ChatterBank5 mins ago
Meghan Merkel.
Duchess (sic) of Sussex has lost the first round of her battle with The Mail in the high court.
The first battle.
Will she lose the war in your opinion?
The first battle.
Will she lose the war in your opinion?
Answers
Now she’s told the British tabloids she’ll have nothing to do with them I think the best thing would be for them to ignore her completely. As Oscar Wilde said ‘There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.’ She’s a B-rated actress whose only real claim to fame is marrying a prince who’s decided to renege on his...
08:42 Sat 02nd May 2020
naomi24
You wrote:
//But the same thing happens with all new royal brides.//
I don't think I explained myself clearly.
The Duchess is no longer a new bride.
If you look at any story the Mail publishes about her on their website, you will see thousands of responses. Each response is money in the bank. Online sites are dependent on advertising revenue (if they're not behind a firewall), and people who generate traffic are extremely popular to editors.
However, we both have opinions on this and neither of us are necessarily wrong - we've just reached different conclusions.
You wrote:
//But the same thing happens with all new royal brides.//
I don't think I explained myself clearly.
The Duchess is no longer a new bride.
If you look at any story the Mail publishes about her on their website, you will see thousands of responses. Each response is money in the bank. Online sites are dependent on advertising revenue (if they're not behind a firewall), and people who generate traffic are extremely popular to editors.
However, we both have opinions on this and neither of us are necessarily wrong - we've just reached different conclusions.
//Zacs is right.
A nod and a wink, or a raised eyebrow from Her Maj, is all it takes.//
She must have gesticulated to a fair few people then. Apparently Ms Markle had been advised to walk away from this action. Her own lawyers told her she had virtually no chance of success and most of M’Learned Friends who had examined the matter believed likewise. Unsurprisingly Mr Justice Wharmby agreed. He ruled that much of her case against the Mail was “impermissibly vague” and was “little more than a bare assertion.” He threw out her allegations that the paper had maliciously pursued her to portray her in a false and damaging light, that it had acted dishonestly and that the Mail had harassed and humiliated her father. He ruled that no detail had been provided for any of these assertions and that the defendant (The Mail) could not be expected to defend allegations which had not been clearly defined.
I don’t know if Her Maj had taken al this on board before giving the nod.
//So, as I'm not a royalist, does that mean I'm not considered part pf the nation?//
That’s entirely up to you. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and power is vested in the Monarch (who is transient) from the Crown (which is permanent). Your disapproval of the Royal Family or of the Monarchy does not alter that. Your status as part of the nation is not altered because of your views.
A nod and a wink, or a raised eyebrow from Her Maj, is all it takes.//
She must have gesticulated to a fair few people then. Apparently Ms Markle had been advised to walk away from this action. Her own lawyers told her she had virtually no chance of success and most of M’Learned Friends who had examined the matter believed likewise. Unsurprisingly Mr Justice Wharmby agreed. He ruled that much of her case against the Mail was “impermissibly vague” and was “little more than a bare assertion.” He threw out her allegations that the paper had maliciously pursued her to portray her in a false and damaging light, that it had acted dishonestly and that the Mail had harassed and humiliated her father. He ruled that no detail had been provided for any of these assertions and that the defendant (The Mail) could not be expected to defend allegations which had not been clearly defined.
I don’t know if Her Maj had taken al this on board before giving the nod.
//So, as I'm not a royalist, does that mean I'm not considered part pf the nation?//
That’s entirely up to you. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and power is vested in the Monarch (who is transient) from the Crown (which is permanent). Your disapproval of the Royal Family or of the Monarchy does not alter that. Your status as part of the nation is not altered because of your views.
A quote from Gavin Millar, QC, of Matrix Chambers:
"This is a simple claim about a letter and five articles - and it cannot be turned into a mini public enquiry into the Mail on Sunday's reporting about them.
They wanted to use the claim to argue about the motives of the journalists and the newspapers, which was irrelevant.
And they didn't even have the evidence in any event. These were all things beyond what the court can consider - you have to question why they did this."
"This is a simple claim about a letter and five articles - and it cannot be turned into a mini public enquiry into the Mail on Sunday's reporting about them.
They wanted to use the claim to argue about the motives of the journalists and the newspapers, which was irrelevant.
And they didn't even have the evidence in any event. These were all things beyond what the court can consider - you have to question why they did this."
No, nobody here did as far as I know, sp. Mr Millar, QC posed the question. The entire matter is interesting. Setting aside for a moment the conspiracy theory that HM Queen may have had a finger in the pie, it seems from a number of sources - Mr Millar, some other Learned Friends and most importantly Mr Justice Wharmby, that the majority of her accusations against the Mail are entirely without merit. The judge used terms such as "vague" "irrelevant" and "speculative". No judge would do that without justification, especially in such a high profile case. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and "The Firm" really have had a hand in the proceedings (which personally I don't believe for a second) I'm sure the judge would have found more intricate language to dismiss the matters.
Another quote from Mark Stephens, a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy:
For Meghan this judgement is like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker on a level crossing. It's a complete disaster. She's been terribly badly advised to pursue this case against the Mail on Sunday. She's been humiliated."
Of course her own advisors couldn't really give two hoots. They get paid whatever the outcome. But it seems they are somewhat lonely in their opinion. So the question really is why (unless they badly need the money) did they advise her to take action on accusations that have been described as vague, irrelevant and speculative?
Another quote from Mark Stephens, a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy:
For Meghan this judgement is like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker on a level crossing. It's a complete disaster. She's been terribly badly advised to pursue this case against the Mail on Sunday. She's been humiliated."
Of course her own advisors couldn't really give two hoots. They get paid whatever the outcome. But it seems they are somewhat lonely in their opinion. So the question really is why (unless they badly need the money) did they advise her to take action on accusations that have been described as vague, irrelevant and speculative?
Theland - You write 'Duchess (sic)' inferring that although the Duchess is referred to as a Duchess, this is incorrect, but you are writing it as the original source offered it.
It is not incorrect - the Duchess is a Duchess, and just because you may not wish her to be so, does not alter the fact that she is one.
It is not incorrect - the Duchess is a Duchess, and just because you may not wish her to be so, does not alter the fact that she is one.
APG - // Meghan is trailer trash, basically, crawled her way up to the heady heights of a TV show in America …
She is not 'trailer trash' - she was born in Los Angeles, educated in private schools, and attended university before becoming a professional actress during her time at university.
It's not nice to use unpleasant labels for people simply because you don't like or approve of them - but if you are going to do so, at least give them the courtesy of being accurate in your name-calling.
She is not 'trailer trash' - she was born in Los Angeles, educated in private schools, and attended university before becoming a professional actress during her time at university.
It's not nice to use unpleasant labels for people simply because you don't like or approve of them - but if you are going to do so, at least give them the courtesy of being accurate in your name-calling.
Latest Posts
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News7 mins ago
News8 mins ago
He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Home & Garden24 mins ago
