Harry & Meghan #324 It will insult our nation, if they attend the Coronation.

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts
thenorthremembers

thenorthremembers

DoubleOld said:
Well, then, you might be curious to know that if even one abnormal fat cell is left it will f*cking grow back! 🤬

Will keep you in the loop but actual pictures will cost ya....😂
Click to expand...
Oh yes I do know that about them the poor people who I’ve seen with them they are huge! How much are you talking 😂😂😂
---
Fredsnail said:
Who'll take my bet that she'll be papped with the kid/s while he's over here on his own?

Of course she could have come over too and be lying low 🙄
Click to expand...
She will be giving Tyler the all clear to come over.. she’s gotta get that money somehow 😉😉. She can’t act, she can’t sing, no fashion sense she’s tit at everything else as well.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 23
Tangent Tiger

Tangent Tiger

Amiyaya said:
Just sat down with a bowl of hot, fresh, homemade soup after a mornings gardening, turned the news on and was confronted by that wizened wanker on TV. My home made carrot soup is not quite so lovely a prospect now 😕
---


Has anyone else been papped arriving?
Click to expand...
I was thinking about doing a soup later. Vegetable and bean. Don't let it put you off!

As far as I'm aware Harry went through the front entrance and Sadie Frost through a side entrance. Can't really blame him in this instance, I'd be outraged if my phone was hacked. Not that anyone would want to listen to numerous bleats from my mother 🤣
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 23
Milliemoo99

Milliemoo99

moodykitten said:
Even his detractors agree the hacking was completely inappropriate. So what he gets out of this is: an easy win; more fuel for his ego; and, most important, fuel for his narrative about the evils of the British press. It doesn’t matter to him that it was years ago. It only matters that he, a victim of the phone hacking, gets headlines for winning this case.

Objectively, it’s not a bad strategy for him. Assuming he wins they will dine out on publicity of this win for years. Meg’s suit against the Mail was probably instituted for the same purpose, but they couldn’t really use that “victory” against the British press because it wasn’t a clean one. The emails showing she was manipulating things behind the scenes and the fact that she may have lied to the Court made it very hard for their team to spin it as a victory, even though they certainly tried. A win here would be a much cleaner (and more relatable) win.
Click to expand...
But I would also assume they need clear evidence that their cases stand up.

As nothing as yet has been reported about this case, its hard to know how strong a case he and the others have against the Mail, and the owners of the Mail? The levison enquiry lasted years, and even then found it tricky to get enough evidence to really prosecute anyone or change very much. How do you sift through stories to get to where the original source came from? How do you clarify whether the source was acting independently, then selling a story to the highest bidder, which is of course illegal, or whether they were acting on specific instructions from the Mail itself?

I would like to know which journalists are being named in this action? It seems incredibly unfair that Harold is allowed to publicise his side of the case so openly, without any right to a defence from anyone at the Mail!!!! ( And I cant believe that I am defending the Mail!!)

And we know how good Harold is at distorting his version of events, to make himself look better!!!

Sadly almost all of the co defendants in this case, are.... irritants! Elton John and his husband, throw out super injunctions at the drop of a hat, I have no time at all for Sadie Frost. And I have never been one to just take any newspaper report at face value, so my irritation isnt just based on a few silly newpaper stories or headlines.

Im not sure why Doreen Lawrence is there though?
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 20
P

Piglet&Pooh

ChipDex said:
Yes, William got it all. Not just the looks, but the intelligence, the dignity, the lovely family, etc. Once again, thank the Gods/Goddesses that he was born first.

Hazza's not going to age at all well, is he? The deterioration is already in full swing. He already looks far older than William, IMO. And a bit creepy with it.

Lustworthy, my arse.
Click to expand...
Hawwy looks sooooo much older than 38 - more like a man pushing 50
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 23
R

ResidentMerkin

Well Daily Mail seems to be studiously ignoring the presence of H in our hemisphere. Not a word. No surprise.
Haven't see any of the footage
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 36
Tangent Tiger

Tangent Tiger

Milliemoo99 said:
But I would also assume they need clear evidence that their cases stand up.

As nothing as yet has been reported about this case, its hard to know how strong a case he and the others have against the Mail, and the owners of the Mail? The levison enquiry lasted years, and even then found it tricky to get enough evidence to really prosecute anyone or change very much. How do you sift through stories to get to where the original source came from? How do you clarify whether the source was acting independently, then selling a story to the highest bidder, which is of course illegal, or whether they were acting on specific instructions from the Mail itself?

I would like to know which journalists are being named in this action? It seems incredibly unfair that Harold is allowed to publicise his side of the case so openly, without any right to a defence from anyone at the Mail!!!! ( And I cant believe that I am defending the Mail!!)

And we know how good Harold is at distorting his version of events, to make himself look better!!!

Sadly almost all of the co defendants in this case, are.... irritants! Elton John and his husband, throw out super injunctions at the drop of a hat, I have no time at all for Sadie Frost. And I have never been one to just take any newspaper report at face value, so my irritation isnt just based on a few silly newpaper stories or headlines.

Im not sure why Doreen Lawrence is there though?
Click to expand...
Doreen Lawrence wasn't hacked was she? 😧

It just shows how old this case is, Sadie Frost hasn't really been in the news for years. I do hope they win though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16
Maggiemaynot

Maggiemaynot

Scruffy, evil looking bleep. I despise him.

