Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 4:36pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Where do you get they lived in a 21 room residence? Nottingham Cottage only had 2 bedrooms.

Direct from the source:
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of £4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos," reads a statement from the funding section of the Sussexes' new website.

"This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son."

I didn't say Nottingham Cottage had 21 rooms, it has two bedrooms and some reception rooms, living rooms etc. They were offered another 21 room house beside William and Kate but went with renovating Frogmore Cottage instead. To do this the five separate homes would be converted into one giant home.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 4:37pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

When people are outraged facts are irrelevant.

Try to get past the outrage then and look at the facts, rather than the misconceptions. See post above.

ohnonotgmail · 24-01-2020 4:43pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Try to get past the outrage then and look at the facts, rather than the misconceptions. See post above.

no outrage from me just bemusement at how invested in this you seem to be.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 4:51pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Where do you get they lived in a 21 room residence? Nottingham Cottage only had 2 bedrooms.

Direct from the source:
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of £4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos," reads a statement from the funding section of the Sussexes' new website.

"This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son."

I think people should take all the papers are saying about these residences, with a sack of salt. One paper is complaining about money being wasted on refurbishing apartments at Kensington Palace that wouldn't be then used. It's horse manure. The repeating theme with the renovation of William and Kate's apartments and the Sussex's concern the roof. It's clear as day to me the roof of Kensington palace needed refurbishment, so that's what happened. The roof would have probably been done even if no one was earmarked to live in the second apartment. If the idea of the Sussex's moving to the apartment hadn't been floated, the papers would likely never have mentioned the roof over the apartment at Kensington palace, currently occupied by the Duke of Gloucester, was being renovated at taxpayers expense.

It's a national monument, you don't fix only half the roof if the whole thing needs work. The spin by the trash press in the UK is unbelievable. I can't fathom the stupidity of the people who lap this stuff up and can't see through it.

KiKi III · 24-01-2020 4:57pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Try to get past the outrage then and look at the facts, rather than the misconceptions. See post above.

You’ve got 62 posts on this site and all (or almost all) are on this thread.

Why the obsession?

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 5:02pm

KiKi III wrote: »

You’ve got 62 posts on this site and all (or almost all) are on this thread.

Why the obsession?

I've contributed to eight different threads, this is the only once concerning the royal soap opera. People have engaged with the posts on this thread more than the others.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 5:03pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I think people should take all the papers are saying about these residences, with a sack of salt. One paper is complaining about money being wasted on refurbishing apartments at Kensington Palace that wouldn't be then used. It's horse manure. The repeating theme with the renovation of William and Kate's apartments and the Sussex's concern the roof. It's clear as day to me the roof of Kensington palace needed refurbishment, so that's what happened. The roof would have probably been done even if no one was earmarked to live in the second apartment. If the idea of the Sussex's moving to the apartment hadn't been floated, the papers would likely never have mentioned the roof over the apartment at Kensington palace, currently occupied by the Duke of Gloucester, was being renovated at taxpayers expense.

It's a national monument, you don't fix only half the roof if the whole thing needs work. The spin by the trash press in the UK is unbelievable. I can't fathom the stupidity of the people who lap this stuff up and can't see through it.

Converting five apartments in Frogmore into one giant house is not essential maintenance.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 5:04pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Try to get past the outrage then and look at the facts, rather than the misconceptions. See post above.

According to you the "facts" come from paparazzi trash articles. Did you actually type that with a straight face?

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 5:08pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Converting five apartments in Frogmore into one giant house is not essential maintenance.

I didn't mention Frogmore, I was specifically talking about Kensington Palace and the roof work there.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 5:21pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

According to you the "facts" come from paparazzi trash articles. Did you actually type that with a straight face?

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 5:24pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I didn't mention Frogmore, I was specifically talking about Kensington Palace and the roof work there.

