Meghan has complained about Amol Rahman’s podcast

[Thoosa]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/17/meghan-markle-complains-bbc-podcast-claim-apologised-misleading/

She has complained to the BBC that he said on the podcast that she “misled the court” in the Daily Mail case.

I thought she apologised for misleading the court and insisted it was inadvertent?

AR’s BBC documentary seemed quite pro-Sussex, so this is confusing.

I hadn’t heard of the podcast but will have a listen now. (Streisand effect rides again,)

Is there some difference between British and American English that might explain this? I cannot figure it out,

Please can someone explain to me what the Streisand effect is?

@upinaballoon

Please can someone explain to me what the Streisand effect is?

It's when you try to close down discussions (using courts), and inadvertently make them even more interesting.

A quick Google will explain the Streisand Effect.

@Chilledchablis1 This is today's front page

I suppose its like these D notices taken out by some minor celeb or footballer that hardly anyone has even heard of or is interested in. And then immediately everyone wants to know who it is and all the gory details.

I mean with hindsight it was a bit foolish to demand an apology from someone who was overall sympathetic to your cause.

You live and learn though.

She's not hurt anyone has she, just asked for an apology. So I can't get my knickers in a twist about it.

In Meghan's perspective she didn't mislead the court.

In the courts perspective they were happy with her explanation and no more was said.

From some people's perspective they were also happy with the explanation

From other people's perspective she mislead the court.

Far too many perspectives to bother getting worked up about, let sleeping dogs lie, would have been my personal approach in her shoes, but we're all different.

ahh the daily mail........

Exactly @londonwolf
It's not crusading towards any goal besides meticulous control of the narrative.
I also used to be like this in my 20s and 30s.

Im a decade older than meghan but i have known for a while now that you have to allow other people to have their own perception of you, even if you believe it's wrong.

Yawn
You could not possibly forget deliberately briefing your friend a lot of stuff to be included in the biography he was writing about you. And you must assume that they were able to read the book prior to publication too.
"Forgetting" is just about impossible to believe.
Even the diehard fans surely don't believe that one.

Good on Shillings for setting the BBC correct. They are a national broadcaster, not a tabloid. They should read the legal papers, not parrot, what the tabloids say.

It is one of H&M's causes to fight against misinformation, after everything they went through. It's right there on the Archewell site. So, I can see why they would set the record straight, especially with the BBC.

Amol cannot be taking this personally. Next time, he will be more thorough in what he reports.

This correction was a footnote on the BBC site last week, trust the fail to blow it up and make it front page when they should concentrate on Andrew and Boris parties.

@PreparationPreparationPrep

I mean, it is fairly obvious that the posting behaviour of some folk, even on MN, is pretty interesting when it comes to suddenly appearing and vociferously defending them.

the irony of this - from the opposite angle I guess you could
say the same about the posting behaviour of some MN who are vociferous in continuously trawling SM for any minor news from anywhere to start a thread about H&M. Particularly that they make it very clear they do not like them. It's very odd to have any let alone so much time to think about a couple that you apparently don't like for whatever reason.

The irony indeed.

The only time posters who are positive about MM started a thread on them was when the numbered threads were getting out of hand.

Almost all threads about H&M are started by those who dislike them and frequented mostly by those who say they. are bored by them. It's to the point that my SM timelines are much slower than the hater ones.

Some of them must literally post 2seconds after news break about H&M, they are keeping such an eagle eye on them. If I want breaking news about about H&M (only bad ones mind you), I simply come to Mumsnet.

It is one of H&M's causes to fight against misinformation, after everything they went through
I’m not sure that a slight error in phrasing counts as misinformation. And if it does, what about saying you “got married” three days before you did? Seems a bit picky about what counts as misinformation as opposed to “oh you know what I mean really”. If using the right words is so important (which I believe it is so as to avoid miscommunication), then that should apply to everyone at all times. It shouldn’t be up to others to infer what you mean.

It is absolutely not the same at all. Not even close. One inflammatory, the other not.

@smilesy

It is one of H&M's causes to fight against misinformation, after everything they went through I’m not sure that a slight error in phrasing counts as misinformation. And if it does, what about saying you “got married” three days before you did? Seems a bit picky about what counts as misinformation as opposed to “oh you know what I mean really”. If using the right words is so important (which I believe it is so as to avoid miscommunication), then that should apply to everyone at all times. It shouldn’t be up to others to infer what you mean.

Indeed.

Have M and H had an apology from the BBC for saying they didn’t have permission to use the name Lilibet ? Or are they suing for misinformation?

@GerardWay123

A quick Google will explain the Streisand Effect.

Righ'o, Franco, will co. Thinks.....I wonder if it originated with Barbra? I'll find out.

This is the definition of misinformation from Dictionary.com. It is interesting.

“What is misinformation?
Misinformation is “false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead.”

So it would seem that by this definition, both Amol and Meghan are guilty of misinformation as per my examples above, whether they intended to mislead or not. It has nothing to do with them being intentional it would seem. And how “inflammatory” or not it is is irrelevant. So I still think that it is important to be clear about what you say.

Meant to add that “disinformation” is when false information is spread deliberately.

@Chilledchablis1

Have M and H had an apology from the BBC for saying they didn’t have permission to use the name Lilibet ? Or are they suing for misinformation?

I heard Harry was going to sue then nothing. Presumably BBC has a rock solid source because they've not backed down or the case is stuck in the system and will pop up in the future.

Have M and H had an apology from the BBC for saying they didn’t have permission to use the name Lilibet ? Or are they suing for misinformation?

This.

[quote cherryonthecakes]@Chilledchablis1 This is today's front page [/quote]
Aaah the DF can't get enough of Meghan can they? And continue to put her on their front page - you'd think they of all tabloids would find more pressing issues. For those of you who continuously say they should be quiet, why do the DF always put M on their front page when there is a whole list of major UK and international news worthy of a front page. I mean this could be tucked in anywhere - as many on MN would like to believe nobody is interested in M&H - it seems like the DF don't agree with you.

In Meghan's perspective she didn't mislead the court.

Wasn't it that she did mislead the court but they accepted that it hadn't been her intention to mislead and that she had just forgotten?
After all if that member of staff hadn't given his statement, it would be still court record that she had never given info to Scobies book. Which is not true.

Why did that member of staff cooperate with the MoS? It was Jason Knauf who is a Cambridge employee, which means william and Kate gave their employee permission to break their NDA (not that their evidence was useful) to help the MoS in their defence to justify publishing the letter to her father.

I wonder why William wanted to help the mail on Sunday. Jason was helping the mail on Sunday before the sussexes left in January 2020. If Jason acted without William's permission he wouldn't have been promoted surely he would have been fired

Just wondering, since we are digging into the court case and who did what

Who knows? Maybe because people knew Meghan was misleading the court?

Timeline doesn't match though

The case was about the letter.

The authors of finding freedom like all royal writers asked the head of comms for access meghan for their book. Jason asked meghan she wasn't keen and doesn't want to me them or her friends involved. Jason pushes the issue and she authorised the standard bio facts to be released.

The breach of copy right was a slam dunk case. Jason started working the MoS in 2019, he was their star witness.

The alleged collaboration with FF had no bearing on the facts of the MoS case. Jason releasing those emails in breach of his NDA gave the mail weeks of articles and headlines.

But the real question is why the Duke of Cambridge allowed his employee to breach his NDA and hand over confidential emails purely to generate click bait for the mail.

The relationship with Jason Knauf and mail preceded the sussexes leaving and was years before Oprah. Why did william want to help the mos attack his sister in law.