Meghan Markle ANL court appeal. Thread 2.

[catinboots123]

For those that are interested - I know I am.

Does anyone know when the appeal judgement will be made.

@rubicscubicle

Are people who are watching Azeem Rafiq actually thinking, 'he is rubbishing the same team that has been paying his salary and helping him provide for his family', are they also thinking ' he hates this country'. Just wondering, because I don't see this if a person is just telling us what took place. I don't think, 'oh, he should keep that within the club, they have been good to him accepting him to be a part of the team and paying him'.

I imagine racism is traumatic indeed and talking about being treated in a sub-human way like that is humiliating.

You're really comparing Charles' complaints about his upbringing to Azeem Rafiq's heartbreaking account of systemic racism in Yorkshire cricket club? Rafiq doesn't play for Yorkshire any more. Or are you saying that Harry and Meghan suffered as much as AR? Charles couldn't do much about being sent to Gordonstoun but he did have a say in whether he married Diana or not. Thoroughly confused here

I think someone is trying to derail, ignore, the thread is about Meghan lying in court.

@derxa

The Charles link was that no one said, he hates his family when he criticised them. He was telling the truth and events as they had happened. Not clear why Harry cannot do that either.

Rafiq was talking about racism as it happened to him. I most certainly did not think he was a liar, so I see no reason why people would think MM is lying about this. It's not a walk in the park, and seriously, I don't think people of colour go around making such accusations.

The NYT article, simply does a summary of what has been in the news. A repeat,with quotes on what was said by her and those against her, not NYT taking a pop on MM or even criticising her, per se.

posted too soon .

• I don't think people of colour go around accusing others of racism out of the blue or lying about it for the sake of it.

[quote rubicscubicle]@derxa

The Charles link was that no one said, he hates his family when he criticised them. He was telling the truth and events as they had happened. Not clear why Harry cannot do that either.

Rafiq was talking about racism as it happened to him. I most certainly did not think he was a liar, so I see no reason why people would think MM is lying about this. It's not a walk in the park, and seriously, I don't think people of colour go around making such accusations.[/quote]
Crikey I don't know where to start with that lot. I know who has been bravest to speak out and it isn't Harry, Charles or Meghan.
Anyway back to the fact that Meghan fibbed in court...

Rafiq is not trying to capitalise on his experience. None of the details he's given have been proved inaccurate. The Sussexes are not like him at all.

Charles is an immature and ungrateful man for moaning about his life. It doesn't mean Harry isn't one too. Has Charles said anything inaccurate in his whinges? Did he time his whinges to coincide with difficult times like the death of a parent? Did he make repeated complaints over the course of years without balancing it with respect or retrospection?

The NYT article, simply does a summary of what has been in the news. A repeat,with quotes on what was said by her and those against her, not NYT taking a pop on MM or even criticising her, per se.

No one said it was a criticism of her. It was indeed meant to summarise both opinions. Why are you just re- quoting peoples’ posts out of context?

What about the fact that none of the RF have admitted to misleading a court of law?

Whatabout the fact that the rest of the RF rallied around HMTQ when her husband died and M&H continued to trash them?

I could point out a hundred times where M&H have behaved in a way that none of the others have.

They're treated differently because they act differently. They're not victims.

@rubicscubicle

posted too soon .

• I don't think people of colour go around accusing others of racism out of the blue or lying about it for the sake of it.

No, I think you are generally right.

However, when it comes to someone who didn’t experience it firsthand, has given an account quite inconsistent to the actual party to the conversation, and has also recently had to apologise to the court for misleading them, which utterly damages her credibility, I don’t think it’s quite so clear cut at all.

Which nicely puts us back on topic…

Rafiq is not trying to capitalise on his experience.

I have no idea of any person of colour who who has tried to capitalise on being treated racist. What a horrible thing to say.

@Serenster

I still cannot believe people think that MM lied about racism against her. This is disgusting !

Have you never heard of Jussie Smolett, rubicscubicle?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47326373

[quote rubicscubicle]@Serenster

I still cannot believe people think that MM lied about racism against her. This is disgusting ![/quote]
This is exactly where’s Meghan’s recent behaviour has led her, rubicscubicle. As I said, her credibility is utterly compromised now.

Where did you see any proof of her lying about the racism? Seriously.

We just discussed that everyone lies, including the palace (they did not say she lied here either, it must be noted).

First you have to come with the proof that she lied about this.

@rubicscubicle

Where did you see any proof of her lying about the racism? Seriously.

We just discussed that everyone lies, including the palace (they did not say she lied here either, it must be noted).

First you have to come with the proof that she lied about this.

I guess that we may never find out, but people do lie. Its a fact of life.

First you have to come with the proof that she lied about this

No we don’t. Which part of her credibility is utterly compromised is unclear?

Serenster, that link failed, I'm afraid.

I understand you have a legal background, would it be unusual for the current court to overturn the summary judgement made by Warby? I listened to bits and would I be correct in saying the onus is on MoS lawyers to prove it is incorrect - and does that need some doubt or high level of doubt on the judgement made?

Yes you do.

Otherwise, everything that comes from the queen, charles, William, the palace etc. and everyone else is a lie, because they have also lied in the past, plenty of times too.

Sorry, but this rule cannot just be applied to MM.

You cannot single her out as, oh she lied about something, she is lying about everything.

And before you say, oh but she lie in court, well others lied to the whole bloody nation. Don't see why they are better.

This is an interesting article fro the US, quite long, and won't go down well on this thread really but it's worth a read.

Here

I'm not sure anyone will click on it, but I will add below what is relevant to this thread.

"For Meghan, whose legal case against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday continues this week, winning in court is important not only symbolically but practically, as it could expand protections for the rest of us. It’s for that reason we should all brace ourselves for further attacks against not only her character but her very existence.

