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.

rubics I did put up the link under 'Here' in my post. It's very long, which is why I just picked out what was relevant to this thread!
Interesting Byline article

@rubicscubicle

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

It's the boy who cried Wolf. Why would you believe someone on the off chance they are telling the truth this time ?

Rubicscuble I find your style of discussion very wearying. I wasn’t drawing any conclusions from the Jussie Smolett case. I was just responding to your assertion that such a case doesn’t exist.

A general statement like “it’s disgusting” to suggest a person of colour may not be telling the truth about their experience isn’t really very helpful when we are discussing a specific case like this. You say we must believe Meghan because no-one ever lies about this kind of experience- well, that’s clearly not true (though obviously very uncommon) but looking at hypotheticals is of no assistance in this particular case.

@rubicscubicle

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

It’s nothing like child abuse. It’s people saying this is someone who has persistently and consistently lied/forgotten/misunderstood so why should their word be taken as truth without irrefutable evidence to back it up.

@rubicscubicle

*whatnumber
Just want to add my favourite Obama quote:
'When they go low we go high!'
I repeat that to myself when needed sometimes!
This was in regards with the goal posts being moved for a black woman!

Come on, they were pretending it applies negatively too MM.*

Just to be very clear I wasn't using this about MM at all. It was in relation to pp talking about the Obamas who I have a lot of respect for and I love this quote and it has helped me in real life. It was meant to be a nice post.

Sorry to derail the thread.

@LondonWolf @PurpleOkapi thank you for your posts.

Denying racism says more about you than it does about the accuser.

@derxa that is harrowing reading, and shows what people of colour go through and have to hide and put up with. And you get people denying it happened.

I just can't !

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

Not quite, because that would involve disbelieving the child because someone else had lied ... whereas here it's the word of the person who's already been shown to do so which is being questioned

I found Roussette's quote interesting and thought it made some good points, though very biased and selective about what was included. And FWIW I don't think that those who've genuinely suffered racism are likely to lie - it's too painful for that - but it seems pointless to deny the tiny minority of opportunists who exist in all races

Why would you put this quote here?

I have a lot fo quotes I like by Nelson Mandela, Socrates etc. not clear why I should shoehorn them out of the blue.

From the article Roussette posted:

Imagine knowing that your every move, even the most intimate communications with your family members, could be weaponized against you.

I wonder how Charles, William, Kate or even the Queen feel about their communications with Harry and Meghan, knowing that any detail may be included in a future interview, and anything they say that doesn't go down well may later be attributed to a 'senior royal' being insensitive at best, and far beyond that. The Sussexes have weaponized their family relationships, yet seem puzzled as to why their family might not be falling all over them.

I'm also noting the repeated attempts to make this a thread about Meghan's experiences of racism, when it's a thread about her court case and the revelations of her forgetfulness and non-attempts to mislead the court.

I can see why that article appeals to you, Roussette, but I find it a bit overblown.

This battle was already won by Meghan in the U.K.’s courts
At first instance, yes, but unfortunately for Meghan as part of a fair judicial system there are two tiers of appeal to every case.

Now the paper has sought to appeal her victory and paint her as calculating, manipulative, and even diabolical
Her admission that she mislead the court has rather helped that view, don’t you think?

This is an attempt by The Mail on Sunday to undo the right to privacy she has already won
Well, they’ve appealed, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

A letter she worried would be leaked anyway
Yes, she certainly contemplated would be leaked anyway. Worried? Given how happy she felt having drafted those “words she could never say in public” and how unconcerned she was when her friends leaked it, apparently behind her back, other views might be possible on this.

Imagine knowing that your every move, even the most intimate communications with your family members, could be weaponized against you
Yes, imagine that. Prince Charles and Camilla (tampongate) and William, Kate and Harry (private voicemails routinely hacked into and listened to) might how some idea how that feels, too.

How do we rationalize every difficult, private conversation being turned into content for digital media platforms to exploit as a matter of routine practice?
Her father might well ask himself the same questions after seeing a private letter to him being mentioned, and misrepresented in People. The Judge who determined the first instance case held he did in fact have a right of response to that too.

Thanks Puzzled. Yes it is biaised but every take on this in the Press, on here and elsewhere has a bias somewhere doesn't it. It just depends on how unfair the bias is I s'pose....

