Originally posted by BrilloPad
View Post
- 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.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: The Fail loses...
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "The Fail loses..."
Collapse
-
-
I wish both sides could have lost.
Now her Meghanness is in Hollywood I hope to never hear from her again. Or the son of Hewitt.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostThe 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.
Its a summary judgement not the supreme court. its a judge's opinion.
Summary judgment - Wikipedia
They will probably appeal if only to force her friends to testify.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostSo if you trade off a public image for profit and the papers find out that is falsified the press shouldn't mention it?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View PostWhat 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View PostWhat 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View PostWhile 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.
Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View PostWhether 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View PostIt'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 welcome the freedom of the press, even if they do get it wrong sometimes.
Originally posted by vetran View PostAs 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostAs 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View PostI 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.'Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: