“A friend says...” 
@antinoos HOW could you leave us to climb a hill at this crucial moment... COME BAAAACK!!
@antinoos HOW could you leave us to climb a hill at this crucial moment... COME BAAAACK!!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The pdf of today's judgment has been released. Some choice nuggets in there from Justice Cunning As A Fox
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf
3. 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. Although it has been afoot for ten months now, the action has progressed slowly. It is still some way from trial. The weight to be given to the relevant factors may well change as the case progresses. Those that require that confidentiality should prevail over transparency at this preliminary, case-management stage, may fade or even evaporate if and when there is a trial at which one or more of the sources gives evidence.
4. I have also concluded that directions towards a trial must be given promptly. The case has been slowed down by case management issues. It should now move forward at a greater pace. Disclosure, inspection and exchange of witness statements come next. The order that deals with the outcome of this application will fix a trial window, and an early Costs and Case Management Conference at which a timetable for those further pre-trial steps will be laid down, and budgets set.
This judgment is pure gold..
At one minute to midnight on 30 June 2020, the claimant’s lawyers sent a short email to those acting for the defendant stating, “Please see attached letter and enclosures.” The email was received at midnight.....
...... Upon receipt, Keith Mathieson of the defendant’s solicitors RPC “promptly forwarded Schillings’ email and its four attachments to the Defendant”. The record does not show whether he was waiting up for it.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf
3. 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. Although it has been afoot for ten months now, the action has progressed slowly. It is still some way from trial. The weight to be given to the relevant factors may well change as the case progresses. Those that require that confidentiality should prevail over transparency at this preliminary, case-management stage, may fade or even evaporate if and when there is a trial at which one or more of the sources gives evidence.
4. I have also concluded that directions towards a trial must be given promptly. The case has been slowed down by case management issues. It should now move forward at a greater pace. Disclosure, inspection and exchange of witness statements come next. The order that deals with the outcome of this application will fix a trial window, and an early Costs and Case Management Conference at which a timetable for those further pre-trial steps will be laid down, and budgets set.
This judgment is pure gold..
At one minute to midnight on 30 June 2020, the claimant’s lawyers sent a short email to those acting for the defendant stating, “Please see attached letter and enclosures.” The email was received at midnight.....
...... Upon receipt, Keith Mathieson of the defendant’s solicitors RPC “promptly forwarded Schillings’ email and its four attachments to the Defendant”. The record does not show whether he was waiting up for it.
From Penny Crayon.
What about her other friends - Jessica Mulroney, given no support publicly. Her friend from childhood, Ninaki Priddy. Her Dad thrown under the bus. Trevor Engelson (he of the rings mailed back).
“Protect her friends, as any of us would”
She is so fake.
Is there anything real about her!
What about her other friends - Jessica Mulroney, given no support publicly. Her friend from childhood, Ninaki Priddy. Her Dad thrown under the bus. Trevor Engelson (he of the rings mailed back).
“Protect her friends, as any of us would”
She is so fake.
Is there anything real about her!
Last edited:
Looking forward to Aunty's views. Meghan now has a false sense of security. Judge seems keen to get the trial rolling....
Aunty will love this I think. There's quite a lot of sharp commentry directed at both sides' press antics but this bit is gold
c. At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely.
Oh. My. Word.
.... Indeed, there is evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset. This includes (though it is not limited to) an email sent to media representatives at 11.13am on 20 April 2020 by James Holt, Head of Engagement and Communication at Sussex Royal (the Duke and Duchess’s foundation). This attached two documents. One was a confidential “background summary note” of this action, headed “Crib Sheet”. The other was a copy of what the email called a “legal filing”, namely the claimant’s Reply. The Reply had been submitted for filing at 5:06pm on Friday 17 April 2020 and served on the defendant two minutes later. The record shows it was accepted for filing at 10:56am on 20 April. Mr Holt’s email was sent less than twenty minutes later.
c. At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely.
Oh. My. Word.
