Harry and Meghan #3 Duke and Duchess of Narcissism!

[AmberSpyglass]

I read another theory regarding The Cambridge’s freezing out Rose Hanbury, her Husband is close with some dodgy people and spends a lot of time with them in Paris, leaving Rose at home a lot on her own with their children .

Kate and William have been advised to drop all contact ready for when the tit hits the fan.

I read it on LaineyGossip, probably bollocks but I don’t believe William’s a cheat, he’s too wet.

 

[Topanga]

For something like that I think they’d need to have been told by several different sources or have some visual proof. I really don’t think the British press would even consider printing such a story about the future King unless they were confident that if sued they could prove it was true. Despite how it may seem it's not how they work. Saying someone so high up in the Royal Family had an affair is a very strong allegation. But the British press haven’t printed that as the RF got an injunction out, presumably based on his right to privacy.

But if they had true proof they could just send the receipts to the American tabloids and they would have a field day with it. They are not tied to any injunctions. And they do exist and are ruthless, even though our dear woke duchess thinks there’s no such thing in the US.

 

[Susiew73]

What's wrong with the phrase?

I'm also a WoC so intrigued

I haven’t read the other pages but I’m white but also would like to know why that phrase is a problem.

 

[hannah123]

I haven’t read the other pages but I’m white but also would like to know why that phrase is a problem.

Think some people have problems with the gender politics of such statements. So rather than being about to just call out injustices or highlight problems for what they are, they have to prerequisite the problem with a statement such as “As a women, as a member of the LGBTQ, as a POC”, as though making a point of your identity adds weight to the argument and implies that your opinion is somewhat superior.

There’s a video from Douglas Murray explaining it better than I could. Not sure where I stand on it though before anyone shouts at me.

 

[Gifted]

From a legal standpoint I highly doubt a super injunction is in place to silence the UK media. A super injunction would mean that there would be complete radio silence in terms of the story, regardless of any proof they might have. Both television and print media have reported on the fact that social media is awash with rumours.

I haven’t seen any British TV and print reports like that but I meant a normal injunction. I do remember seeing online on US sites how Giles Coren had tweeted it was true there had been an affair. This got things a flutter as he works for The Times a newspaper of record. He quickly deleted it and there were reports that there’s been pressure from the palace to do this.

But if they had true proof they could just send the receipts to the American tabloids and they would have a field day with it. They are not tied to any injunctions. And they do exist and are ruthless, even though our dear woke duchess thinks there’s no such thing in the US.

They’re not going to do that, it’s not how journalism works!! They’re going to hang on to the receipts to use as leverage and to keep in case even more evidence comes in.

 

[Palmtrees]

She wont be staying at her mother's, it's not secure enough, I'm still betting they'll be staying on Oprah's property.

Maybe Oprah will do an interview with them ?

 

[hannah123]

Think some people have problems with the gender politics of such statements. So rather than being about to just call out injustices or highlight problems for what they are, they have to prerequisite the problem with a statement such as “As a women, as a member of the LGBTQ, as a POC”, as though making a point of your identity adds weight to the argument and implies that your opinion is somewhat superior.

There’s a video from Douglas Murray explaining it better than I could. Not sure where I stand on it though before anyone shouts at me.

realised I put gender politics, meant to be identity. Hadn’t eaten yet when I wrote that

 

[Kat973]

I haven’t seen any British TV and print reports like that but I meant a normal injunction. I do remember seeing online on US sites how Giles Coren had tweeted it was true there had been an affair. This got things a flutter as he works for The Times a newspaper of record. He quickly deleted it and there were reports that there’s been pressure from the palace to do this.

I read the Scottish Herald and Scotland on Sunday and they have both included articles on the existence of the rumours. The only British network channel where I haven’t heard it at least mentioned has been on the BBC. A normal injunction would not be applicable in these circumstances as it would only compel one party to refrain from a particular activity. A super injunction is a specific order that encompasses all media outlets.

There is no proof that Coren was under any pressure to delete from the palace. It seems more likely that he tweeted something that he was unable to substantiate and quickly realised the implications for his credibility and career.

 

[Suzesnooze]

There’s actually a thread about Will and Kate and these rumours. They seem to be taking over Harry & Meg’s thread!

 

[Eyesdown]

I haven’t seen any British TV and print reports like that but I meant a normal injunction. I do remember seeing online on US sites how Giles Coren had tweeted it was true there had been an affair. This got things a flutter as he works for The Times a newspaper of record. He quickly deleted it and there were reports that there’s been pressure from the palace to do this.



They’re not going to do that, it’s not how journalism works!! They’re going to hang on to the receipts to use as leverage and to keep in case even more evidence comes in.

Giles Coren is very good friends with Camilla’s son Tom...

 

[Gifted]

I read the Scottish Herald and Scotland on Sunday and they have both included articles on the existence of the rumours. The only British network channel where I haven’t heard it at least mentioned has been on the BBC. A normal injunction would not be applicable in these circumstances as it would only compel one party to refrain from a particular activity. A super injunction is a specific order that encompasses all media outlets.

There is no proof that Coren was under any pressure to delete from the palace. It seems more likely that he tweeted something that he was unable to substantiate and quickly realised the implications for his credibility and career.

It’s an individual injunction I know of through friends. And then a threat of legal action at one other paper. May have been more.

Sure it’s very likely there was no pressure on Coren from the palace, pressure from his own paper would have been enough if he didn’t delete off his own back. That was the speculation from some overseas websites however.

 

[Kat973]

There’s actually a thread about Will and Kate and these rumours. They seem to be taking over Harry & Meg’s thread!

Sorry, it wasn’t my intention to go off base.

It’s an individual injunction I know of through friends. And then a threat of legal action at one other paper. May have been more.

