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,

I’m sure the Sussex camp see stretching the truth, blurring certain facts and trying to maintain plausible deniability as all part of their “brand” strategy and fair play in what they perceive as a hostile media environment. Lots of organisations and individual do similarly.

The weird bit is deliberately drawing fresh attention to the fact that you’ve been caught out being economical with the verite. In court.

JK was obviously going along with their plausible deniability tactic, and didn’t refuse a fence until the possibility of legal ramifications became apparent. He’s not a lawyer. He has a career to protect. It was a bit of a Hobson’s choice for him at that point. Admit he’d been complicit in the distancing tactics (not unheard of in his industry, in fairness) or risk being implicated in something akin to perjury. I’d jump the same way he did. No conspiracy needed to explain that.

Fair comment, Thoosa, except that when the media have their knives so far into someone's back, claims are almost an invitation for them to start digging - and however loathsome some of them are, digging is something they're good at

It's always seemed to me much easier to say nothing at all, or if you're going to speak up to tell the truth, but among those obsessed with their own image it doesn't seem a very popular concept

Admit he’d been complicit in the distancing tactics (not unheard of in his industry, in fairness) or risk being implicated in something akin to perjury.

That's the main thing though, he was not complicit in anything. His e-mails to FF had nothing to do with the letter.

As I said before with the water vs oj scenario, you are not going to reopen a case on something irrelevant, and frankly, no one is going to pick you up on it. To top it off, it is not perjury as the case has demonstrated.

@DeeCeeCherry

Good for her. Her complaints are normally perfectly valid which is why despite the futile unpleasant frothing and gnashing of teeth on here, and nasty rancid right wing press dissing her any chance they get, her complaints are normally upheld.

She is not a stupid woman, unfortunately for the hatefuls.

Thinking you got married a few days before your actual wedding is the very definition of stupid.

As is claiming you didn't have any input into something when it turns out, actually you did send emails authorising just that.

Standing outside a building full of female refugees and complaining that no one has asked if you're ok isn't the brightest idea either.

Nor is accusing the family of your young son and unborn child of being racists.

And then there's the opulent baby shower which she didn't seem to consider might not look so good to the public.

And the lecturing us all on the environment and telling us not to have more than two kids, when they're the ones taking multiple private jet journeys and living off the public purse.

And it's generally not seen as an intelligent idea to antagonize the press.

But hey, she's not stupid. She did write a blog, after all...

Who knows what lead to his decision to come forward? He did so belatedly, which could be because a Royal personally asked him to, or quite the opposite. Who knows what advice he sought, and internal debates he had before stepping forward to offer the emails to the court?

It seems to me that it might be as simple as that he really just wanted clarity around his own part in the situation. These things have a way of coming out later and are often loaded when they do. I'd imagine he was thinking of his own future career which could well be overshadowed by his not making a full and frank admission of his own actions and perhaps even an attempt to distance himself from the constant controversy surrounding this couple.. Some people really just like The Truth. I can't say I blame him tbh. I like making my position crystal clear too, especially when it comes to career matters.

Thanks for parroting tabloid nonsense.

Next

If his case is to clear everything up, maybe he can give us all the whole run down of KP, you know just in case these things come out later in a loaded way!

Most people did not even know who JK is, he was not implicated in anything, maybe he can clarify his truth when something comes out about him.

If you are aware that someone you worked with has misled a court of law - accidentally, deliberately or whatever - about something you also worked on, it makes perfect sense that you might want to err on the side of caution, say what you know and let the judges judge.

If I became aware of someone misleading a court (even accidentally), I like to think I'd speak up. If my knowledge was connected to my job and I told my employers they would insist that I correct the legal record. They would not be okay with sitting on evidence which was potentially pertinent to a legal case. I really don't understand why anyone thinks different rules would, or should, apply to the Kensington Palace.

NDAs are irrelevant as they cannot be used to prevent someone from giving evidence in a court case. The fact that the MM won her case is also irrelevant. The moral obligation is on the person with the information to come forward so that the judges can make a fully informed decision.

As for the OP, I mostly feel sorry for H&M. It must be difficult to live your life in a goldfish bowl and the desire to correct misinformation about you is strong. I don't think constant battles with the press over relatively minor things is conducive to happiness though.

I am just astounded at the roasting JK is getting from correcting a 'mis-truth'. Why is MM so special that she should not be expected to tell the truth in court?

Best stay away from PA threads if you think lying in court is okay.
I hope that in the upcoming trial if PA lies under oath that an employee would be brave enough to break an NDA to correct it and not get a slagging off on here.

MM can't nit pick over this podcast and then get all upset if people nit pick over saying she got married 3 days earlier than she did. People on her don't hate MM they just get exasperated with her.

