BBC The Princes and the Press

[coniferforest]

Did anyone watch this last night? About William and Harry and their different approaches to the press. Last night was part 1 of 2.

Which will play well to an American readership.

Yes, I noticed the Daily Fail reference too, no coincidence I'm sure!

I agree with so much of that statement, but it was a civil case so the ruling doesn't mean the DM has broken the law. Meghan being disingenuous, I think. Also shoehorning in the phrase "daily fail" is typical of her communication style. With Meghan I think she's right about so many things but that doesn't make her as clever as she thinks she is.

I'm really surprised about this judgement today, based on everything that has come out over the last fews week, Meghan having memory failure about previous events etc

However, I don't know all the legal ins and outs.

The bit about the 'daily fail' made me chuckle though

So is the conclusion that the RF are a bunch of nouveau riches arrives

I thought that was a pretty good statement, and I usually cringe a bit with her writing style. Daily fail that divides us skirts close to that 'pat' phrasing I find awkward but I'm very pleased she won the appeal. Rightfully so.

@BigBamBoom

I agree with so much of that statement, but it was a civil case so the ruling doesn't mean the DM has broken the law. Meghan being disingenuous, I think. Also shoehorning in the phrase "daily fail" is typical of her communication style. With Meghan I think she's right about so many things but that doesn't make her as clever as she thinks she is.

I may have misunderstood you post, but I don't think she is referring to Criminal Law.

There are lots of laws in the UK, criminal, corporate, employment, tax etc.
If you break these laws you don't necessarily go to prison or have committed a crime. (sometimes you do)

I think what she is saying is they broke the law in respect to privacy.

Sorry, just to add; they broke the laws in respect of privacy and copyright

Exactly, it's not disingenuous to say they broke the law re copyright. That's exactly what the court case was about.

My point was that this was a civil case, so it doesn't "prove" that anyone broke the law. That would be a separate matter tried in the criminal courts. Perfectly sensible to pursue the matter in the civil courts as it would have been harder to prove copyright over private correspondence in the criminal courts. Winning a civil case may make that easier to do in future. I still think using the phrase "breaking the law" is disingenuous because it implies the DM and Lord Rothermere might now face a criminal penalty, which just isn't true.

Good news! Can you imagine the discussions going on at the DF this morning - and I wonder what their next move will be? As she says in this particular case its not just a win for her and as I remember any pay outs due they have already promised to bullying charities haven't they!

My point was that this was a civil case, so it doesn't "prove" that anyone broke the law.

Ah ok, fair enough. I'm not a lawyer but maybe you're right.

With Meghan I think she's right about so many things but that doesn't make her as clever as she thinks she is

Well.... I think the reference to daily fail was very clever

@BigBamBoom

My point was that this was a civil case, so it doesn't "prove" that anyone broke the law. That would be a separate matter tried in the criminal courts. Perfectly sensible to pursue the matter in the civil courts as it would have been harder to prove copyright over private correspondence in the criminal courts. Winning a civil case may make that easier to do in future. I still think using the phrase "breaking the law" is disingenuous because it implies the DM and Lord Rothermere might now face a criminal penalty, which just isn't true.

I don't think it does imply DM and Lord Rothermere will face criminal penalties or they broke criminal law.

To give you an example.
You work for ABC Ltd, your boss sacks you because you are pregnant. They don't want the hassle of covering your maternity leave and finding someone temporary to cover you.

This isn't right. The police are not interested as no criminal laws have been broken.
So you take ABC Ltd to Employment Tribunal and you "sue" for unfair dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal listen to all the evidence and find that ABC Ltd did unfairly dismiss you as per Employment Law.
The Employment Tribunal awards you £100,000 for damages and costs.

ABC Ltd have broken the law, Employment Law. It has been proved that they have broken law.

I think the phrase will definitely move into common parlance now, and I can't wait to see whether the Daily Fail/Mail avoids quoting that part of the statement!

A bit of a Phyrric victory I suppose. In view of the fact her memory lapses re on whether she helped the authors with the book Finding freedom were exposed.

A victory nonetheless, and I celebrate any victory against the MoS and DF. The headlines they spewed out about Meghan were awful.

No doubt the fail is busy sharpening their pencils to write a string of hit pieces for tomorrow. I wonder who are they going to dispatch this time. Something will be twisted, they are always so inventive with Meghan.

Oh to be the fly on the wall at the offices of :

• Piers Morgan
• Dan Wootton

-Jason Knauf

It's an important win and I hope it turns the tide against the gutter press. What's shocking is that blatant racism was allowed to stand on the front pages of major newspapers. I mean everyone knows that Twitter is a cesspit, but leaving certain headlines unchallenged on the front pages of major newspapers implies that racism is somehow a matter of opinion.

minou I'm not sure - I think the employment tribunals still make a civil award, and criminal proceedings might then be brought separately. You might be right, I don't want to split hairs .

Apparently the court papers say that Knauf’s text messages and emails were cited by the judges as proof Meghan didn’t intend for the letter to be made public
"The claimant did not want the contents of the letter put into the public domain even if she was prepared for the possibility that it might become public"

Knauf's own goal I think.

No worries BigBamBoom.

I should be reading some Tax Laws, but this thread is more interesting

@BigBamBoom there are lots of issues with law where criminal proceedings are never brought. The CPS will only take forward criminal proceedings where it is in the public interest. I suspect it would be seen as a vast waste of taxpayers money to pursue a criminal conviction in this case.
And no most cases where people win and employment law has been broken do not lead to criminal convictions. Generally criminal convictions only go forward if an employee has died.

bylineinvestigates.com/2021/12/02/unanimous-appeal-court-ruling-in-meghan-case-further-humiliates-mail/

This is worth a read. I talks about whether Assoc.News might appeal, the apologies they have to print on the front page, and the damages to be awarded. They took a risk publishing the letter, the article states if it had been just a small part of it, they might have got away with it... but more than half the letter was published and that goes against copyright and privacy laws.
They took a risk. They imagined she wouldn't sue. She did. And they lost.

@Roussette
An own goal indeed.

He brought in half emails, and did not anticipate Meghan to have conversations because, presumably he thought her correspondence was erased.
All it proved in the end when she presented her own side, is that he was the one who convinced her to speak to FF, while she was unsure of OS.

I believe the letter was printed while she was still in the RF. The fail probably had assurances that she did not have a voice back then, and they had got away with all the lies so far. They did not expect her to fight back.

Yes a legal win about private letter but what has been unearthed regarding colluding with scobie and then 'forgetting' about it has damaged their reputation irrevocably.