A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

Well if it's a positive thread can I say that I am positive that both the Duke and the Duchess have behaved very badly.

Great post @TheNavigator.

I honestly think that the frothing and ire towards H and M is misdirected and should be towards the stuffy misogynistic racist institution that is the royal family. We really don’t know much about the natures of the couple but we do know what the Firm is like.
I think that in time H and M will emerge from this and do good work.

@TofinoSurf

I believe there is a court hearing today regarding the injunction. Not sure if we will hear much about it. I actually think it's best she is allowed the injunction, if she is claiming her friends haven't yet agreed to be witnesses for the AN case and she is saying this is something that would deter them. The names have already been speculated by other media (I won't repeat them) so I don't think there would be any surprises anyway.

Asking for an injunction because you haven't run your case properly is not a good idea. Meghan has known from the outset (presumably) who these five friends are, and her legal team will have appreciated how her case relies on their testimony supporting her. If she has not yet got them to agree to be witnesses, even despite knowing that she was going to have to respond to the request for further information and name them, then that is her problem. She should not be asking the court for a remedy to cover the fact that she hasn't asked her potential witnesses to give evidence, and that didn't apply for an order that their names be treated as confidential when she filed her responses.

If she can establish that the circumstances of the case and their individual circumstances are such that the general principles of court proceedings being open should be set aside, and they nor be publicly named then yes, she will deserve an injunction. That is a different matter, though!

"This is a thread for positive discussion, rather than cricitism"

But threads evolve through discussion, otherwise they become an echo-chamber. You cannot appoint yourself Head Girl of the thread and chase people off it whose opinions you dislike.
MN doesn't work like that - or at least, it shouldn't do.

We really don’t know much about the natures of the couple

Well, speaking for myself, I know they made a public statement telling us that they refused offer themselves up as currency for an economy of clickbait and distortion, and accordingly would refuse to engage with some of the UK tabloids. When you put that against the extracts published from Finding Freedom recently, which appears to offer up in-depth details of what they drank, ate and conversed about on their first date, and what failures they think their in-laws had committed, as well as a million other details, I think they come across as complete hypocrites. Clickbait on them is fine as long as it's positive, and then doesn't matter at all if it's about other people?

(and before you tell me that they haven't given interviews to the authors of this book, how likely is it that anyone other them then knew - and not just knew, but remembered in detail some 3 years later - what drinks and food they ordered on their first date, the details of private conversations they had with family members, and their intimate thoughts on various occasions?).

Since this is a positive thread, I’m also really glad they have now started the action to close down the Sussex Royal charity. I wonder why they continue to keep their Instagram account active.

It will be interesting to see if the injunction is granted.

Anyone know what happened with the attempt to transfer IG followers from SussexRoyal to Archewell?

Honestly, I've read posters who have repeatedly stuck the boot into Meghan claiming they have formed their opinon independently of the media. But none of have any information to form an opinion independent of the media.

Speak for yourself @TheNavigator

I though hounding other poster off a thread wasn't in the spirit?

Then I guess they'll delete my comment, @jeffgoldblumlovespenguins. You know? I am really tired of hearing this played over and over again, that we've all been brainwashed by the tabloids.

Also: I have very strong views about the growing band of 'privacy' lawyers in the UK working for clients with deep pockets to curate their public profiles. Their - potential - impact on freedom of speech and investigation is something that should be debated vigorously.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-courts-would-keep-maxwells-name-secret-q5tzw58xs

Serenster I absolutely agree with you. I think if they have not already agreed to be witnesses then there are probably other reasons for this that I would not be allowed to speculate on.

I can just foresee that if no injunction is given that the blame would be put entirely on the media and lack of injunction. Even if that is not the reason.

I appreciate this is not a good enough reason on its own to grant the injunction though.

Anyone know what happened with the attempt to transfer IG followers from SussexRoyal to Archewell?

Instagram don’t permit this anymore. Presumably they can just change the name of their Instagram account to Archewell unless there is a clause in their agreement with the RF not to do so.

[quote OVienna]Then I guess they'll delete my comment, @jeffgoldblumlovespenguins. You know? I am really tired of hearing this played over and over again, that we've all been brainwashed by the tabloids.

Also: I have very strong views about the growing band of 'privacy' lawyers in the UK working for clients with deep pockets to curate their public profiles. Their - potential - impact on freedom of speech and investigation is something that should be debated vigorously.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-courts-would-keep-maxwells-name-secret-q5tzw58xs[/quote]
That wasn't to you ov 😀

Well Amber Heard and J Depp failed spectacularly in their bid for privacy in our courts didn't they? If you go to court, then you riskm exposure of things you would rather keep private. The court case with M and H will not be pretty as AN are defending it. So although lawyersa do work for people to try and keep private matters private, it does not always work. Ryan Giggs tried that remember!

I'm also fed up of rich ,privileged, celebrities controlling the narrative, just because we are not in the same position, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion!

Witnesses can be required to appear in UK courts. These people have been named in court papers. Justice cannot be at a whim of people who do not think they want to appear in a civil case. The court knows who they are and of course AN has a right to get them questioned in court now they are in the court papers. Any injunction at the moment is about naming them prior to the court hearing. Although AN might settle in advance of that, I think there is more to be gained by them to defend it in court. The headlines will be far more interesting!

I said on another (probably zapped) thread that I had a friend involved in an unpleasant divorce from man wealthy enough for the court case to be covered in the local press and a couple of the red tops. The reporting made her out to be a bitter, money grabbing bitch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. There were no actual lies, but selective facts with a particular angle.

The irony of this post is unbelievable. Well-resourced bastard getting his story in the papers, just along the lines he wants? What a surprise.

Just the sort of person who would also turn the guns on a newspaper whose reporting he didn't like or even a website...

Exactly: of course opinion can be expressed. Newspaper writers do it every day without legal action. We do still live in a country where debate is acceptable. MNHQ has been far too quick to close down debate which has, by and large, been reasoned and reasonable.

Remind me: Is there a jury in the AN case or not? I think not.

We really don’t know much about the natures of the couple
I beg to differ.

Is anyone watching the special on Princess Anne’s 70th birthday? I hope we get it in Australia, but probably won’t.

If she can establish that the circumstances of the case and their individual circumstances are such that the general principles of court proceedings being open should be set aside, and they nor be publicly named then yes, she will deserve an injunction

Quite so, but while I've no idea if the reasons for requesting this will be made public, I'm just not sure what the big deal is around the "5 friends" remaining secret before a potential trial

We're not exactly talking Don Corleone and people finding horses heads in their beds here, and if it's media hassle they're worried about, couldn't the court issue an instruction against this? If they did and it was broken, I'd have thought that would put the media in a position which would suit H&M just fine

No jury. It is a civil case, not criminal.

Its fairly unusal today in that Justice Warby is the judge for the Application. Usually it is a separate judge. It is an Application concerned with the AN case, and I am not sure if it is an injuction for all press and media outlets. An Application ahead of a scheduled hearing/case is to prevent something happening that cannnot wait for the case to start at a later date. But, it might be an umbrella to stop all media publishing the names, but as it specifically says AN in the listing, I am not entirely sure what to think. Others will know more!

Where are you getting info about the hearing from my?

It was my understating being a civil case that the witnesses can't be forced to take to the stand. So what happens to the case if they don't? I assume it goes ahead still and then would MM be challenged by the defence on why she has no witnesses?