I wonder if she remembers to buckle up when she's out in the car ...
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think the 5 friends are called:
Archie Garrison
Doria Magland
Harry Sales
Rachel Barcle
Serena Billions
Are we really supposed to believe Meghan has five friends?
I thought that, you'd struggle to get in and out the car with that on but I suppose it would make you stand out
In keeping with her love of sending messages through her clothes, this hat is called the 'Look at MEeeeeeeee' hat.I thought that, you'd struggle to get in and out the car with that on but I suppose it would make you stand out
Attachments
More in the Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action
ByVictoria Ward2 March 2021 • 12:10pm
The Mail on Sunday has sought permission to appeal the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy ruling, arguing that the judge failed to heed a precedent set in a case involving Boris Johnson’s love child.
The newspaper accused Lord Justice Warby of prioritising the Duchess’s right to privacy over the right to freedom of expression as it listed ten reasons why she should not have won the legal action.
It claimed the judge was wrong to rule last month that the publication of extracts of a private letter the Duchess sent to her father, Thomas Markle, 76, was "manifestly excessive" and unlawful, arguing that the evidence, including witness testimony from four senior Buckingham Palace aides, could only be fully examined at a full trial.
The Duchess sued Associated Newspapers for breach of privacy and copyright and a breach of the Data Protection Act relating to the publication of five articles - two on MailOnline and three in The Mail on Sunday - in February 2019.
Despite being advised against it, her strategy to pursue legal action was vindicated as she successfully applied for summary judgment, a legal step that saw the bulk of the case resolved in her favour without trial, prompting her to claim a victory over "moral exploitation".
At a remote hearing on Tuesday, Lord Justice Warby heard further arguments on “the next steps” in the legal action, noting wryly: “Everything seems to be in dispute.”
The hearing was scheduled to deal with applications for Associated to pay the Duchess’s legal costs as well as the remaining parts of her claim, including unresolved issues relating to copyright and her request for an injunction to prevent further publication of the letter.
Among its ten grounds of appeal, the newspaper said the judge had failed to heed a precedent set in a 2013 privacy case involving the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson’s former lover, Helen Macintyre, and their then-three-year-old daughter.
In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the public had a right to know Mr Johnson, who at the time was Mayor of London, had a "brief adulterous affair" with a woman who later gave birth to their daughter.
Ms Macintyre, who lost her battle to keep the paternity of her daughter secret, was a professional art consultant named only as "AAA" in public court documents.
Associated said Lord Justice Warby’s approach was “inconsistent” with the appeal court’s decision in that case, as allegedly private information had been disclosed before and after the relevant newspaper articles and were deemed to “reduce or weaken or compromise her reasonable expectation of privacy.”
It said in written submissions: “The judge in the present case made no such findings, and his conclusion a trial was unnecessary meant he was unable to do so.
“The exercise was the more important in this case since the account allegedly given by the claimant’s friends on her behalf and caused by her was given to the public and pleaded as ‘one-sided and/or misleading’ in several significant and specified respects.”
Associated also argued that Lord Justice Warby gave “excessive emphasis” to the Duchess’s privacy rights at the expense of its rights of freedom of expression and failed to give due weight to her attitude towards her own privacy, including the information released via her five friends to People magazine and to the authors of Finding Freedom.
It was an article headlined "The Truth About Meghan" published in People magazine and based on interviews with five of Meghan’s friends, that made the first public reference to the letter.
The newspaper said the judge was wrong to ignore its case on whether the alleged breach of her privacy caused the Duchess any harm, not least as the Duchess had provided no evidence to the court.
It also claimed it was wrong to assume that no significant evidence would emerge between now and trial, despite the evidence of the “Palace Four”, other witnesses and documents.
At the remote hearing, the Duchess’ lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated 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 also applied for an injunction to “restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information”.
He sought an order requiring Associated to publish a statement about the Duchess’s legal victory on the front page of The Mail On Sunday and the home page of MailOnline “to act as a deterrent to future infringers”.
Mr Mill indicated that the Duchess was willing to “cap her damages” for misuse of private information “at a nominal award”, in order to “avoid the need for time and cost to be incurred in debating these issues”.
