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,

SallyLockheart

Chilledchablis1
@ SallyLockheart

I will have a glass of wine while we wait 🍷
Ditto. Then I’m off to watch more episodes of Money Heist on Netflix which is great😀

Ooh , I am looking for something new to watch so will check that ( with a second glass of wine!)

My proof is I cannot see a good reason for Jason risking his reputation to help the mail. There are photos of william and Kate and Jason at earthshot smiling and enjoying themselves

If you think the cambridges had no idea this was happening ok then. I disagree. Jason worked for them for years. There is no way he went rogue because he was so incensed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday

There are photos of william and Kate and Jason at earthshot smiling and enjoying themselves

That's your "proof" that Prince William 'attacked' Meghan and 'helped the mail attack her' 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Of course a photo isn't proof
I just think if you have a long relationship with your employers, who have a love hate relationship with the tabloids. It's odd to go rogue to insert yourself into a legal case because you feel like it without running it by your employer. Particularly if you share emails from their servers.

I believe the cambridges knew
Do I have I have a signed and certified letter from all concerned - no I do not.

I understand that H and M are consciously campaigning to fight back at any media misinformation about them. Unfortunately it has now become what they are known for, rather than being 'global humanitarians'. It also invites close scrutiny on their own words and actions particularly in the ow interview where their stories seemed a bit cavalier with the facts.

@nottodaybatman

Of course a photo isn't proof I just think if you have a long relationship with your employers, who have a love hate relationship with the tabloids. It's odd to go rogue to insert yourself into a legal case because you feel like it without running it by your employer. Particularly if you share emails from their servers.

I believe the cambridges knew
Do I have I have a signed and certified letter from all concerned - no I do not.

When asked for proof, you referenced the photos.

So all the statements you made about Prince William are a load of bollocks. Glad we cleared that up 👍

In future, you should phrase your beliefs with, "in my opinion..." otherwise you end up looking very silly (as demonstrated).

@ZenNudist

For a couple that just want to be private individuals and left alone to get on with their life we sure hear a lot from them. It's so tedious.

it did go lovely and quiet for a bit after the baby and now they have started back up again , im sure its when they suddenly realise they are in danger of being forgotten about

I think one of the problems with Harry and Meghan is that their closest advisors are their PR teams and their legal teams - all people who stand to make money out of them by keeping them in the news and keeping them in the courts.

True - it doesn't seem like they are being encouraged to live a peaceful and fulfilled life. They have enough money to really enjoy themselves without courting publicity.

I don't know why people are insisting on proof. An employee is an employee, so they represent their employer in regards with workplace related issues.

That is how Meghan had to apologise, JK was working for her. She did not speak to FF authors, JK did. But he was working for her, so she did co-operate in the eye of the law.

JK works for W, he is representing a work related issue, so W did testify against MM .
In both cases using JK as the mouthpiece.

When Priti Patel or any gov minister says something, it is from Boris and the government, unless bojo comes out and explicit denies it. They are his employees, there to represent him and his government.

When P Valance and C Whitty, used to come out with guidelines they were representing bojo and his government, so we were following them. Unless bojo would come out and denounce them (like he with Cummings). Other than that, we are following guidelines as set out by bojo and the government.

When you go to Barclays and Sue at the counter tells you, you cannot get that loan, Barclays refused you, unless Barclays comes back and says, well no, Sue is talking rubbish, they then open an enquiry into her, and punish her and give you your loan back. Barclays refused you.

That is just how things are in the work place.

@nottodaybatman

My proof is I cannot see a good reason for Jason risking his reputation to help the mail. There are photos of william and Kate and Jason at earthshot smiling and enjoying themselves

If you think the cambridges had no idea this was happening ok then. I disagree. Jason worked for them for years. There is no way he went rogue because he was so incensed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday

You are correct, and you do not need a letter.

What you need is a denial/distancing from William - possibly in the form of we issue an internal investigation from an employee that went rouge and broke their NDA. And that is not forthcoming.

On a side note, I wonder if the breaking of an NDA will be forthcoming in regards with Andrew.

@rubicscubicle

I don't know why people are insisting on proof. An employee is an employee, so they represent their employer in regards with workplace related issues.

That is how Meghan had to apologise, JK was working for her. She did not speak to FF authors, JK did. But he was working for her, so she did co-operate in the eye of the law.

JK works for W, he is representing a work related issue, so W did testify against MM .
In both cases using JK as the mouthpiece.

When Priti Patel or any gov minister says something, it is from Boris and the government, unless bojo comes out and explicit denies it. They are his employees, there to represent him and his government.

When P Valance and C Whitty, used to come out with guidelines they were representing bojo and his government, so we were following them. Unless bojo would come out and denounce them (like he with Cummings). Other than that, we are following guidelines as set out by bojo and the government.

When you go to Barclays and Sue at the counter tells you, you cannot get that loan, Barclays refused you, unless Barclays comes back and says, well no, Sue is talking rubbish, they then open an enquiry into her, and punish her and give you your loan back. Barclays refused you.

That is just how things are in the work place.

I asked for proof because @nottodaybatman stated, "from the mos Court case we now know that the Cambridges were helping the mail." That means there should be an article or report on the court case which backs this up. But there isn't because it's just false and defamatory bullshit about Prince William as usual.

There is nothing to suggest William attacked Meghan in any capacity, it's delusional for that poster to make comments suggesting that.

Calling out blatant lies and fact-checking should be strongly encouraged on this board. Speaking of which, I questioned one of your posts about Thomas Markle and tuition fees but you're yet to explain your comments on that.

@nottodaybatman

Madison Jason chose to go to court. This terrible FF lie being corrected made no difference He could have been an anonymous source like the courtiers usually do in a newspaper article. Instead he sought out the MoS, went on the record and handed over emails. They is above and beyond. And the MoS still didn't win

Emails are the property of your employer.

This was all voluntary

From William's perspective the handing over emails just because the employee felt like it should have been a hard red line. Why didn't Jason just provide a statement? Why provide emails? What was the point?

It's immaterial whether his evidence changed the outcome of the case. He knew she had missed the court and he decided to put the situation right. He stated that in his evidence. Why would you prefer him to be an anonymous source? Surely it's better that he is honest and open? He gave emails that are pertinent to the case. He's allowed to do that. You're obsessed that winning is deciding factor on whether you should do something or not. Imagine you read in the paper about a woman being found guilty of assault. She denied it and said that she acted in self defence because two women were harassing her. You remember you were in the club and you saw an incident where two women were screaming at the accused and followed her outside. The woman decides to launch an appeal and your evidence is submitted to the appeal judges but they throw the appeal out. Would you think you were wrong to give evidence because the case was lost? Not at all. You didn't change the outcome but you righted certain facts and that is what you're supposed to do. JS didn't change the outcome of the trial but he corrected facts that MM had held to be true but had to apologise because they were not true.

In court cases emails become evidence in court. Do you think a company that knowingly sold bad meat but decided it was too expensive to recall it, so they left it on the shelves, hoping no one would be too sick, wouldn't have all their emails searched and seized to show who was complicit. Do you think they could go to the court and say, oh but that's mine, you can't read it. Of course they can't.

You're right that JS could have stayed quiet but he knew she'd misled the court. You could have stayed quiet about the woman being harassed, but it's the right thing to do, to correct a lie told in court.

JS provided the emails because they proved what he was saying was true. Written evidence is stronger than he said, she said. If she had told the first hearing the truth, he wouldn't have needed to give evidence and her emails about pulling at heartstrings may never have come out.

William can't just dismiss someone because they told the truth. There is such a thing as employment law. If you worked in the NHS and saw malpractice, wouldn't you report it? It might cost the trust money and a valued doctor might lose his job. Do you think you should be sacked for it? No, it would be immoral to be sacked or indeed denied a promotion for being honest. And anyway you're protected under the law.

