statement re FF and all the evidence that forced her to apologise for forgetting lying had no influence on the case. It was always about how much and how the Mail presented the letter. They could have used it just fine but in a different form. It’s great they had the opportunity to present all of this though because her reputation has suffered from it.
I just wish there would have been a little lecturing for MM to better prepare her statements in the future and make sure she is actually telling the truth.

Why have they gone so easy on her, ??poor JK must be mortified and makes me wonder about the bullying accusations will that be held back in their favour.

I loathe unfairness in any form and it's my belief that our Judicial system now looks weak and ineffective against rich and powerful people.

It's all a crock of tit and their supporters will be preening , smug and bleeping gleeful it really has blown my mind today.

Cunts the lot of them

 

[Magnolia23]

Bit it makes you wonder if ANL really appealed just to get more shite out on MM? The second hearing was nothing but repetitive from first one except proof she lied about FF which had nothing to do with the case... I'm sure ANL lawyers would know it wont make much difference.. we here knew.... so I'm sure they did... I'd say well played..

 

[JAR21]

I wonder what would have happened if both the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail had run the interview with Thomas Markle, but included different paragraphs of the letter? Would neither of them then have published 'too much'?

 

[D. A.]

At work but just saw headline
I will make sure I have a very large on wine tonight when I catch up with all your views on this.
Oh, & if I am ever in trouble with the law at least I now know being "forgetful" is acceptable....

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

Well this week's MoS should be interesting. I think all the papers will gang up together, although they're rivals they also support each other when necessary. Nothing on mailonline yet.

 

[SecretSherryDrinker]

Duchess Vinega

 

[Ndrangheta]

ugh. Can’t bear the ‘not just for me but all of us’ statement.

duck off Meghan. It’s all about you. It’s only ever about you.

Just when I thought I could not despise this woman more, she keeps upping the bar.

 

[Spring2020]

Can you imagine anyone exposed as a lier only recently lecturing on about the "truth" or a person being investigated for work place bullying berating others for being "cruel"?? She is on another level of narcissism that is beyond comprehension. She is determined to live her "truth" and face zero accountability. Anyone who questions her is branded a racist and that is that.

ANL were wrong to print the whole letter but that does not take away from the fact that she wrote the letter in the first instance with the press in mind as stated by OS. This lawsuit was about making her look a victim of the press. She has set them up good.

She will plough through with her victim narrative. The RF are petrified of any allegation of racism being thrown in their way so I doubt they will put too much out there in the bullying report.

 

[Magnolia23]

I wonder what would have happened if both the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail had run the interview with Thomas Markle, but included different paragraphs of the letter? Would neither of them then have published 'too much'?

I think there is a percentage you can publish.. (correct me if I'm wrong) and for what they were arguing about - right of reply only one paragraph was relevant too.. so I guess the win is based on that ANL just wanted to publish the letter rather than fight for TM tight of reply (in laik words lol)

 

[bubbadabut]

I can't believe she used the term "daily fail" in her statement. It's so deliberate and pointed it doesn't even make sense. She was obviously desperate to squeeze it in somewhere. Hopefully that will be like a red rag to a bull for ANL.

 

[LadyMuck]

As someone tweeted on Richard Palmers page upthread - "By preventing key evidence being heard re the preparation of the Duchess' letter and its intended audience, the Court of Appeal has elevated the Duchess' privacy rights over public interest and freedom of expression"

 

[Tofino]

HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 669 (Ch) (22 March 2021)

www.bailii.org

This was the last remedies hearing, I presume they might just pick up where they left off. I’ll see if I can find the damages sought info as think that was a different hearing.

Key points from Warby
- I decided that the defendant should publish a Notice on MailOnline for a period of one week, rather than the six months sought by the claimant.

-The claimant continues to maintain that the Statement should be in the same position, and be in the same size font, as the front-page trailer complained of. The defendant seeks to run it along the bottom of the page as a sub-banner in a smaller font due to the number of words. If the Statement was printed in the same font as the trailer it would consume a much, much greater proportion of the front page, becoming the main story of the day, or significantly downgrading that news story. This is clearly a reasonable point.. I therefore approve the defendant's proposed version of this part of the order. (ANL provided mock ups to show why meghans wants wouldn’t work.)

 

[ChipDex]

İ don't think TRF had a hand in the result this time or last. They allowed Jason Knauf to add damning evidence and for that we are truly grateful as it unmasked the motives of a malignant narcissist and her entitled simpleton prince. Smeg will be unsufferable now. Perhaps the result will feed her already overblown ego and she will take the path that will be her epic undoing. We can only hope.
İ'm disappointed but not surprised that the Judges have interpreted so narrowly to cater to the petulant whims of a trashy actress married into royalty. İ believe they wanted to minimise any further embarassment and involvement for TRF.
İ think the Harkles are now 100% focused on disproving the bullying enquiry if Jenny Afia's starring role in the BBC documentary has anything to do with it.

Even if the RF try to minimise the bullying enquiry, or Meghan tries to shut it down via her lawyers, the staff were/are employees with legal rights under UK employment laws and would still be able to claim constructive dismissal at an Employment Tribunal. There's nothing the RF or Meghan can do about that.

I doubt the Royal households are unionised but there's nothing to stop staff joining a union of their own accord. And if that's the case, then the RF and Smeg could find themselves up against the likes of the NUJ for communications staff, or Unite for others.

And the NUJ could be particularly hostile after today.

The RF will hopefully be transparent, even if it's embarrassing for BP and CH.

We know PW did what he could to protect his staff, within his authority. And it's alleged that Kate went to PC directly and was fobbed off. So the Cambridges should have little to worry about, regardless.

 

[Nuttynana]

I can't believe she used the term "daily fail" in her statement. It's so deliberate it doesn't even make sense. She was obviously desperate to squeeze it in somewhere. Hopefully that will be a red rag to a bull for ANL.

I am normally quiet upbeat but this ruling takes the bleeping biscuit and had put me in such a foul mood I kicked a box thinking it was empty, and it was full of bleeping books so have stubbed my toe all because of Teflon tits.

I still believe our justice system has been kicked in the teeth just like the RF and still she gets away with it!!

There are no words to console us today and just hope this witch gets her comeuppance soon.

Please can someone calm and resourceful on here give me a few grains of hope.

 

[planetmirth]

So if collaborating or not collaborating with a book FF makes no difference to the letter being private , at the time of writing, why did the judge admit FF in the first place ????

 

[Cassandra333]

I guess I'm most annoyed at the decision by the court that smegs had 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. Or words to that effect. But she didn't. She had no expection of privacy as she stated in the email to Knauf. That should have been investigated more fully.
You may have to right to privacy, but if you write a letter expecting it to be published, then you've voluntarily given up that right. And if you've given up that right then you can have no reasonable expectation of it.
Or perhaps I'm just mad. Feeling a bit mad today for some reason

 

[LadyMuck]

 

[JAR21]

I guess I'm most annoyed at the decision by the court that smegs had 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. Or words to that effect. But she didn't. She had no expection of privacy as she stated in the email to Knauf. That should have been investigated more fully.
You may have to right to privacy, but if you write a letter expecting it to be published, then you've voluntarily given up that right. And if you've given up that right then you can have no reasonable expectation of it.
Or perhaps I'm just mad. Feeling a bit mad today for some reason

And if you're authorising friends to talk to a rag in the US!!