.... Indeed, there is evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset. This includes (though it is not limited to) an email sent to media representatives at 11.13am on 20 April 2020 by James Holt, Head of Engagement and Communication at Sussex Royal (the Duke and Duchess’s foundation). This attached two documents. One was a confidential “background summary note” of this action, headed “Crib Sheet”. The other was a copy of what the email called a “legal filing”, namely the claimant’s Reply. The Reply had been submitted for filing at 5:06pm on Friday 17 April 2020 and served on the defendant two minutes later. The record shows it was accepted for filing at 10:56am on 20 April. Mr Holt’s email was sent less than twenty minutes later.
Spoilt rotten by both parents who never said no to her. Hence her Diva, controlling behaviour now.
Love that word 'energetically' - says so much about how Snarkle's antics are being seen! There are no flies on this judge.
Ooh he's totally setting her up isn't he!!
I think this will make her overconfident now during the trial and her whole defence and history will be totally destroyed. 2020 could finally be starting
The BBC were emphasising that this ruling is ‘for now’. Maybe they think that eventually they will be revealed. Someone with better legal knowledge may know, but is this classed as an injunction? Because we know how well those lasted!
Compare and contrast: this is walking the walk not just talking the talk. Snarkle must be spitting feathers.
www.bbc.co.uk
Kate wears a mask for first time on charity visit - BBC News
Visiting a baby bank, the Duchess of Cambridge says families' lockdown struggles moved her to tears.
www.bbc.co.uk
Sometimes narcissistic behavior comes from being given material things, Prestigious schools, etc.
PUBLIC attention. But not a lot of time spent with them when no one is watching. (When not “on stage”). Maybe her Mom not being available?
And I am in no position to diagnose so just my unprofessional opinion, I detect a bit of mania in her grandiose plans. Just my opinion.
I do believe her mind is not a calm place. I think that she does not like herself. Changing who she is on a whim. Changing her physical appearance. She is not a happy person within herself. And really in order to thrive, shouldn’t the first step be to accept yourself. jmo
No lawsuits, please.
I think she loves herself. It’s harry who doesn’t like who he is, and I don’t think he ever will. But I know nowt about physiologySometimes narcissistic behavior comes from being given material things, Prestigious schools, etc.
PUBLIC attention. But not a lot of time spent with them when no one is watching. (When not “on stage”). Maybe her Mom not being available?
And I am in no position to diagnose so just my unprofessional opinion, I detect a bit of mania in her grandiose plans. Just my opinion.
I do believe her mind is not a calm place. I think that she does not like herself. Changing who she is on a whim. Changing her physical appearance. She is not a happy person within herself. And really in order to thrive, shouldn’t the first step be to accept yourself. jmo
No lawsuits, please.
I definitely see the mania in both of them but for very different reasons.I’m with you until I see @antinoos take on this. The ‘for now’ statement is like game playing. The law should be above that.I‘m with this guy. This is absolute bleeping bollocks!
Last edited:
This is from Psychology Today. I am not a professional, cannot diagnose.
And I am only adding this to to the conversation
no argument intended.
“Much of the “evidence” that narcissists have high self-esteem comes from a measure called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, which includes items like “I am assertive” and “I’m a born leader.”
Narcissists, who tend to score high on the NPI, claim to have terrific self-esteem and oodles of confidence on all or most of these items. Ergo, the researchers concluded, they must have high self-esteem.
The only problem is study after study shows that once you pull out the self-esteem heavy items on the NPI, nothing healthy is left.
Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.
Which stands to reason.
Would anyone gifted with truly high self-esteem need to insult others to feel superior, attack anyone who criticizes them, treat people like playthings, pick “trophy wives” and “trophy husbands” over loving partners, demand constant accolades or—in intimate relationships—perfect unwavering attention, and finally, devalue love and relationships? Because these are all features that NPI narcissists seem to proudly flaunt right along side their “high self-esteem.”
