Harry and Meghan - everyone still being respectful please

[Oldbutstillgotit]

Lots still to talk about .

@PheasantPlucker1

Surely there would be something legal in place to stop them using videos of the RF? Thats a huge invasion of privacy!

Have they done this? It would be wrong if it happened and I doubt they would be able to that kind of footage. I don't think this is quite fair to mention as speculation - just like Meghan allegedly recording things and Meghan allegedly taking photos of George as mentioned in this thread.

@Flube

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

May I ask why my post was deleted @MNHQ? I did not say anything offensive or that broke TG's.

I simply commented that I was unsurprised by the judgement reported from mainstream news sources today, purely forming my opinion on previous known legal judgements made.

I also remarked that I wondered about Carolyn Durand's absence as co-author of Finding Freedom.

However I did not speculate, and more importantly, I did not break Talk Guidelines.

It is comical when a post on another thread topic, that states that some of your posters would be at home in the KKK forum, is allowed to stand. And was in fact reinstated upon deletion for not breaking TG's.

And before I am told to 'report anything that I think break TG's', I did report that post, hence how I know it was reinstated and the reasoning behind it.

Looks like I was misguided at reassuring others that you are now moderating thoroughly, and making considered decisions.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Yes, that's a point ... where the heck IS Carolyn in all this??

And that should have said the judge's waspish remarks, not warping ones

At home regretting her involvement?

EastonSarah Thank you for answering my question about the daily beast. Sounds rather obscure. Blind Gossip did suggest that story about William was fabricated by Megan herself.

You can’t tell people not to speculate about Megan allegedly taking photos of George, when you yourself have made dubious speculation about William on the previous page.

@PainyRuddles

Quite honestly, Mumsnet needs to give their head a wobble. The deletions of NoFox last night, were posts that were talking sense, in a non offensive manner.

The moderating needs to be consistant, which it clearly is not. People are being deleted and banned for nothing more than stating facts, while certain people, orchestrating huge wall of text post attacks on the Middletons, remain unchallenged, and undeleted.

Shocking, appalling moderating. Surely MNHQ have seen the amount of support that NoFox had last night after her eloquent, yet deleted post. Does that not tell them something, that perhaps, their decision making is falling short of the standards it should be.

Just my tuppence, of course!

Totally agree with this @painyruddles I've long been a reader of these threads and on the whole enjoyed them, they've made me laugh.

However I have never posted until this week as the thought of being bullied by the ultra woke and then labelled as a racist just for disliking and disagreeing with MM and what she's doing to the royal family was very off putting and made me feel sick.

But I've had enough now, it's time to stand up to bullies!!! But @mumsnethq you need to too, please please stop this bullying of members by a few posters who report every tiny thing and see racism everywhere and who pile on those who have differing views!! I'm sure its put others off too.

EastonSarah, as much as we all hate the Daily Mail, the story is from there. The claim is Meghan used that to secure the Netflix deal, which actually sounds quite credible.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782653/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-touted-scenes-footage-decision-leave-Britain.html

Speculation isnt always a bad thing. Most of what H&M have done was predicted months before it happened by posters on here

Chatnotnet* well said!

@PheasantPlucker1

Surely there would be something legal in place to stop them using videos of the RF? Thats a huge invasion of privacy!

Agreed, but perhaps there are some behind the scenes recordings of Frogmore Cottage or places where they would have had every right to film. If we think the worst of them, that they planned and prepared for this, then who knows what the content will be. However, it’s also quite possible that they have fairly standard family videos that they’ve taken in the grounds or properties of the RF which under other circumstances would have just gone on the hard drive to be looked at in a few decades whilst reminiscing. I’m sure many families have video footage of their toddler’s first steps and similar.

If it is the worst and they have filmed where they shouldn’t and without permission, then what’s the point in any of us even discussing the potential of them rejoining the RF because that would never happen. As it is, I think a lot of the public would push for either a republican or to bypass Harry if something happened to Charles, William and his family (but then surely more people would push to bypass Andrew as well).

@PheasantPlucker1

EastonSarah, as much as we all hate the Daily Mail, the story is from there. The claim is Meghan used that to secure the Netflix deal, which actually sounds quite credible.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782653/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-touted-scenes-footage-decision-leave-Britain.html

Speculation isnt always a bad thing. Most of what H&M have done was predicted months before it happened by posters on here

For all the criticism the DM continually gets (and usually quite rightly so), if FF is held up in court to be accurate, it will do a lot for the paper’s credibility.

I actually cant wait to see what Omid Scobie reveals in court about his "sources" for FF.

Its sad that the Daily Mail is coming out of this looking better than the Royals. I cant see them ever being welcomed by the public here again.

I dont expect Scobie will be bothered either way. He's made his money on the book thanks to all the hype.

I can't believe this is true froggy. Do you have any links/proof to substantiate this accusation?

Yes, I have both, but as explained above linking to or even writing the name of the other forum is banned here.

@Crispsginchoc

EastonSarah Thank you for answering my question about the daily beast. Sounds rather obscure. Blind Gossip did suggest that story about William was fabricated by Megan herself.

You can’t tell people not to speculate about Megan allegedly taking photos of George, when you yourself have made dubious speculation about William on the previous page.

But I don't think William has had an affair, it's an example of just because someone doesn't sue, it doesn't mean that it's true.

"A group of posters who were banned from Mumsnet started up their own rival forum with a similar name"

Rival forum in what way?

Or is it just another forum?

@Flube

*he is the first to know all the goings on of H and M.

aren't the us newspapers getting the exclusives now? the move to the US, the California House purchase, the netflix deal and more all to us newspapers first. The Standard got the information on the food related charity bits and they also did a food project or something with Harry and meg.

When will the case Meghan brought against AP be heard?

From the BBC account of today's rules no:

"This latest hearing was unfortunately another step in a case that has already been drawn out by a defendant who uses the legal process to exploit the duchess's privacy and the privacy of those around her for profit-motivated clickbait rather than journalism."

I really don't see how the defendant is in any way at fault for seeking to mount their defence!

(The Standard was a non US example but is not a royal rota paper)

Questions on subjects such as Moderation, Reporting posts, deletions of posts, reinstating of posts, accusations, banning of posters, rules re mentioning of other forums. all need to be taken up on site stuff if people are concerned.

@WinnieTheW0rm
No date has been set for the full trial, which is expected to start next year (reported August 2020)

Talking of defence, it’s impossible to defend against froggy’ s accusations of racism when no-one is allowed to name “the site” so people can read it for themselves and make up their own minds.

It would be helpful if MN clarify the rules on what we are allowed to mention as references to other sites such as Reddit and Lipstick Alley are allowed to stand.

@Winnie that was a quote from her lawyers - thankfully- not editorialising by the BBC. I was 😯at the idea it might be though.

Can we stop discussing racism if there isn't any evidence here? It's as ridiculous as some of the older threads where people were being accused of being Brexiteers if they didn't like meg.

It's very easy to find the site in question.

I explicitly named one place where you can find links and screencaps showing all the racism, abuse, and other stuff like photoshopping fake DM conversations.

it’s impossible to defend against froggy’ s accusations of racism

Why do you feel the need to defend anonymous total strangers who you know nothing about and have never heard of before, over allegations they post racist content on a forum you've never even heard of?

I'm not invested in whether or not Meghan wins or loses cases but in this instance the papers are trying to get as much 'juice' to publish from the case as possible. They'll make money even if they continue to pay fees and lose with the extra tidbits gained. Meghan needs to make sure that she doesn't give them anything to use (which she has done so far in the court documents)!