As for the OP, I mostly feel sorry for H&M. It must be difficult to live your life in a goldfish bowl and the desire to correct misinformation about you is strong. I don't think constant battles with the press over relatively minor things is conducive to happiness though.

Not too sure you would consider this 'a constant battle', other than something from Shilings that came across her desk for about 10 seconds and she just said, yes and signed it off. Hardly worth loosing sleep over.

I hope that in the upcoming trial if PA lies under oath that an employee would be brave enough to break an NDA to correct it and not get a slagging off on here.

What I'm wondering is why no one has broken their NDA already when the FBI asked to speak about the nights concerned with JP, GM etc., or for VG's case and enquiries. Instead the palaces seem concerned with reopening cases with irrelevant information.

Maybe because there isn't an ongoing court case yet and nobody has lied under oath yet. It isn't rocket science.

I thought VG's case is under way. And the FBI have asked for co-operation.

Most people did not even know who JK is, he was not implicated in anything, maybe he can clarify his truth when something comes out about him

Your average member of the public won't have known who he is,but people in his sphere and his own networks will do, not to mention those who might be offering career opportunities. They will want his background to be an open book - no skeletons tumbling out of the closet, or loaded reports of fibs told to courts with his name attached, however tenuously...

I thought VG's case is under way. And the FBI have asked for co-operation

It is, in the sense that Andrew's failed to get it stopped and the civil case is due to come before the court in late summer, but it's not until then that all the evidence will come out

In theory, that is - some of us don't think he'll be giving evidence at all

Who says his case is open book?

Even as things stand, he is linked to Dan Wooten through university, who broke the leaked story of the exit. It's not like he ever bothered to correct that he is not his source and be an 'open book' about it. Maybe, that is what he should be cleaning up instead of looking over to what a person who no longer works with him is doing - more especially as it does not concern him.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I thought VG's case is under way. And the FBI have asked for co-operation

It is, in the sense that Andrew's failed to get it stopped and the civil case is due to come before the court in late summer, but it's not until then that all the evidence will come out

In theory, that is - some of us don't think he'll be giving evidence at all

Well then, maybe the employees etc. should use the same 'moral compass' that everyone is banging on about and come forward. I would think this is even more important actually, seeing the nature of the case.

That's the main thing though, he was not complicit in anything. His e-mails to FF had nothing to do with the letter.

His emails were relevant to misleading testimony, though. That’s what he would have been thinking about. He wouldn’t have been trying to second guess the judgement.

@LondonWolf

Who knows what lead to his decision to come forward? He did so belatedly, which could be because a Royal personally asked him to, or quite the opposite. Who knows what advice he sought, and internal debates he had before stepping forward to offer the emails to the court?

It seems to me that it might be as simple as that he really just wanted clarity around his own part in the situation. These things have a way of coming out later and are often loaded when they do. I'd imagine he was thinking of his own future career which could well be overshadowed by his not making a full and frank admission of his own actions and perhaps even an attempt to distance himself from the constant controversy surrounding this couple.. Some people really just like The Truth. I can't say I blame him tbh. I like making my position crystal clear too, especially when it comes to career matters.

Yes. I agree with you.

@rubicscubicle

Who says his case is open book?

Even as things stand, he is linked to Dan Wooten through university, who broke the leaked story of the exit. It's not like he ever bothered to correct that he is not his source and be an 'open book' about it. Maybe, that is what he should be cleaning up instead of looking over to what a person who no longer works with him is doing - more especially as it does not concern him.

Aw come on. You can’t dismiss a members’ club connection by saying the club has a lot of members and then say a university connection on the other side is highly significant.

I read your posts @rubicscubicle and I can't help but consider the fact that the only people I know who ever expected me to hide the truth or behave in a questionable way even when it could have had serious adverse repercussions on my own life, had significant narc traits and one in particular a serious diagnosed personality disorder.

Oh please, not the armchair hack diagnosis of a narc again.

Aw come on. You can’t dismiss a members’ club connection by saying the club has a lot of members and then say a university connection on the other side is highly significant.

You renew the membership of Soho house every year. Is there proof that MM and Scobie were members on the same year? In the same branch?
I will know this one as DH is a member, and we have met very few 'celebs' in consideration of how large the membership is and how many celebs there are. To top it off, you do not easily become 'mates' with other members.
At a uni it's more conceivable, then top that off with the 'coincidence' that Dan has inside info on JK work. Then top that with the fact that neither Dan nor JK ever denied knowing each other.

maybe the employees etc. should use the same 'moral compass' that everyone is banging on about and come forward

What, the court employees??
They're not going to do that and nor should they, especially (to use your current favourite word) as their own employment is irrelevant to the case

I'd have thought it was bad enough to hear the juror in the Ghislaine trial going on and on, without UK court staff putting their oar in

Why would you saycourt employees?

When we are clearly talking about palace employees (and I include security here, in case someone else tries to be obtuse).