This battle was already won by Meghan in the U.K.’s courts: In February, a High Court judge ruled that The Mail on Sunday had invaded her privacy when it published correspondence she had written to her father. Now the paper has sought to appeal her victory and paint her as calculating, manipulative, and even diabolical because she dared to try to save herself from becoming fodder for their tabloid-media machine. This is an attempt by The Mail on Sunday to undo the right to privacy she has already won, all because they published a private letter she wrote to her father in August 2018 in which she begged him to stop speaking to the press, a letter she worried would be leaked anyway.

Imagine knowing that your every move, even the most intimate communications with your family members, could be weaponized against you. How do we rationalize every difficult, private conversation being turned into content for digital media platforms to exploit as a matter of routine practice? For an industry fueled by hate and vitriol, the audacity of a Black woman’s suing for her privacy, and winning, is too much for the tabloids to bear. In this case, her very worry about and anticipation of being exploited is now being framed by the tabloids as grounds for the revocation of her rights.

By this reasoning, any expression of concern by a woman about being harmed means she cedes her protection from said harm. Such is the distorted logic of sexism — and racism — that governs this case. It’s one we should watch closely to see if the courts will uphold her victory or go to trial. On Thursday, at the conclusion of a three-day hearing, London’s Court of Appeal said it would take its time in considering the case."

Thanks Sally - I’ve copied from the Wikipedia entry below, then. He is a tv actor in the US who is being prosecuted for hiring two extras who had worked on his show to beat him up.

————————-

On January 29, 2019, American actor Jussie Smollett went to the Chicago police and alleged he'd been assaulted during the early morning hours at the 300 block of East Lower North Water Street in Chicago's Streeterville by two people he described as white men, wearing MAGA hats. He claimed they'd shouted racial and homophobic slurs, poured an unknown chemical substance, possibly bleach, on him and tied a noose around his neck.

On February 20, 2019, Smollett was indicted for disorderly conduct for paying the brothers to stage a fake hate crime assault on him and filing a false police report. Smollett's defense team reached a deal with prosecutors on March 26, 2019, in which all charges were dropped in return for Smollett performing community service and forfeiting his $10,000 bond.

On February 11, 2020, after further investigation by a special prosecutor was completed, Smollett was indicted again by a Cook County grand jury on six counts pertaining to making four false police reports

Seriously, are people going to take 0.001 chance of someone who lied.

It's a bit like saying, no that child was not abused, look here is a case of one in a billion of a child saying they were abused

I could not do put up the link on that @Roussette

Would it be similar to this lawyer take from Byline

bylineinvestigates.com/2021/11/11/the-mail-on-sunday-meghan-appeal-day-3-final-exchanges-and-the-verdict-deferred/

Pretty early on, me and other people from an Asian background... there were comments such as 'you'll sit over there near the toilets', 'elephant washers'. The word p* was used constantly. And there just seemed to be an acceptance in the institution from the leaders and no one ever stamped it out."

Rafiq, who is a Muslim, also described his harrowing first experience of alcohol at the age of 15.

"I got pinned down at my local cricket club and had red wine poured down my throat, literally down my throat," he said.
Former England batter Gary Ballance admitted using a "racial slur" towards Rafiq in a lengthy statement issued earlier this month, apologising but framing it as part of a long and deep friendship.

Rafiq told the committee that was not an accurate depiction of their relationship, saying it went downhill from 2013 onwards and had become toxic by 2017.

Rafiq described his experience on a 2017 pre-season tour: "We were in a place and Gary Ballance walks over and goes, 'Why are you talking to him? You know he's a p*'. This happened in front of team-mates. It happened in front of coaching staff."
Asked by chair Julian Knight about the term 'Kevin', Rafiq said it was an offensive, racist term that reached the very top of the game.

"Kevin was a something Gary (Ballance) used to describe anyone of colour in a very derogatory manner. It was an open secret in the England dressing room," he said.

"Anyone who came across Gary would know that was a phrase he would use to describe people of colour."

Alex Hales was named in the report
"Gary and Alex Hales got really close to each other when they played for England together. I wasn't present in that dressing room, but what I understand (is) that Alex went on to name his dog 'Kevin' because it was black. It's disgusting how much of a joke it was."

Sky's Tom Parmenter asked England test captain and senior Yorkshire CCC player Joe Root about witnessing racism at the club.
Root released a statement on the scandal calling for lasting change at Headingley. However, his claim that he could not recall witnessing examples of racism left Rafiq feeling "incredibly hurt".

He said: "Rooty is a good man. He never engaged in racist language.

"I found it hurtful because Rooty was Gary (Ballance)'s housemate and had been involved in a lot of the socialising where I was called a 'p*'.

"It shows how normal it was that even a good man like him doesn't see it for what it was. It's not going to affect Joe, but it's something I remember every day."
From Sky News

@rubicscubicle

Rafiq is not trying to capitalise on his experience.

I have no idea of any person of colour who who has tried to capitalise on being treated racist. What a horrible thing to say.

The Sussexes used the Oprah interview allegations to try and draw a line under what they said happened in the RF to start a new money making life. They were not paid in money for the interview but their interview led to financial gain indirectly. Thanks to technology there are ways to get your side or the story out cheaply and accurately. Oprah was selected as the medium of delivery for a reason.

It is impossible for the public to sympathise with their claims of racism until more details are offered. I understand why they don't want to name someone senior but without details like what was said exactly then it's hard to be outraged. Remember that they both said this happened at different times which adds to the confusion. FWIW for me, the most surprising part of the racism accusation was that it was one person on one occasion but without details we don't know if it's clumsy wording from a person who only hangs out with other rich white people or something very offensive.