It's going to end up about as long (and as snooze worthy) as Titanic. Fitting, given their titanic sense of injuryI wonder whether Oprah will now be 2.5 hours so they can address this?
If it was a smart suit why did he look like a sack of spuds?LOL'his signature style'
Prince Harry wears favourite outfit for Oprah Winfrey interview
Prince Harry, 36, rewore a smart £460 J. Crew suit with brown shoes and purple laces for the bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, an outfit he has repeated over the years.www.dailymail.co.uk
'There's a serious imbalance in this marriage when Her Markleness is constantly draped in designer items worth thousands, whilst H the Nameless has one suit and boots with holes'
Yeah, OK Megz. You hand over the long awaited emails and texts and then we can talk againMegz demanding things again...
Meg demands £1.5m legal fees & copies of dad's letter after MoS privacy win
MEGHAN Markle today demanded £1.5m in legal fees and for the Mail on Sunday to hand over copies of the letter she wrote to her estranged dad after winning her privacy battle. A High Court judge las…www.thesun.co.uk
And at a remote hearing on Tuesday, the duchess' lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) – the publisher of The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline - to hand over any copies of the letter to Mr Markle and destroy any electronic copies of it or any notes made about it.
Ian Mill QC, representing Meghan, also applied for an injunction to "restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information".
In written submissions, Mr Mill said: "The defendant has failed to deliver up copies it has of the letter such that the threat to infringe and further to misuse her private information remains real and, inexplicably, the defendant has still not removed the infringing articles from MailOnline."
A d-notice is an advisory thing which most media tend to comply with but it mainly relates to issues of national security but I don't doubt that smeggy as an internationally protected person probably thinks she can get the govt to issue one to protect the Archie situation, especially if there are threats to Archie and any surrounding people.Thanks. So how do they work? If I was a journo and had 100% proof of something - why would I not be allowed to print it? Apologies for the really obvious question.
Did they ever published the whole letter?Anyone got a link to the published letter??!!!
It's because she has no waist. She doesn't have a very feminine shape. Some people even believe that she's a transexual and this is why she's so obsessed with sex and pregnancy - trying desperately to convince everyone she's 'normal'.What is it with her and belts???? She seems to luuuuuurve them.
But then ITV can use any part of it they want surely? So if the press does go all in on them afterwards ITV will be quids in? Or not?Shuffle out a genuinely popular weekly drama that is pulling well over 5 million audiences, to listen to two-hour whinge from a pair of self-important grifting ex-royals...
A courageous decision by ITV.
The irony of them replacing Unforgotten!Just checked the TV listing. So far ITV have unforgotten on at 9pm. The interview must be on after the news?
If they do cancel Unforgotten for the Oprah interview I am complaining
But.... She's already had MULTIPLE front page statements about the letter!
No.Did they ever published the whole letter?
I can almost hear the photocopopier printing!Megz demanding things again...
Meg demands £1.5m legal fees & copies of dad's letter after MoS privacy win
MEGHAN Markle today demanded £1.5m in legal fees and for the Mail on Sunday to hand over copies of the letter she wrote to her estranged dad after winning her privacy battle. A High Court judge las…www.thesun.co.uk
And at a remote hearing on Tuesday, the duchess' lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) – the publisher of The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline - to hand over any copies of the letter to Mr Markle and destroy any electronic copies of it or any notes made about it.
Ian Mill QC, representing Meghan, also applied for an injunction to "restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information".
In written submissions, Mr Mill said: "The defendant has failed to deliver up copies it has of the letter such that the threat to infringe and further to misuse her private information remains real and, inexplicably, the defendant has still not removed the infringing articles from MailOnline."
Just to illustrate the theme..It's going to end up about as long (and as snooze worthy) as Titanic. Fitting, given their titanic sense of injury
I'm guessing she wants an injunction around information disclosed in witness statements e.g. names of the Five Friends.She wants a front page article and profits generated from the article? Ok Megz, it’s clear what your real problem is here.
Plus what’s the point in the injunction? it went global. Maybe she should put her friends on injunction too. They are the only reason any of this happened.
it is quite funny that the summary judgment printed more of the letter that was never even made public by ANL.No.
Lord Justice Warby quoted the letter at length in his judgment but some parts were redacted (mostly discussions about family members including Sam and Thomas Sr's mother). The newspapers ran the Warby version.
ah ok. I hope this isn’t granted but Warby has let us down so much lately that he probably will.I'm guessing she wants an injunction around information disclosed in witness statements e.g. names of the Five Friends.
This seems completely wrong to me. The Telegraph printed more than the Mail did originally. What a fucking farce !it is quite funny that the summary judgment printed more of the letter that was never even made public by ANL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?