• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

The Fail loses...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Fail loses...

    ..against the Duchess of Sussex.

    I was told by a media person before the judgement that if the Fail had just quoted parts of the letter rather than print pictures of it they would have got away with it.

    From the Slaver if you wish to click through:
    Meghan wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian

    Or from the Fail itself (though you have to hunt for it and oddly it isn't "Daily Mail Reporter")..

    Meghan Markle wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday over letter to father | Daily Mail Online

    The Duchess of Sussex has won her claim that her privacy was breached over the publication of a letter to her father Thomas, the High Court ruled today.

    Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, for misuse of private information, and infringement of copyright for publishing extracts of a letter she sent her father Mr Markle, 76, after her royal wedding in 2018.

    Following today's ruling, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline said they would be considering an appeal.

    A spokesman said: 'We are very surprised by today's summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial. We are carefully considering the judgement's contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal.'

    Mr Justice Warby ruled the issue over ownership of copyright of the letter she wrote to Mr Markle can be decided at trial.

    In his ruling, he said that Meghan had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and that it was 'fanciful to think otherwise.'

    The High Court's decision to grant the summary judgment means that Meghan will now not have to go into the witness box to give evidence in her privacy case, thereby avoiding a 'face off' against her estranged father, who was also expected to take to the stand on behalf of the publisher.

    Referring to the letter, Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment: 'It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant's own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father's behaviour – as she saw it – and the resulting rift between them.

    'These are inherently private and personal matters.'

    The judge added: 'The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private.'
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

    #2
    I think this was the wrong judgement.

    In reality she should have been taking her own father to court for hawking the letter to the papers.

    People in the public eye should not always be able to control the narrative about them. If you seek the limelight, you've got to expect that, in addition to the adulation, people may just see a warts and all version of the persona you've created.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
      I think this was the wrong judgement.

      In reality she should have been taking her own father to court for hawking the letter to the papers.

      People in the public eye should not always be able to control the narrative about them. If you seek the limelight, you've got to expect that, in addition to the adulation, people may just see a warts and all version of the persona you've created.
      It's a private letter and the Fail should not have published it. Have we learned nothing about how Princess Di was treated; I was never a fan of hers but even so, the press need to take some responsibility for their actions.

      The Fail could have written the story from Meghan's father's side, quoting him, his feelings etc etc, but instead they went after Meghan because, let's face it, that's where the money is for the Fail.

      UK media is horrible and needs to be brought down a peg or 2.
      I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

      Comment


        #4
        As the mail service is by law private how did the Mail obtain a copy?

        If they were given a copy by author or recipient the issue of privacy is redundant, they effectively had a right to use it as they see fit. Anyone who sends a letter to a paper has to expect it to be published unless they have a contract in place.
        "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

        I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by vetran View Post
          As the mail service is by law private how did the Mail obtain a copy?

          If they were given a copy by author or recipient the issue of privacy is redundant, they effectively had a right to use it as they see fit. Anyone who sends a letter to a paper has to expect it to be published unless they have a contract in place.
          The law doesn't work like that.

          They had a right to quote sentences from it and, as Whorty pointed out, get the story from Meghan's father's side.

          They didn't have the right to publish photos of the letter and/or quote it in it's entirety without Meghan's permission. It doesn't matter who the receiver of the letter is.

          Newspapers (and Private Eye) have been caught out by this before. There is a legal line they can go up to but they mustn't go over it.
          "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Whorty View Post
            It's a private letter and the Fail should not have published it. Have we learned nothing about how Princess Di was treated; I was never a fan of hers but even so, the press need to take some responsibility for their actions.

            The Fail could have written the story from Meghan's father's side, quoting him, his feelings etc etc, but instead they went after Meghan because, let's face it, that's where the money is for the Fail.

            UK media is horrible and needs to be brought down a peg or 2.
            While the British media can be vicious, sometimes we need probing questions to be asked about people trying to portray a perfect life to the rest of the world when the reality is that their life is anything but. Whether Meghan or Di, if you want the spotlight, you have to accept the dangers associated with it, if you truly want to disappear and live a private life then do so, and do everything you can to keep your name out of the papers.