I’m sorry but I think that your friends have been misinformed. What they are saying about injunctions makes no sense in legal terms. Why would the palace attempt to silence one or two outlets and give the rest free reign?

However, it is believable that the palace would have contacted all media outlets and informed them that they would they would take legal action. If the rumours were true and the media could prove it, they would have nothing to fear from being taken to court. In the absence of a super injunction, media outlets reporting the truth is not actionable.

 

[Gifted]

It does make some sense because it would be one paper who has the evidence and is going to report, and the others are going to report on the back of that do reporting that X paper says. If there’s an injunction on the first paper the others are not going to risk it as there evidence was X paper’s report. It would be repeating the libel.

But it could have been a superinjunction. You said you read reports in Scottish newspapers. Superinjunctions granted in England don’t apply there because it’s different legislation.

Why the celebrity gagging order didn't apply in Scotland - BBC News

Solicitor Iain Rutherford of Scottish legal firm Brodies explains why an injunction taken out by a married celebrity gave protection to him in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

www.google.co.uk

 

[GossWhore]

There’s actually a thread about Will and Kate and these rumours. They seem to be taking over Harry & Meg’s thread!

Wheres the Willz and Kate thread?

 

[Kat973]

It does make some sense because it would be one paper who has the evidence and is going to report, and the others are going to report on the back of that do reporting that X paper says. If there’s an injunction on the first paper the others are not going to risk it as there evidence was X paper’s report. It would be repeating the libel.

But it could have been a superinjunction. You said you read reports in Scottish newspapers. Superinjunctions granted in England don’t apply there because it’s different legislation.

Why the celebrity gagging order didn't apply in Scotland - BBC News

Solicitor Iain Rutherford of Scottish legal firm Brodies explains why an injunction taken out by a married celebrity gave protection to him in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

www.google.co.uk

I’m head of litigation for a UK wide company and qualified in both Scots and English law.
I’m not qualified in NI law but have worked in tandem with NI solicitors in enough cases to have a fair working knowledge.

From a legal persecutive it would make zero sense for the palace to take out action against one or two organisations. It’s just not practical. If evidence existed that they wanted to hide, they would take a belts and braces approach and ensure that no outlet could report. A super injunction would be requested in England and when granted, the necessary steps would be taken in both Scotland and NI. In the case that you have referrenced no action was taken to raise the appropraite corresponding orders in Scotland and NI. This is incredibly amateurish and I doubt the palace lawyers would make that mistake.

 

[Gifted]

I’m head of litigation for a UK wide company and qualified in both Scots and English law.
I’m not qualified in NI law but have worked in tandem with NI solicitors in enough cases to have a fair working knowledge.

From a legal persecutive it would make zero sense for the palace to take out action against one or two organisations. It’s just not practical. If evidence existed that they wanted to hide, they would take a belts and braces approach and ensure that no outlet could report. A super injunction would be requested in England and when granted, the necessary steps would be taken in both Scotland and NI. In the case that you have referrenced no action was taken to raise the appropraite corresponding orders in Scotland and NI. This is incredibly amateurish and I doubt the palace lawyers would make that mistake.

I heard there was an injunction for a specific paper, I don’t know whether there was injunction for others or if there was a superinjunction. I do know that superinjunctions are considered pretty impractical and somewhat useless these days because of social media. I believe the affair rumours are true but I don’t know that for a fact. Likewise you believe they aren’t but don’t know that for a fact either. There is lots that go on behind the scenes at newspapers, including but not limited to injunctions, that mean true things don’t always get published, particularly when it involves newsworthy people. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Kat973]

I heard there was an injunction for a specific paper, I don’t know whether there was injunction for others or if there was a superinjunction. I do know that superinjunctions are considered pretty impractical and somewhat useless these days because of social media. I believe the affair rumours are true but I don’t know that for a fact. Likewise you believe they aren’t but don’t know that for a fact either. There is lots that go on behind the scenes at newspapers, including but not limited to injunctions, that mean true things don’t always get published, particularly when it involves newsworthy people. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I made no mention of whether I believe the rumours to be true or not. I also made no mention of social media, only tv and print.
My comments were specifically about whether or not it was believable that the palace had raised either a super injunction or injunction to silence one or two media outlets. I have over 25 years of litigation experience and what your friend is telling you just doesn’t ring true. We’ll agree to disagree.

 

[Gifted]

Kat973 it was a post you made the other day that had me thinking you don’t believe the rumours are true.

I think that these are rumours that have been instigated by the vicious stans that are #sussexsquad.

Soz if I wrongly assumed you didn’t think the rumours were true! I know you didn’t mention social media, I did to explain why superinjunctions aren’t the go-to they once were and why they don’t work that well

Back to Harry and Meghan. I think the Blind Gossip post about the walk is very funny. I’ve no personal intel whether that one’s true but I do trust BG as a rule and it certainly makes a believable good story.

 

[Kat973]

Kat973 it was a post you made the other day that had me thinking you don’t believe the rumours are true.



Soz if I wrongly assumed you didn’t think the rumours were true! I know you didn’t mention social media, I did to explain why superinjunctions aren’t the go-to they once were and why they don’t work that well

Back to Harry and Meghan. I think the Blind Gossip post about the walk is very funny. I’ve no personal intel whether that one’s true but I do trust BG as a rule and it certainly makes a believable good story.

Yes, back to the fun stuff!

As of yet I haven’t seen evidence that goes beyond gossip, most of which seems to originate from the charmers that are #sussexsquad. That being said anyone is capable of cheating, so I can’t rule out the possibility.

 

[Justhereforthedrama]

So why do we think Hazza turned up 'unnanounced' at Megz 'womens empowerment' meeting?

Do we think it might be in response to 'down to earth' Kate being 'spotted' in Sainsbo's? ha ha