I think narcissists appear to love themselves. But, deep down, no.
jmo
Pixi
Last edited:
No Pixi. Please don’t think I’m dissing, there are many people far more qualified than me.This is from Psychology Today. I am not a professional, cannot diagnose.
And I am only adding this to to the conversation
no argument intended.
“Much of the “evidence” that narcissists have high self-esteem comes from a measure called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, which includes items like “I am assertive” and “I’m a born leader.”
Narcissists, who tend to score high on the NPI, claim to have terrific self-esteem and oodles of confidence on all or most of these items. Ergo, the researchers concluded, they must have high self-esteem.
The only problem is study after study shows that once you pull out the self-esteem heavy items on the NPI, nothing healthy is left.
Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.
Which stands to reason.
Would anyone gifted with truly high self-esteem need to insult others to feel superior, attack anyone who criticizes them, treat people like playthings, pick “trophy wives” and “trophy husbands” over loving partners, demand constant accolades or—in intimate relationships—perfect unwavering attention, and finally, devalue love and relationships? Because these are all features that NPI narcissists seem to proudly flaunt right along side their “high self-esteem.”
I think narcissists appear to love themselves. But, deep down, no.
jmo
Pixi
I’m only viewing what my uneducated mind sees. And a deep rooted narcissist can’t possibly understand how others don’t love them, don’t see where they are wrong because in their minds they are compassionate, loving and always right.
WE can see that’s not the case, but I still get the feeling she loves who she is because she believes she is right. But again, that’s just my view of her, these pshycobabble people have earned their degrees so are far more likely to be right than me. xx
Last edited:
I look at Megz and think 'something's not right there' but leave the diagnosis to those more qualified. 'Bonkers' seems to fit though.
Another interesting nugget in Justice Warby's judgment is about Friend B, who is the one who has given a witness statement and has said that they organised the article with People Magazine, and coordinated with the other 4 friends.
Ms Miah, an Associate Solicitor at RPC, challenges an assertion in the first witness statement of Friend B, that she has “not sought to publicise or benefit from her friendship with the claimant.” Relying on a number of press cuttings exhibited to her statement she asserts that “Plainly, [Friend B] has previously publicised her friendship with the claimant. The defendant does not know what benefit she received from doing this publicity, but infers it was to raise her public profile”.
Does that sound more like Jessica M than Abigail S?
Another interesting nugget in Justice Warby's judgment is about Friend B, who is the one who has given a witness statement and has said that they organised the article with People Magazine, and coordinated with the other 4 friends.
Ms Miah, an Associate Solicitor at RPC, challenges an assertion in the first witness statement of Friend B, that she has “not sought to publicise or benefit from her friendship with the claimant.” Relying on a number of press cuttings exhibited to her statement she asserts that “Plainly, [Friend B] has previously publicised her friendship with the claimant. The defendant does not know what benefit she received from doing this publicity, but infers it was to raise her public profile”.
Does that sound more like Jessica M than Abigail S?
Agree - something is not right, and I am in no position to diagnose either.
.
I definitely see your point of view.
And something we can all agree on, I cannot wait to hear from Aunty Legal @antinoos, who is qualified to give us his legal opinion.
Last edited:
I dunno. I think (so far, I coulld change my mind) that it's actually a good result.
No no nonot the result we were hoping for
It means she now has no excuse for not pursuing the case, can't back out. So the trial will go ahead and we'll have lots of tea from it.
I think Warby has played a blinder in qualifying his judgement with "For the time being at least" ... so they will be revealed but just not at this point. I'm OK with that. Smeggy might see it as a win, but it's just put off the inevitable as they will still probably have to appear in court to answer to the Mail's lawyers.
I would say JM seemed to get the lion's share of "friend of Meghan" publicity and definitely a raised public profile especially considering her previous claim to fame was the family she married in to who are mostly known in Canada but Abigail Spencer certainly received enough to have press clippings waved in her metaphorical face about using Meghan for some publicity.
- Status