In legal documents lodged on her behalf, the Duchess, 39, who is expecting her second child, criticised the newspaper’s refusal to accept that it had lost both privacy and copyright claims, as well as its insistence that the claim for breach of data protection should go to trial.
She indicated that she was not seeking to pursue her outstanding claim for breach of her data protection rights, the copyright claim and the claim for infringement, stating that success on these points “would not add materially to the relief to which she is already entitled.”
Her lawyers said she wanted the remainder of the case to be dealt with “in as sensible and proportionate a manner as possible.”
They said that as Associated Newspapers appeared intent on forcing her to continue her data protection claim, she would have “no alternative” but to apply for summary judgment.
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action as Meghan sought £1.5m in costs
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action
ByVictoria Ward2 March 2021 • 12:10pm
The Mail on Sunday has sought permission to appeal the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy ruling, arguing that the judge failed to heed a precedent set in a case involving Boris Johnson’s love child.
The newspaper accused Lord Justice Warby of prioritising the Duchess’s right to privacy over the right to freedom of expression as it listed ten reasons why she should not have won the legal action.
It claimed the judge was wrong to rule last month that the publication of extracts of a private letter the Duchess sent to her father, Thomas Markle, 76, was "manifestly excessive" and unlawful, arguing that the evidence, including witness testimony from four senior Buckingham Palace aides, could only be fully examined at a full trial.
The Duchess sued Associated Newspapers for breach of privacy and copyright and a breach of the Data Protection Act relating to the publication of five articles - two on MailOnline and three in The Mail on Sunday - in February 2019.
Despite being advised against it, her strategy to pursue legal action was vindicated as she successfully applied for summary judgment, a legal step that saw the bulk of the case resolved in her favour without trial, prompting her to claim a victory over "moral exploitation".
At a remote hearing on Tuesday, Lord Justice Warby heard further arguments on “the next steps” in the legal action, noting wryly: “Everything seems to be in dispute.”
The hearing was scheduled to deal with applications for Associated to pay the Duchess’s legal costs as well as the remaining parts of her claim, including unresolved issues relating to copyright and her request for an injunction to prevent further publication of the letter.
Among its ten grounds of appeal, the newspaper said the judge had failed to heed a precedent set in a 2013 privacy case involving the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson’s former lover, Helen Macintyre, and their then-three-year-old daughter.
In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the public had a right to know Mr Johnson, who at the time was Mayor of London, had a "brief adulterous affair" with a woman who later gave birth to their daughter.
Ms Macintyre, who lost her battle to keep the paternity of her daughter secret, was a professional art consultant named only as "AAA" in public court documents.
Associated said Lord Justice Warby’s approach was “inconsistent” with the appeal court’s decision in that case, as allegedly private information had been disclosed before and after the relevant newspaper articles and were deemed to “reduce or weaken or compromise her reasonable expectation of privacy.”
It said in written submissions: “The judge in the present case made no such findings, and his conclusion a trial was unnecessary meant he was unable to do so.
“The exercise was the more important in this case since the account allegedly given by the claimant’s friends on her behalf and caused by her was given to the public and pleaded as ‘one-sided and/or misleading’ in several significant and specified respects.”
Associated also argued that Lord Justice Warby gave “excessive emphasis” to the Duchess’s privacy rights at the expense of its rights of freedom of expression and failed to give due weight to her attitude towards her own privacy, including the information released via her five friends to People magazine and to the authors of Finding Freedom.
It was an article headlined "The Truth About Meghan" published in People magazine and based on interviews with five of Meghan’s friends, that made the first public reference to the letter.
The newspaper said the judge was wrong to ignore its case on whether the alleged breach of her privacy caused the Duchess any harm, not least as the Duchess had provided no evidence to the court.
It also claimed it was wrong to assume that no significant evidence would emerge between now and trial, despite the evidence of the “Palace Four”, other witnesses and documents.
At the remote hearing, the Duchess’ lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated 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 also applied for an injunction to “restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information”.