Your opening was talking about the renovations in general.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 5:27pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

Nope.
hahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahha:pac::pac::pac::pac:

end of the road · 24-01-2020 6:03pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The thing that the press were most annoyed about when the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage was revealed was the fact that Harry and Meghan had already spent around £1.4 million renovating their previous home beside William and Kate. They then decided to move away and renovate Frogmore Cottage, many believing it was mainly because they didn't get along with their neighbours anymore. The official explanation was apparently that their 21-room residence wasn't suitable for their growing family.

There were also articles questioning the renovations William and Kate's renovations, that was in 2013 and 2014 so you may not remember the criticism as well as the recent questioning of H & M.

Now Harry and Meghan are moving again from their new luxury home. You can imagine this raises people's heckles.

To be fair, I think most people would take the trade-off of living in a series of luxury mansions with servants and nannies in return for some headlines criticising them for holding their baby bump and promoting avocados. Not everyone would be prepared to put up with it though I suppose.

the buildings would be refurbished anyway, so the media's fo-outrage means absolutely jot

, the same for the fo-outrage from some of the british public over absolutely nothing.
the royals owe nobody absolutely nothing. it is the public who want to keep them, so the public are going to just have to get over the fact that they will have to pay for them if they wish to keep them.

KiKi III · 24-01-2020 6:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

BuzzFeed is far more impartial and accurate than the tabloid rags you’re getting your info from.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 6:44pm

KiKi III wrote: »

BuzzFeed is far more impartial and accurate than the tabloid rags you’re getting your info from.

Now it's becoming clear what we're up against. Buzzfeed is in the top three untrustworthy news sources according to the poll below, sandwiched between 'Brietbart' and 'Occupy Democrats'. Unbelievably, Infowars gets a higher rating than Buzzfeed. It's a junk news propaganda site.

MW-FR660_Truste_20170803172454_MG.jpg?uuid=3111a66e-7892-11e7-96b1-9c8e992d421e

MW-FR660_Truste_20170803172454_MG.jpg?uuid=3111a66e-7892-11e7-96b1-9c8e992d421e

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 7:06pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Now it's becoming clear what we're up against. Buzzfeed is in the top three untrustworthy news sources according to the poll below, sandwiched between 'Brietbart' and 'Occupy Democrats'. Unbelievably, Infowars gets a higher rating than Buzzfeed. It's a junk news propaganda site.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

And you get your information from sources such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc who have been running the garbage you're repeating here, which are so bad they're not even ranked. :pac:
You're not concerned with accurate news sources, come off it.

24-01-2020 9:05pm

At least newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun are subject to libel laws and the like. Buzzfeed is just a click factory. Nice and shiny and everything but I would trust it for the sum total of nothing.

24-01-2020 9:10pm

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days. The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

blinding · 24-01-2020 9:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

At least newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun are subject to libel laws and the like. Buzzfeed is just a click factory. Nice and shiny and everything but I would trust it for the sum total of nothing.

Funnily enough a lot of what the tabloids said about Charles and Diana ( for example ) turned out to be true.

24-01-2020 9:21pm

blinding wrote: »

Funnily enough a lot of what the tabloids said about Charles and Diana ( for example ) turned out to be true.

That is what I mean at least they have a semblance of an editorial process because they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.

retro:electro · 24-01-2020 9:33pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is what I mean at least they have a semblance of an editorial process because they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.

And that they are. Lol.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 24-01-2020 9:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Have you and your amigos not been taking a Buzzfeed article as gospel for the last 20 pages. Frock my old boots. Buzzfeed.

I will consider something most reliable if it is reported across the mainstream press. Many royal correspondents have been doing it for years and years and won't risk their reputation on trash.

But then again, some people here seem to think their official PR website and Buzzfeed are the best available sources.

Personally nothing I’ve read about it all has come from Buzzfeed. Various publications compared the headlines relating to Kate and Meghan.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 24-01-2020 9:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days. The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

I see this repeated often. You can comment on probably more than half of the Guardian’s articles. The ones you can’t tend to be straight news reporting. The opinion pieces are usually the ones you CAN comment on.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 9:38pm

retro:electro wrote: »

And that they are. Lol.