MM sued the MOS and won. But the MOS are allowed to put their case forward and part of their case was JSs evidence. Do you think these experienced judges don't know what the law is? If JS had broken some law about revealing emails, he would not have been allowed to present them in court. The MOS could have done nothing about it.

@thebellagio I agree, they seem obsessed with what the media says about them, to the point that they come across as a couple of narcissists. I think they fuel each other's delusions, taking it in turns to play the victim.

Though is it not likely that JK, william and the respective advisors potentially knew about the emails at the time when their were public denials that M&H had not collaborated with FF. If they did know, there was a choice not to make this public. This was kept under wraps, no "sources" leaking information. Though equally once Meghan had unintentionally misled the court, there potentially would have been the necessity to reveal them. As had the knowledge that PW Had been aware of this information he would have been colluding with a lie. Equally I highly doubt this was just between PW and JK there would have been a whole team of advisers in making the decision to release the emails, I'm sure PW probably agrees to proceed, but who would go against professional advice?

@ madisonbridges your post at 23.06 yesterday is absolutely spot on .

I agree.

Fans of Meghan should be grateful to Jason Knauf because he corrected misinformation about her. The anger towards a man for doing what is right and telling the truth is misdirected.

From the UK government website:

[quote Seemslikeagoodidea]@thebellagio I agree, they seem obsessed with what the media says about them, to the point that they come across as a couple of narcissists. I think they fuel each other's delusions, taking it in turns to play the victim.[/quote]
Agree.

NDAs can be used by businesses for a number of legitimate reasons but in a minority of cases they are being abused and those that sign them not made aware of their rights.

Business Minister Kelly Tolhurst today (Sunday 21 July 2019) announced plans for new legislation which will, for the first time, prohibit NDAs being used to prevent individuals from disclosing information to the police, regulated health and care professionals, or legal professionals, such as a doctor, lawyer, or social worker.

The updated legislation will also:

ensure employers make clear the limitations of a confidentiality clause, in plain English, within a settlement agreement and in a written statement for an employee, so individuals signing them fully understand what they are signing and their rights
extend current legislation so that individuals signing NDAs will get independent legal advice on the limitations of a confidentiality clause – including making clear that information can still be disclosed to police, regulated health and care professionals, or legal professionals regardless of an NDA

Another link from GOV.UK

Last paragraph being most relevant.

He gave emails that are pertinent to the case.
All the examples you gave about the women, the meat, the NHS, are irrelevant. It sounds like you just cobbled together cases to make your reach, but they are off point. Not only are these people guilty, but they would have been the ones on trial (and it seems guilty) which MM was not.

JK emails were not at all pertinent to the case. The emails about FF, not only do not mention the letter, but FF is irrelevant. It was published later, and seems to have just cobbled information that is already out there with sources. Not only that, but FF did not publish the letter, so bringing them in was just a desperate reach from the fail.

JK was as 'whistleblowing' as a case if MM said "I was sitting outside the cafe, having a glass of water when the accused grabbed my phone from the table I was sitting at". And JK says, hold on she is lying, makes himself the star witnesses of a retrial only to come in and tell us that she lied court and was infact drinking Orange Juice. What a revelation, so MM has to apologise and say she did not mean to mislead the court it was infact OJ, not water she was drinking.
Tune in the tabloids and haters crowing about her lying in court.
The judges could see right through this farce, that is why they upheld thee original verdict.

Do you think these experienced judges don't know what the law is?
If JS had broken some law about revealing emails, he would not have been allowed to present them in court. The MOS could have done nothing about it.
Which is why William has been involved, he approved it, so JK did not break any laws.
The judges were very professional, but inside they must have been fuming with the waste of their time.

The judges were very professional, but inside they must have been fuming with the waste of their time.

That’s a bit silly. Judges presumably are obliged to consider all evidence. That is their job. I’m sure they discard quite a lot of what is presented to them as not relevant to the case for whatever reason. I doubt they are fuming about having their time wasted. Otherwise they would be annoyed on a pretty permanent basis.