He sought an order requiring Associated to publish a statement about the Duchess’s legal victory on the front page of The Mail On Sunday and the home page of MailOnline “to act as a deterrent to future infringers”.
Mr Mill indicated that the Duchess was willing to “cap her damages” for misuse of private information “at a nominal award”, in order to “avoid the need for time and cost to be incurred in debating these issues”.
In legal documents lodged on her behalf, the Duchess, 39, who is expecting her second child, criticised the newspaper’s refusal to accept that it had lost both privacy and copyright claims, as well as its insistence that the claim for breach of data protection should go to trial.
She indicated that she was not seeking to pursue her outstanding claim for breach of her data protection rights, the copyright claim and the claim for infringement, stating that success on these points “would not add materially to the relief to which she is already entitled.”
Her lawyers said she wanted the remainder of the case to be dealt with “in as sensible and proportionate a manner as possible.”
They said that as Associated Newspapers appeared intent on forcing her to continue her data protection claim, she would have “no alternative” but to apply for summary judgment.
All over Twitter “Philip” is trending! The sugars are being vile and said the RF are planning for him to die to detract from the “Royal tea” that M and H are going to spill.... and they say we spout conspiracy theories!!!
they honestly think H and M are that special that the RF are going to orchestrate PP death
they honestly think H and M are that special that the RF are going to orchestrate PP death
I can just imagine her shrewing him when he shuts the car door and it touches the hat (how could it not ??!)I thought that, you'd struggle to get in and out the car with that on but I suppose it would make you stand out
The sugars are brainless twats. They make me laugh.
Some of them sound dangerous and certifiable, though
I HATE the DM and Mail on Sunday, but would happily contribute towards the costs of their lawyers!More in the Telegraph
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action as Meghan sought £1.5m in costs
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action
ByVictoria Ward2 March 2021 • 12:10pm
The Mail on Sunday has sought permission to appeal the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy ruling, arguing that the judge failed to heed a precedent set in a case involving Boris Johnson’s love child.
The newspaper accused Lord Justice Warby of prioritising the Duchess’s right to privacy over the right to freedom of expression as it listed ten reasons why she should not have won the legal action.
It claimed the judge was wrong to rule last month that the publication of extracts of a private letter the Duchess sent to her father, Thomas Markle, 76, was "manifestly excessive" and unlawful, arguing that the evidence, including witness testimony from four senior Buckingham Palace aides, could only be fully examined at a full trial.
The Duchess sued Associated Newspapers for breach of privacy and copyright and a breach of the Data Protection Act relating to the publication of five articles - two on MailOnline and three in The Mail on Sunday - in February 2019.
Despite being advised against it, her strategy to pursue legal action was vindicated as she successfully applied for summary judgment, a legal step that saw the bulk of the case resolved in her favour without trial, prompting her to claim a victory over "moral exploitation".
At a remote hearing on Tuesday, Lord Justice Warby heard further arguments on “the next steps” in the legal action, noting wryly: “Everything seems to be in dispute.”
The hearing was scheduled to deal with applications for Associated to pay the Duchess’s legal costs as well as the remaining parts of her claim, including unresolved issues relating to copyright and her request for an injunction to prevent further publication of the letter.
Among its ten grounds of appeal, the newspaper said the judge had failed to heed a precedent set in a 2013 privacy case involving the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson’s former lover, Helen Macintyre, and their then-three-year-old daughter.
In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the public had a right to know Mr Johnson, who at the time was Mayor of London, had a "brief adulterous affair" with a woman who later gave birth to their daughter.
Ms Macintyre, who lost her battle to keep the paternity of her daughter secret, was a professional art consultant named only as "AAA" in public court documents.
Associated said Lord Justice Warby’s approach was “inconsistent” with the appeal court’s decision in that case, as allegedly private information had been disclosed before and after the relevant newspaper articles and were deemed to “reduce or weaken or compromise her reasonable expectation of privacy.”
It said in written submissions: “The judge in the present case made no such findings, and his conclusion a trial was unnecessary meant he was unable to do so.