And his hair looks manky.

Clatty bastard.

7BDA0E32-9E8D-4EA8-9765-207B059E9499.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Sick
  • Haha
Reactions: 40
wisebutwild

wisebutwild

Want to play a game?

During the newsreel footage of Haz arriving at court a lady reporter shouted a question to Haz. I missed the first part but I heard her say "Why did you do it, Sir? Why DID you do it?" Obviously he didn't reply just smiled and said "Good Morning" to everyone present.

The game ..... can you guess what the first part of the reporter's question was that I didn't catch?

My tame guess..... "Why did you marry that Ho?"
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 38
Y

Yupitsme!!

Milliemoo99 said:
But I would also assume they need clear evidence that their cases stand up.

As nothing as yet has been reported about this case, its hard to know how strong a case he and the others have against the Mail, and the owners of the Mail? The levison enquiry lasted years, and even then found it tricky to get enough evidence to really prosecute anyone or change very much. How do you sift through stories to get to where the original source came from? How do you clarify whether the source was acting independently, then selling a story to the highest bidder, which is of course illegal, or whether they were acting on specific instructions from the Mail itself?

I would like to know which journalists are being named in this action? It seems incredibly unfair that Harold is allowed to publicise his side of the case so openly, without any right to a defence from anyone at the Mail!!!! ( And I cant believe that I am defending the Mail!!)

And we know how good Harold is at distorting his version of events, to make himself look better!!!

Sadly almost all of the co defendants in this case, are.... irritants! Elton John and his husband, throw out super injunctions at the drop of a hat, I have no time at all for Sadie Frost. And I have never been one to just take any newspaper report at face value, so my irritation isnt just based on a few silly newpaper stories or headlines.

Im not sure why Doreen Lawrence is there though?
Click to expand...
Sure I read a while ago the government were planning on scrapping super injunctions as it was against free speech
 
  • Like
Reactions: 21
Scarlett O' Hara

Scarlett O' Hara

wisebutwild said:
Want to play a game?

During the newsreel footage of Haz arriving at court a lady reporter shouted a question to Haz. I missed the first part but I heard her say "Why did you do it, Sir? Why DID you do it?" Obviously he didn't reply just smiled and said "Good Morning" to everyone present.

The game ..... can you guess what the first part of the reporter's question was that I didn't catch?

My tame guess..... "Why did you marry that Ho?"
Click to expand...
Sir...SIR....my ar*e...I wouldn't be calling him that. I absolutely loathe him and her. Him, possibly more. :mad:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 27
Milliemoo99

Milliemoo99

Yupitsme!! said:
Sure I read a while ago the government were planning on scrapping super injunctions as it was against free speech
Click to expand...
Sadly I doubt if this would happen. Too many high profile people have too many skeletons to hide!!

I just thought this was an interesting explanation from Reuters. I think foreign papers might be less restricted in what they can say!

EXPLAINER: Why is Prince Harry suing the Daily Mail publisher? (msn.com)

Associated Newspapers cites the substantial publicity arising from the inquiry and subsequent criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits. The publisher argues the claimants should have known they could sue more than six years ago – meaning the cases should be thrown out of court.

In Harry's case, Associated Newspapers' lawyers argue the prince was aware that members of staff in the royal household had their phones hacked and refer to his memoir "Spare" which referred to the closure of the News of the World in 2011.

The claimants' lawyers say alleged unlawful information gathering was deliberately hidden by Associated Newspapers for years and they did not discover that they could bring a lawsuit until recently.


WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PRESS?

Litigation over allegations of unlawful information gathering has been going on for years, with the vast majority of claims being brought against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), publisher of the Daily Mirror, and News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the now-defunct News of the World and the Sun.

Harry is expected to give evidence in May at a High Court trial of his and others' privacy claims against MGN, which was launched in 2019 at the same time as a similar lawsuit against NGN. MGN is fighting Harry's case, which would be only the second "phone hacking" trial if it goes ahead and is not settled before it is heard.

Elton John and his husband David Furnish, as well as actor Liz Hurley, have brought and settled lawsuits against MGN and NGN in recent years.

But these lawsuits mark the first time Associated Newspapers has been dragged into the row, which has seen hundreds of settlements in cases brought against MGN and NGN - which has always denied any liability in relation to the Sun.

The allegations made by Lawrence - whose fight for justice was long supported by the Daily Mail - will be most concerning to the publisher, which said it had "campaigned tirelessly for 25 years to obtain justice for Stephen Lawrence" when the lawsuits were announced in October.

(Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Alison Williams)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17
G

GlassesReading

Amiyaya said:
Yes - I said similar this morning let me find what I waffled on about….
Click to expand...
He's got the same sunburned freckled nose in both. Just squinty eyes from drink/drugs/lack of sleep in the first one I guess - maybe some different meds to make him more alert today is the difference. Alert and bumping into people stood in his way when he could have just gone in around the back or side entrance.

That was a really underwhelming crowd of press outside the High Court - I used to work near there and see it all happening and the side/back way that was used. If the press are interested then it would have been a lot busier than this - looks like rent a crowd and his ITV mates onside to caputure him and no-one else that interested..... poor hawwy.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 24
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.