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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

Not quite, because that would involve disbelieving the child because someone else had lied ... whereas here it's the word of the person who's already been shown to do so which is being questioned

I found Roussette's quote interesting and thought it made some good points, though very biased and selective about what was included. And FWIW I don't think that those who've genuinely suffered racism are likely to lie - it's too painful for that - but it seems pointless to deny the tiny minority of opportunists who exist in all races

So, if the child has lied before, you disbelieve them.

You must have lied yourself in your lifetime - even if for a valid reason, are we now supposed to disbelieve everything you say, even those you have not been proven to lie on?

I am confused about the blanket statement that seems to apply to only one woman.

Thank you for your comments Serenster.

Some I agree with, some I don't

@rubicscubicle

and *@madisonbridges* and everyone else who is on here 😉

I must be the only person on here that didn't even watch the interview. So maybe everyone but me!

If it helps, it doesn’t just apply to one woman. I apply it to everyone who misleads the court, or another authority. (I really do too - it something I come across more often than I would like!).

The excuses for MM are just getting ridiculous now, hypocritical nonsense and the same mantras.

@Roussette

Thank you for your comments Serenster.

Some I agree with, some I don't

I was quite tongue in cheek writing that, Roussette.

As I have previously said, these topics have become so polarised now - not just with individuals but in the coverage and commentary as well.

The pains certain posters go through literally keeps pulling me back to this post to see what comes next from them

And I read them with my tongue firmly in my cheek!

Glad to hear you're enjoying the thread Tills
Do feel free to click on and read some of the recent links.

@Skiptheheartsandflowers

From the article Roussette posted:

Imagine knowing that your every move, even the most intimate communications with your family members, could be weaponized against you.

I wonder how Charles, William, Kate or even the Queen feel about their communications with Harry and Meghan, knowing that any detail may be included in a future interview, and anything they say that doesn't go down well may later be attributed to a 'senior royal' being insensitive at best, and far beyond that. The Sussexes have weaponized their family relationships, yet seem puzzled as to why their family might not be falling all over them.

I'm also noting the repeated attempts to make this a thread about Meghan's experiences of racism, when it's a thread about her court case and the revelations of her forgetfulness and non-attempts to mislead the court.

It was William who first ran to Roya Nikkhar with the phone call story and Harry responded. Then it was promoted over here pretending that Harry broke the news.

Why would William and co. care one bit. Jason is showing work email that he cannot take without his permission. Considering he is still working for them, he is not disciplined for this, so either they sent him or at least had approval. So they seem to be the ones 'weaponising' anything.

The racism was already being touted as MM lied and you did not stop anyone from diverting, nor did you about her poppy dress either.

Here :
The excuses against MM are just getting ridiculous now, hypocritical nonsense and the same mantras.

I'm also noting the repeated attempts to make this a thread about Meghan's experiences of racism, when it's a thread about her court case and the revelations of her forgetfulness and non-attempts to mislead the court

Indeed

On the subject of weaponising intimate family details, I also wonder how Samantha feels about that right now. Admittedly she doesn't always come across as the pleasantest of people, but I'm not sure even she deserved to have her alleged child custody arrangements used against her quite so viciously - especially from a self-proclaimed champion of women

@Roussette

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."

Agree so much much with this. I don’t know how many times I have stated that MM is not an angel, but I don’t believe she is a ‘charlatan’ either. This is just one of the names she had been called. I think she was silly and shortsighted to mislead the court, because for a person of color, it had to be ingrained in her that she can’t afford to Fck up in this way. I get that she probably thought this would never come out, that a ex PR aide would issue a statement to support the newspaper she sued. Deep down she ought to have known when she sued that she was in for a turbulent ride, and anything was possible. I’m not excusing her misleading the court but as @rubicscubicle* has tried to say the standards are different.

Some of her experiences in the UK should have prepared her for the inevitable. I have never quite understood he MO comparisons. Different women from totally different backgrounds, only thing they share is their melanin. MO is a formidable woman & I have always thought she was better than Barrack and should have ran instead. I get that he had a much better chance, as a man and biracial. She did her duty as First Lady well, but I wish her & Barack had pushed back more when they were in the White House on the racism & sexism. I understand why they didn’t.

I would be very interested in the HaM podcasts with Spotify, I would like to hear more about the privilege she has had before and after she was a royal. As black white woman who could sometimes pass for white. She has benefited from colorist privilege as have some of us biracial people. ( I know this is not relevant to the thread ).

@Serenster, once more, her father could have mentioned the letter just like the friends. it does not have to be published.