Ironically enough, they are suing the papers for publishing something completely true, a letter she doesn’t deny writing.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 9:40pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

And you get your information from sources such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc who have been running the garbage you're repeating here, which are so bad they're not even ranked. :pac:
You're not concerned with accurate news sources, come off it.

I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 9:53pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Ironically enough, they are suing the papers for publishing something completely true, a letter she doesn’t deny writing.

That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 9:54pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.

Word salad... what does that statement even mean.

end of the road · 24-01-2020 9:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days.

you mean they are outlets that report facts and don't tell you what you want to hear?
the bbc is ranked highly because while it is not perfect, it is a reliable broadcaster.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.

really? i have no doubt some don't agree with the pieces, but whether that is a majority of people i could not say with any certainty, and i suspect neither could you, more that it is wishful thinking on your part, i suspect.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:09pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Word salad... what does that statement even mean.

I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:11pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.

I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).

Stateofyou · 24-01-2020 10:29pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).

Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 10:34pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

blinding · 24-01-2020 10:47pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:55pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.

This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 10:57pm

blinding wrote: »

Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.

Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”, but wondered whether it would ultimately be worth the “enormous price”. While she would win what he described as a “tiny legal battle”, he warned that she and her husband would comprehensively lose the “much broader war”.

He added: “The point about copyright is that it gives control to the person who has the copyright – in this case Meghan – and in those circumstances she can allow people to use the copyright or not use the copyright.

“What can’t happen is that Thomas Markle cannot unilaterally decide, nor indeed can the Mail on Sunday unilaterally decide, that they want to publish this material,”

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 10:58pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.

Can you be more specific please? I can’t respond to such a generalised accusation.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:01pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

24-01-2020 11:07pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

Strange. To read some posts here it would seem she is suing because of their campaign of lies and vitriol. Or some nonsense like that.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:07pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

If something is your property can you not do with it what you wish ?

Harry and Meghan are going to look a right pair of plonkers if this goes to public court. I’m guessing it won’t for that very reason.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 11:09pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.

No, your replies do not follow logically from the point I was actually making. Wotjek says they can be sued for lying, electro then says that they are being sued for lying, I followed this by pointing out the contents of the article they are suing for are true, purely to contradict electro’s misunderstanding. Your point is totally irrelevant to that thread of discussion. Stop trying to make it false.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:12pm

blinding wrote: »

If something is your property can you not do with it what you wish ?

Harry and Meghan are going to look a right pair of plonkers if this goes to public court. I’m guessing it won’t for that very reason.

Are you f'n kidding me? You think you can buy a book, DVD, software, etc and just do what you like with them; make copies and sell them?

It's already going to court and the media have done their best to portray them as plonkers at every turn, so nothing to loose there. Are you missing the point that the media already tried to make them look like plonkers by publishing her private correspondence to her father?

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 11:18pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

The legal quote you included didn’t include the defence of public interest. If the paper can show that publishing the extracts was a matter of public interest then that is a legitimate defence. The standoff between Meghan and her father was public knowledge before the letter was published so her father may be able to demonstrate that publishing the extracts vindicated him against widespread false or misleading accusations or put them into a more truthful context.

Edited to add, I have a suspicion that Mr. Markle has text messages or other correspondence from Meghan that contradict the contents of the letter, he may therefore be able to show that the misleading information in the letter, if both knew it to be misleading, was really intended to paint her in a better light to a much wider audience than the person she sent it to. That might be considered an implicit licence to publish the contents.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:28pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Are you f'n kidding me? You think you can buy a book, DVD, software, etc and just do what you like with them; make copies and sell them?

It's already going to court and the media have done their best to portray them as plonkers at every turn, so nothing to loose there. Are you missing the point that the media already tried to make them look like plonkers by publishing her private correspondence to her father?

