I'm hanging onto the hope that this judge is a wily old bird and he wants what we want and knows how to get it and that his words "for the time being at least" were carefully chosen and highly significant.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
If this means that any and all witnesses will be named in the usual way when the case comes to trial, she hasn't 'won' anything really but the spin will be hard and heavy today.
The written judgement should appear here https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ later today.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-high-court-battle-won-stops-friends-named-094145380.html Don't know if already posted
Yes I agree. I think she was using her friends as an excuse to drop the court case but now she’s got no excuse. Does anyone know when the trial is likely to start?
It doesn't really matter does it.....the names are out there now anyway because she drew it to everyone's attention! She could have probably kept their anonymity until the court case at least!
Bet her five friends are really appreciative
Bet her five friends are really appreciative
Doesn’t this set a precedent for future, more serious cases if she gets her way? We need @antinoos on this one.
The key bit from the Telegraph.
www.telegraph.co.uk
The High Court has ruled in favour of the Duchess of Sussex to keep secret the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine, in the latest stage of her legal action against a British newspaper.
Mr Justice Warby delivered his ruling on the Duchess's application at 10.30am on Wednesday.
He said: "I have concluded that for the time being at least the Court should grant the claimant the orders she seeks, the effect of which will be to confer protection on the sources’ identities.
"That is confidential information, the protection of which at this stage is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. This is an interim decision."
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, over an article which reproduced parts of a "private and confidential" handwritten letter she sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018.
..................................
So Justice Warby says 'for the time being at least' and 'at this stage' ETA and 'This is an interim decision' so I think that's good enough for me... Very, very cleverly done I think.
High Court judge criticises Meghan Markle and newspaper over 'tit-for-tat' publicity campaigns
Remarks come as Duchess of Sussex wins right to keep friends' names private in latest legal skirmish
The High Court has ruled in favour of the Duchess of Sussex to keep secret the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine, in the latest stage of her legal action against a British newspaper.
Mr Justice Warby delivered his ruling on the Duchess's application at 10.30am on Wednesday.
He said: "I have concluded that for the time being at least the Court should grant the claimant the orders she seeks, the effect of which will be to confer protection on the sources’ identities.
"That is confidential information, the protection of which at this stage is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. This is an interim decision."
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, over an article which reproduced parts of a "private and confidential" handwritten letter she sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018.
..................................
So Justice Warby says 'for the time being at least' and 'at this stage' ETA and 'This is an interim decision' so I think that's good enough for me... Very, very cleverly done I think.
Let's hope Aunty made it up his big hill and down again safely.
I think that this is a good decision. There's no need for the friends to be hounded and outed by the press prior to the court case. Their names will probably come out at the trial.
Let Meghan think she has scored a few points
It won't mean anything later on and as @MillicentMargaret said the public don't like the privileged being able to manipulate the law in their favour with injunctions. It won't do Meghan any favours.
Let Meghan think she has scored a few points
It won't mean anything later on and as @MillicentMargaret said the public don't like the privileged being able to manipulate the law in their favour with injunctions. It won't do Meghan any favours.
Getting the strong feeling that Warby wants Snarkle's machinations to be forced into the light "necessary in the interests of the administration of justice."The key bit from the Telegraph.
High Court judge criticises Meghan Markle and newspaper over 'tit-for-tat' publicity campaigns
Remarks come as Duchess of Sussex wins right to keep friends' names private in latest legal skirmish
The High Court has ruled in favour of the Duchess of Sussex to keep secret the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine, in the latest stage of her legal action against a British newspaper.
Mr Justice Warby delivered his ruling on the Duchess's application at 10.30am on Wednesday.
He said: "I have concluded that for the time being at least the Court should grant the claimant the orders she seeks, the effect of which will be to confer protection on the sources’ identities.
"That is confidential information, the protection of which at this stage is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. This is an interim decision."
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, over an article which reproduced parts of a "private and confidential" handwritten letter she sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018.
..................................
So Justice Warby says 'for the time being at least' and 'at this stage' so I think that's good enough for me... Very, very cleverly done I think.
Judge-speak for 'witch needs schooling'?
Judge is still ruling....
I do think that Meghan could be a few years older than she claims, but her birth certificate says she was born in 1981.
We all know that Meghan has fabricated her CV (and her mother's) to complete fiction levels but I don't know if it's really possible to fake or change a birth certificate.
Then again I'm guessing that the majority of people contributing to this thread aren't master criminals. We are all poor innocents compared to grifter Megatron.
If you look at her sexist washing up liquid campaign, in 1993, she was 11, nearly 12.
They filmed a news report at school with other children. She does look very young, like a child and not a teenager, 11 or 12 seems to be quite accurate. Would the school, the news team, and I presume her Dad who was her sole parent at the time, that got involved with the press, have been agreeing to lie about her age... it seems unlikely. Some people claim she is 5 or 6 years older than she is - that would put her at 16 or 17 at the time of the advert story!
You can tell from her eyes and facial expression that she was going to be the kind of little a**hole who would end up in the press.
So...that means her age is the only thing she hasn't lied about
And this judgement about her friends is not a victory for her as I think she was banking on the judge saying the opposite so she could drop the case and not look bad..
Now she has to go through with the case and her friends will be named and asked to attend and will either have to perjure themselves or hang her out to dry.judge has covered himself by saying ..for the time being...so he's covering all sides and looking like he's being fair.iif she had lost again,I think the American/race card would have been played.
Very astute fellow,maybe it's aunty legal incognito
She's on a long slow roast..
And this judgement about her friends is not a victory for her as I think she was banking on the judge saying the opposite so she could drop the case and not look bad..
Now she has to go through with the case and her friends will be named and asked to attend and will either have to perjure themselves or hang her out to dry.judge has covered himself by saying ..for the time being...so he's covering all sides and looking like he's being fair.iif she had lost again,I think the American/race card would have been played.
Very astute fellow,maybe it's aunty legal incognito
She's on a long slow roast..
annoyingly precocious childYou can tell from her eyes and facial expression that she was going to be the kind of little a**hole who would end up in the press.
I want that cover set.........and the slippersLoooool
xxx
Meghan has treated Harry to a present ..it was originally for her from one of her "friends" but she passed it on the Harry saying she got him a present even though it is her birthday
It's a tit Happens bedsetwith matching slippers
View attachment 202230
I can’t be doing with precocious, over confident kids. We have two next door, always ballet dancing and posing, shouting ‘look at me’ while their parents smile indulgently and make me watch their precious little offspring show off. I smile politely and inside I’m screaming ‘just duck off’.
Last edited:
I think this is a good decision (knowing nothing about the law). The Judge wants the case to move forward swiftly. Why taint this case with more nonsense, media intrusion into the lives of the five, causing possible problems in the actual trial. The names will come out eventually.
Less for Meghan and her sugars to complain about.
No reason for her to drop the case in her fake Saint role.
Less for Meghan and her sugars to complain about.
No reason for her to drop the case in her fake Saint role.
- Status