“The exercise was the more important in this case since the account allegedly given by the claimant’s friends on her behalf and caused by her was given to the public and pleaded as ‘one-sided and/or misleading’ in several significant and specified respects.”
Associated also argued that Lord Justice Warby gave “excessive emphasis” to the Duchess’s privacy rights at the expense of its rights of freedom of expression and failed to give due weight to her attitude towards her own privacy, including the information released via her five friends to People magazine and to the authors of Finding Freedom.
It was an article headlined "The Truth About Meghan" published in People magazine and based on interviews with five of Meghan’s friends, that made the first public reference to the letter.
The newspaper said the judge was wrong to ignore its case on whether the alleged breach of her privacy caused the Duchess any harm, not least as the Duchess had provided no evidence to the court.
It also claimed it was wrong to assume that no significant evidence would emerge between now and trial, despite the evidence of the “Palace Four”, other witnesses and documents.
At the remote hearing, the Duchess’ lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated 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 also applied for an injunction to “restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information”.
He sought an order requiring Associated to publish a statement about the Duchess’s legal victory on the front page of The Mail On Sunday and the home page of MailOnline “to act as a deterrent to future infringers”.
Mr Mill indicated that the Duchess was willing to “cap her damages” for misuse of private information “at a nominal award”, in order to “avoid the need for time and cost to be incurred in debating these issues”.
In legal documents lodged on her behalf, the Duchess, 39, who is expecting her second child, criticised the newspaper’s refusal to accept that it had lost both privacy and copyright claims, as well as its insistence that the claim for breach of data protection should go to trial.
She indicated that she was not seeking to pursue her outstanding claim for breach of her data protection rights, the copyright claim and the claim for infringement, stating that success on these points “would not add materially to the relief to which she is already entitled.”
Her lawyers said she wanted the remainder of the case to be dealt with “in as sensible and proportionate a manner as possible.”
They said that as Associated Newspapers appeared intent on forcing her to continue her data protection claim, she would have “no alternative” but to apply for summary judgment.
Sorry if posted before, someone mentioned MM blog as a working actress (anonymously but confirmed it was hers). She really truly knows how to manipulate people :/ the sweet naïveté she tries to promote really is for the cameras.
furthermore she always had a sense of specialness, and saw other women as competition not to be bonded with :/
furthermore she always had a sense of specialness, and saw other women as competition not to be bonded with :/
Attachments
she should go after Warby since he printed it in his decision, no?
As would I. Warby isn't happy, based on this (from the long Telegraph article above)
At a remote hearing on Tuesday, Lord Justice Warby heard further arguments on “the next steps” in the legal action, noting wryly: “Everything seems to be in dispute.”
She's asking for £1.5 million in costs? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.
Absolute grifters.
Absolute grifters.
That is hilarious - I thought she was going to do a 'Prakatan'.
What happens if it does go to appeal, does it get heard by a different judge?
Am looking forward to Smegs coming out and asking the Sugars to be kind to and respect her
Lets not hold our breath on that.......
So much for privacy
They are brainless twats I agree but I find them hard to laugh at when they write such nasty things. Some of them seem to be unhinged.
So she is willing to cap her damages at a nominal award.More in the Telegraph
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action as Meghan sought £1.5m in costs
Mail on Sunday to appeal Meghan decision, claiming judge failed to heed Boris Johnson love child privacy ruling
The newspaper listed ten reasons why the Duchess of Sussex should not have won the legal action
ByVictoria Ward2 March 2021 • 12:10pm
The Mail on Sunday has sought permission to appeal the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy ruling, arguing that the judge failed to heed a precedent set in a case involving Boris Johnson’s love child.
The newspaper accused Lord Justice Warby of prioritising the Duchess’s right to privacy over the right to freedom of expression as it listed ten reasons why she should not have won the legal action.
It claimed the judge was wrong to rule last month that the publication of extracts of a private letter the Duchess sent to her father, Thomas Markle, 76, was "manifestly excessive" and unlawful, arguing that the evidence, including witness testimony from four senior Buckingham Palace aides, could only be fully examined at a full trial.
