Meghan beats the Mail

What the papers say " is in the public interest" isn't necessarily so , they publish what the public is interested in, not usually the same thing!

By lapping it up, I refer to the appetite of regular readers who the editors pander to

Newspapers are businesses and they chose what news to cover and how to present it to maximise sales.

They do market research and know the tastes of their target readers better than they do themselves.

varian

The people who think less of her can only be people who have read this. The fact that they lap this sort of coverage up reflects badly on them.

Reading a report does not equate to lapping it up, varian

Have you read it?

Here’s the link to the judgement. It’s well written and clear and I’ll happily to discuss it with any MM critic once they’ve read it. Only fair

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Duchess-of-Sussex-v-Associated-2021-EWCH-273-Ch.pdf

Anniebach

Facts - there was a letter. Her friends spoke of the of
the letter to the press but lied about the contents.

Her father disclosed the letter to the press .

We don’t know if she lied to her friends but we know she didn’t sue her friends .

If you read the judgment you’d see that the judge differentiated between the parts of the letter shared by her friends and the parts not. But I don’t expect the average MM critic to base their comments about her on anything but hearsay and gossip. Facts are so very inconvenient ?

suziewoozie you ask ^Meanwhile - what is happening with Andrew?

what has he got to do with this thread exactly?

varian
I see that you are 'lapping up this thread

Facts - there was a letter. Her friends spoke of the of
the letter to the press but lied about the contents.

Her father disclosed the letter to the press .

We don’t know if she lied to her friends but we know she didn’t sue her friends .

eazybee

varian

The people who think less of her can only be people who have read this. The fact that they lap this sort of coverage up reflects badly on them.

Actually, it reflects badly on you, making snap judgements based on your own prejudices without evidence.

Nope - I guess varians views are like mine based on years of knowledge of the gutter rag and the people who swallow it up. No snap judgements here

varian

The people who think less of her can only be people who have read this. The fact that they lap this sort of coverage up reflects badly on them.

Actually, it reflects badly on you, making snap judgements based on your own prejudices without evidence.

Anything that gives that terrible rag a kick up the backside gets my vote.

I admit to reading some of the Mail Online articles, although I am fully aware of it's awfulness and am quite detached about it. It focuses on scandal, gossip and shock value. It exaggerates dreadfully and is often inaccurate. Sometimes a bit of scandal is amusing as long as you don't believe it all. However, in it's defence there are also some good and interesting articles, not necessarily news related.

Meanwhile - what is happening with Andrew?

varian

The people who think less of her can only be people who have read this. The fact that they lap this sort of coverage up reflects badly on them.

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️X a million.

Aveline

Whatever the result it makes Megan look pretty poor. She's not exonerated. She wrote the letter. It wasn't nice. Most people think the less of her (if possible)

But AP comes out smelling of roses? Yes she wrote the letter and she had the right for it not to be published without her consent. Or don’t you think the law should give her protection because people don’t think much of her? Justice for nice people - yes, that works

The people who think less of her can only be people who have read this. The fact that they lap this sort of coverage up reflects badly on them.

Whatever the result it makes Megan look pretty poor. She's not exonerated. She wrote the letter. It wasn't nice. Most people think the less of her (if possible)

it is to be appealed, so hold fire!

also if this had been allowed to go to court all sorts of ' dirty laundry would have been aired' as in the case of jonny depp's libel case. That was stated on the news.

The Mail would not print these stories if their readers did not want to read them.

If you are not a regular reader of The Daily Mail or Sunday Mail, just have a look at Mail Online.

I have heard that Mail Online has the biggest readership of any English language "news" website in the world.

What does reading this stuff do to its readers?

JenniferEccles

It was the Mail on Sunday actually not the Daily Mail.

I found the judgement puzzling.
Meghan’s letter to her father was discussed by five friends of hers in a US magazine, painting her out to be a loving dutiful daughter who wanted to make amends with her father.

He though said the letter was written in an accusatory tone and although he had originally intended to keep the contents private, conducted an interview with the MoS to put the record straight.

I can’t understand why she isn’t blaming the friends. She obviously told them about the letter so surely it was them not her father who were the main culprits in the invasion of privacy accusation.

It’s all a bit fishy to me, and meanwhile there is her poor elderly father in poor health who has never met Harry or seen his grandson.

To be absolutely accurate ( although differentiating between different gutters according to the day of the week is not high on my list of priorities) the judgement was against Associated Newspapers ( owned by a non tax payer ) which owns both rags.
Btw the owner of the copyright can allow people to use their material if they wish

Meghan was always going to win. No way would the establishment allow Meghan’s father and members of the staff at Buckingham Palace to appear in court and testify about what had happened (ie wash their dirty linen in public.)

Chestnut

If what is written is the copyright f the person who wrote it then the words belonged to Jeremy Thorpe and they infringed his copyright.

I think that Thorpe himself arranged for the some of the letters to be published in a newspaper because he feared they would publish them all. He owned the copyright to the letters - whether it was the right move is a moot point as they were all pursuing him anyway. If the newspapers had published them anyway he could have sued but the damage would have been done.

JenniferEccles I agree, if she wanted no mention of the letter
made public why was it alright for her friends to discuss it with the press.

It was the Mail on Sunday actually not the Daily Mail.

I found the judgement puzzling.
Meghan’s letter to her father was discussed by five friends of hers in a US magazine, painting her out to be a loving dutiful daughter who wanted to make amends with her father.

He though said the letter was written in an accusatory tone and although he had originally intended to keep the contents private, conducted an interview with the MoS to put the record straight.

I can’t understand why she isn’t blaming the friends. She obviously told them about the letter so surely it was them not her father who were the main culprits in the invasion of privacy accusation.

It’s all a bit fishy to me, and meanwhile there is her poor elderly father in poor health who has never met Harry or seen his grandson.

I’m glad she’s won and can now go back to her private life in US with no further intrusions into her privacy......oh wait ?