A lettered delivered to you is none of the above . It is the recipients property .

This court case will be fun . Imagine if receipts and the like are not your private property after receiving them by mail . I expect a humiliating climb down by the royal work dodgers soon .

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 11:29pm

I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:32pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.

The royal work dodgers have too much to lose . This will never see the inside of a public court. They would make two complete clowns of themselves.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:39pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The legal quote you included didn’t include the defence of public interest. If the paper can show that publishing the extracts was a matter of public interest then that is a legitimate defence. The standoff between Meghan and her father was public knowledge before the letter was published so her father may be able to demonstrate that publishing the extracts vindicated him against widespread false or misleading accusations or put them into a more truthful context.

Edited to add, I have a suspicion that Mr. Markle has text messages or other correspondence from Meghan that contradict the contents of the letter, he may therefore be able to show that the misleading information in the letter, if both knew it to be misleading, was really intended to paint her in a better light to a much wider audience than the person she sent it to. That might be considered an implicit licence to publish the contents.

The public interest angle would only apply to the breach of privacy angle and, several legal experts point out that the level of public interest here is likely insufficient to override the right to privacy. Public interest has no bearing on breach of copyright and doesn't legitimise it..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/meghan-duchess-sussex-mail-sunday--case-letter-thomas-father

Hugh Tomlinson QC, chair of the privacy lobby group Hacked Off, who acted for Prince Charles in 2006 against the Mail on Sunday to halt the publication of his diaries, told the Guardian that the law accepts that even public figures are entitled to private lives. “If a newspaper is going to rely on [a] public interest [defence], then it must demonstrate that there’s something serious or substantial that needs to be exposed to the public,” he said.

“Private lives need to be kept private and you have to have a very strong reason for [revealing details] which goes beyond the fact that they are quite well known figures.”

Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:44pm

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.

blinding wrote: »

The royal work dodgers have too much to lose . This will never see the inside of a public court. They would make two complete clowns of themselves.

Oh yes, there is a very high likelihood of the case not proceeding, but not because of what you think. it's very likely the papers will settle out of court.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:46pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh yes, there is a very high likelihood of the case not proceeding, but not because of what you think. it's very likely the papers will settle out of court.

Newspapers seldom do that . The sight of newspapers being publicly cowed is not a good look for newspapers.

MoonUnit75 · 24-01-2020 11:50pm

cnocbui wrote: »

The public interest angle would only apply to the breach of privacy angle and, several legal experts point out that the level of public interest here is likely insufficient to override the right to privacy. Public interest has no bearing on breach of copyright and doesn't legitimise it..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/meghan-duchess-sussex-mail-sunday--case-letter-thomas-father

I’m not sure that’s true, limited publishing of copyright material is permissable for purposes of criticism or review and that falls under public interest.

The problem with the publication of the diaries is that the published material is the story itself, therefore public interest in the contents of that specific material didn’t exist until after it was published. If the subject of the private correspondence was already a matter of public interest then the comparison to the publication of Charles or Andrews diaries is not comparable to this case at all.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:54pm

blinding wrote: »

Newspapers seldom do that . The sight of newspapers being publicly cowed is not a good look for newspapers.

My bad, yes, they 'seldom' do that, how silly of me...

Daily Mail Reportedly Pays Melania Trump $2.9 Million Settlement in Libel Suit

Daily Mail settles Ryanair libel claim out of court

Noel Edmonds has settled out of court on a libel action he took against the Daily Mail over an article published in March.

Schillings, the media law firm that acted for the Deal or No Deal presenter, confirmed that the action had been settled, but declined to reveal any details of the deal with the Daily Mail.

"Noel is happy that the matter has been settled and happy with the settlement,

Elizabeth Hurley, Elton John, and Heather Mills have settled their phone-hacking claims against The Sun’s parent company at the last minute, avoiding a potentially embarrassing trial for Rupert Murdoch’s media empire

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Comments