The Duchess sued Associated Newspapers for breach of privacy and copyright and a breach of the Data Protection Act relating to the publication of five articles - two on MailOnline and three in The Mail on Sunday - in February 2019.
Despite being advised against it, her strategy to pursue legal action was vindicated as she successfully applied for summary judgment, a legal step that saw the bulk of the case resolved in her favour without trial, prompting her to claim a victory over "moral exploitation".
At a remote hearing on Tuesday, Lord Justice Warby heard further arguments on “the next steps” in the legal action, noting wryly: “Everything seems to be in dispute.”
The hearing was scheduled to deal with applications for Associated to pay the Duchess’s legal costs as well as the remaining parts of her claim, including unresolved issues relating to copyright and her request for an injunction to prevent further publication of the letter.
Among its ten grounds of appeal, the newspaper said the judge had failed to heed a precedent set in a 2013 privacy case involving the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson’s former lover, Helen Macintyre, and their then-three-year-old daughter.
In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the public had a right to know Mr Johnson, who at the time was Mayor of London, had a "brief adulterous affair" with a woman who later gave birth to their daughter.
Ms Macintyre, who lost her battle to keep the paternity of her daughter secret, was a professional art consultant named only as "AAA" in public court documents.
Associated said Lord Justice Warby’s approach was “inconsistent” with the appeal court’s decision in that case, as allegedly private information had been disclosed before and after the relevant newspaper articles and were deemed to “reduce or weaken or compromise her reasonable expectation of privacy.”
It said in written submissions: “The judge in the present case made no such findings, and his conclusion a trial was unnecessary meant he was unable to do so.
“The exercise was the more important in this case since the account allegedly given by the claimant’s friends on her behalf and caused by her was given to the public and pleaded as ‘one-sided and/or misleading’ in several significant and specified respects.”
Associated also argued that Lord Justice Warby gave “excessive emphasis” to the Duchess’s privacy rights at the expense of its rights of freedom of expression and failed to give due weight to her attitude towards her own privacy, including the information released via her five friends to People magazine and to the authors of Finding Freedom.
It was an article headlined "The Truth About Meghan" published in People magazine and based on interviews with five of Meghan’s friends, that made the first public reference to the letter.
The newspaper said the judge was wrong to ignore its case on whether the alleged breach of her privacy caused the Duchess any harm, not least as the Duchess had provided no evidence to the court.
It also claimed it was wrong to assume that no significant evidence would emerge between now and trial, despite the evidence of the “Palace Four”, other witnesses and documents.
At the remote hearing, the Duchess’ lawyers asked the High Court to order Associated 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 also applied for an injunction to “restrain the acts of copyright infringement and misuse of private information”.
He sought an order requiring Associated to publish a statement about the Duchess’s legal victory on the front page of The Mail On Sunday and the home page of MailOnline “to act as a deterrent to future infringers”.
Mr Mill indicated that the Duchess was willing to “cap her damages” for misuse of private information “at a nominal award”, in order to “avoid the need for time and cost to be incurred in debating these issues”.
In legal documents lodged on her behalf, the Duchess, 39, who is expecting her second child, criticised the newspaper’s refusal to accept that it had lost both privacy and copyright claims, as well as its insistence that the claim for breach of data protection should go to trial.
She indicated that she was not seeking to pursue her outstanding claim for breach of her data protection rights, the copyright claim and the claim for infringement, stating that success on these points “would not add materially to the relief to which she is already entitled.”
Her lawyers said she wanted the remainder of the case to be dealt with “in as sensible and proportionate a manner as possible.”
They said that as Associated Newspapers appeared intent on forcing her to continue her data protection claim, she would have “no alternative” but to apply for summary judgment.
But.
She won't pursue the outstanding claims as this " would not add materially to the relief to which she is already entitled".
Well we all know what nominal means to millionaires don't we. And it's not a bag of fish and chips.
She won't drag the case on to “avoid the need for time and cost to be incurred in debating these issues”. But was willing to drag it on last year by changing her story and refusing to handover the asked for evidence!
But if we force her to go to court she'll ask for a further summary judgment because why not? It worked so well the first time based on no evidence
- Status