            I welcome the freedom of the press, even if they do get it wrong sometimes.

            Originally posted by vetran View Post
            As the mail service is by law private how did the Mail obtain a copy?

            If they were given a copy by author or recipient the issue of privacy is redundant, they effectively had a right to use it as they see fit. Anyone who sends a letter to a paper has to expect it to be published unless they have a contract in place.
            It was provided by Thomas Markle to the press when Meghan had effectively tried to control the narrative of the relationship with her father and he wanted to set the record straight about what the letter really contained. While I don't necessarily think he was right as he should have sought other means of reconciliation with Meghan, she was allegedly trying to paint herself as more of a loving daughter than it first appeared.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
              While the British media can be vicious, sometimes we need probing questions to be asked about people trying to portray a perfect life to the rest of the world when the reality is that their life is anything but.
              What a load of tosh. It's none of our business whether Meghan (and Harry) have a perfect life or not. This is private to them. When they do something public, then yes, we can ask questions, but privacy should be just that. Meghan did not write the letter to be published, or to get publicity; this was purely a money making story for the Fail, nothing more.

              Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
              Whether Meghan or Di, if you want the spotlight, you have to accept the dangers associated with it, if you truly want to disappear and live a private life then do so, and do everything you can to keep your name out of the papers.
              I don't believe Meghan has sought the spotlight. She was an actress who fell in love with a man and they got married. By moving to the other side of the pond the couple specifically try to avoid the spotlight so yes, they have tried to keep their private life out of the press, but the press are scummy hounds looking to make a quick buck and to push their narrative of the couple to their gullible readers.
              I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Whorty View Post
                What a load of tosh. It's none of our business whether Meghan (and Harry) have a perfect life or not. This is private to them. When they do something public, then yes, we can ask questions, but privacy should be just that. Meghan did not write the letter to be published, or to get publicity; this was purely a money making story for the Fail, nothing more.


                I don't believe Meghan has sought the spotlight. She was an actress who fell in love with a man and they got married. By moving to the other side of the pond the couple specifically try to avoid the spotlight so yes, they have tried to keep their private life out of the press, but the press are scummy hounds looking to make a quick buck and to push their narrative of the couple to their gullible readers.
                Sorry Whorty but have to agree to disagree. The whole Mills & Boon actress who fell in love with a man and they got married shtick, purlease... Harry got the highly attractive US actress who "understands" being in the limelight and she got the Prince and the Royal Wedding, hoping to cash in with the whole Sussex Royal thing. Seeing Harry touting Meghan to Bob Iser for Disney work was embarrassing.

                You criticise the Wail for wanting to monetise the situation and I completely agree with you, it is sordid. However, it is no more sordid that trying to monetise being members of the Royal Family but not abide by the rules of being part of the firm.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Whorty View Post
                  What a load of tosh. It's none of our business whether Meghan (and Harry) have a perfect life or not. This is private to them. When they do something public, then yes, we can ask questions, but privacy should be just that. Meghan did not write the letter to be published, or to get publicity; this was purely a money making story for the Fail, nothing more.


                  I don't believe Meghan has sought the spotlight. She was an actress who fell in love with a man and they got married. By moving to the other side of the pond the couple specifically try to avoid the spotlight so yes, they have tried to keep their private life out of the press, but the press are scummy hounds looking to make a quick buck and to push their narrative of the couple to their gullible readers.

                  So if you trade off a public image for profit and the papers find out that is falsified the press shouldn't mention it?

                  Meghan may have fallen for the Prince there is however plenty of evidence she was hunting a famous husband.
                  "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

                  I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by vetran View Post
                    So if you trade off a public image for profit and the papers find out that is falsified the press shouldn't mention it?
                    The Media can mention it but they must toe the legal line when doing so otherwise they end up in Court losing a legal case.

                    The Fail is a large organisation and a are well aware of this. They actually have lawyers to check things before they publish them. On this is occasion they tried to push the legal line and it came back to bite them on the bum.
                    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X