Meghan Wins!

[Peter Pedant]

Meghan won unexpectedly in the Appeal court today.

Warmby J 's decision to give to summary judgement was upheld. Sorry to use such long words on AB. The Appeal Court judgement was given by three old men - one of whom was in my year at Law School - the other one is Master of the Rolls.

31 pages of mainly indigestible stuff BUT - criteria for giving summary judgement revisited, and current law of privacy summed up.

AB heads tend to explode like that scene from Scanners if I dont pose a question:
anyone interested?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sussex-v-Associated-News-judgment-021221.pdf

[Mozz71]

Personally? Nope, not really.

[jno]

it's always pleasant to see deliberately intrusive news media given a smack.

There's an assessment here

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/02/meghans-all-out-war-may-have-taken-mail-on-sunday-by-surprise

"Duchess’s case did not change privacy law, but it was a departure from royals tending to settle out of court"

[Peter Pedant]

yes - no
it doesnt change the law - - but it sums it up
which for us failed ex law students is like god dust

I thought she would lose hands down - esp with the arch - "oops what happens if is LEAKED!!!" signed Prince Harry haw haw

and their lordships said - doesnt affect her obvious right to privacy

[neuron]

Well mercy me, is anyone else confused regarding the post from Peter Pedant above and his expertise?

Peter refers to himself above on this thread as being a failed ex law student.

Curious, because yesterday at 1345 here:

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Question1775243-2.html

he refers to himself as an OAP law graduate.

I wonder which it is. Will the real Peter Pedant please stand up if just to provide some credence to his wisdom.

[DTCwordfan]

How much dosh has she screwed out of the Daily Wail then? There will be an appeal, no doubt.

[THECORBYLOON]

"The Appeal Court judgement was given by three old men - one of whom was in my year at Law School - the other one is Master of the Rolls."

The third "old man" is Dame Victoria Sharp Simon. Perhaps you need to pay more attention to the details?

[andy-hughes]

It will vex the Sussex-haters, but the simple fact is, the law protects everyone, and that's why she won.

[THECORBYLOON]

No idea where the "Simon" come from!

[Peter Pedant]

er no it all makes sense
the master of the rolls who was in my year was Peregrine Simon - he's retired.
honestly I was in law school with some ( er very entitled men) who made it. I didnt.
I thought my obvious regretful, plausible and inspiring humility wd be applauded not derided - ------- ---- - - (by the usual malicious and spiteful suspects)
no no I take that back as it is Mr Peter Nice-Guy today, BA ( failed)

jesus it is hard uphill work being mr Nice-guy
no - OK - none of you would know that .....

[jno]

going to the fair, I expect, TCL.

[Barmaid]

This the law section and not a section to pontificate on another poster's legal studies or otherwise.

I read the original judgment which made perfect sense. I can't access the latest one on my phone but I will have a read when I have a spare half an hour.

[Peter Pedant]

No idea where the simon comes from !
hur hur hur - snorts one prole - triumphantly, takes a swig of cider or echo falls, and spits dismissively in the corner

John Simon was Lord Chancellor, topry MP and Judge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simon,_1st_Viscount_Simon

who begat Jocelyn Simon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Simon,_Baron_Simon_of_Glaisdale

who begat Peregrine Simon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Simon
who was in my year - distantly

God you proles are ruled by the great and good
and dont even know their names ! - Sir or M'Lud will do

Similarly for Bean LJ - ( that's enough appeal ct judges, - ed)

[Peter Pedant]

Hi barmaid
join the party !

but if it is only cider or echo falls on offer,
you cd say: ay would rather naught

[neuron]

Barmaid, the last time I looked, "to pontificate" was defined as expressing one's opinion in a pompous or dogmatic way.

Where did I express my opinion on Peter's legal studies or otherwise as you put it? Where was I dogmatic or pompous?

I requested clarification of the situation given that a previous post yesterday seemed to contradict the information in this thread.

Turning to the issue of this being the law section, when clarification of such a matter is required, I cannot see that the section involved is of the slightest consequence.

[bigbanana]

Loathe that I am to get involved here, I'll admit that I cannot see why the law section should be out of bounds when a poster merely requires clarification from another poster.
For me it's no different to any other section. What's the big deal?

[douglas9401]

Given Peter's, albeit enjoyable, flights of whimsy I have to ask what so special about 'the law section'?

We're on t'internet and a sleepy backwater at that, not a court of law where frowns and gowns abound.

As to her privacy, Mrs Harry is perfectly entitled to choose who gets access to her troubled life when she needs funds or a tsunami of virtual love.

[Peter Pedant]

no keep it up barmaid
as a QC ( is that how you spell it) in equity
your opinions in the more difficult ( case-law) areas are appreciated if not followed

the one that just spits at you I have asked to be taken out

the others are rather good and show AB in full flow