The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1641  
Old 08-04-2020, 05:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,672
This case was started before they left the RF and really has nothing to do with the RF per se. Meghan seems to have thrown in a lot of stuff about how the BP staff didn't protect her but it has nothing to do with the case and will be probalby thrown out by the judge.
__________________

  #1642  
Old 08-04-2020, 12:05 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,382
The results of the latest hearing will be revealed tomorrow. I would guess they will rule for the names to be revealed.
__________________

  #1643  
Old 08-04-2020, 02:21 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The results of the latest hearing will be revealed tomorrow. I would guess they will rule for the names to be revealed.
They never had a legal leg to stand on with the “super-charged” privacy BS. IMO, they knew they were going to lose and this would give Meghan a good, face saving excuse to drop the case.
  #1644  
Old 08-04-2020, 03:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
They never had a legal leg to stand on with the “super-charged” privacy BS. IMO, they knew they were going to lose and this would give Meghan a good, face saving excuse to drop the case.
It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.

There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.
  #1645  
Old 08-04-2020, 05:22 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.



There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.


I have addressed this before, but Meghan is the plaintiff. If she chooses to withdraw the case, the defendant cannot “refuse.” You cannot force someone to sue you.

Of course, a plaintiff can express a desire to reach a settlement and the defendant can refuse. This is not (anywhere close to) the same thing as dropping a case.
  #1646  
Old 08-04-2020, 05:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I have addressed this before, but Meghan is the plaintiff. If she chooses to withdraw the case, the defendant cannot “refuse.” You cannot force someone to sue you.

Of course, a plaintiff can express a desire to reach a settlement and the defendant can refuse. This is not (anywhere close to) the same thing as dropping a case.
Yes, I think that's what was eventually discussed last time but I couldn't remember the details. And again as I said, we have no idea how true it is in the first place. Though it's possible they expected a settlement when they first started out. Though maybe not as they attempted to make it a trial of her entire treatment by the media.
  #1647  
Old 08-04-2020, 08:46 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.

There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.
Meghan can drop the case anytime she wants. If they approached the defendant, it might have been for a settlement or some sort of agreement about legal fees. Meghan is liable for the other side’s legal fees if she withdraws
  #1648  
Old 08-04-2020, 10:18 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
It is weird to sue for privacy but then give friends information to leak information that is very private. That is where they look like hypocrites and I want to root for them as a woman of color myself. I feel they didn't like how they left, so they want to ruin the rest of the Royal family.

They appear to have not thought this out. It is so obvious that the forthcoming book has benefited from a lot of cooperation from this "inner circle" we keep hearing about. Did Harry really tell other people about how he "tucked into a roast" with HM?

Having just read "Royals at War", it may be that the big rumpus over this other new book "Finding Freedom" is supposed to take focus away from "Royals at War", which, to employ some British understatement here, is not that sympathetic to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Plus, Lady Colin Campbell's book is in the mix. While many people may write her off as a sensationalist, she is an excellent promoter of her books and they sell.
  #1649  
Old 08-05-2020, 06:36 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,382
Judge ruled they will remain anonymous.

https://twitter.com/pa/status/1290945752483672064?s=21
  #1650  
Old 08-05-2020, 06:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
They appear to have not thought this out. It is so obvious that the forthcoming book has benefited from a lot of cooperation from this "inner circle" we keep hearing about. Did Harry really tell other people about how he "tucked into a roast" with HM?

Having just read "Royals at War", it may be that the big rumpus over this other new book "Finding Freedom" is supposed to take focus away from "Royals at War", which, to employ some British understatement here, is not that sympathetic to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Plus, Lady Colin Campbell's book is in the mix. While many people may write her off as a sensationalist, she is an excellent promoter of her books and they sell.
Of course they sell but I doubt if most UK people at least believe them. She has come out with so many weird and wonderful things.. perhaps she believes them herself but they are plainly not true.
  #1651  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:11 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Judge ruled they will remain anonymous.

https://twitter.com/pa/status/1290945752483672064?s=21
Interesting. I didn't think they would get that ruling. Case will go ahead so.
  #1652  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:14 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,382
Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.
  #1653  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:18 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.
So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?
  #1654  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:23 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?
Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.
  #1655  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:24 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. [...]
Could you provide the link to the full ruling? Without the context, I would not necessarily interpret the quote as "questioning why"; the judge would likely have obtained the medium's reasoning from its submissions and would rule on it in the judgment.
  #1656  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:32 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Here is a link to an article in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-loses-latest/
  #1657  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:48 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.
Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.
  #1658  
Old 08-05-2020, 08:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,192
Here is the ruling:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...associated.pdf
  #1659  
Old 08-05-2020, 08:05 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That is quite the wrap on the knuckles. I mean the media are behaving per the media. But a slap for Meghan.
  #1660  
Old 08-05-2020, 08:07 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.
Agreed. That was always my stance. There was zero reason (other than front pages and clickbait) for the friends to be revealed now. If they are called to give statements on record, then that’s different. Until then source protection works both ways.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 archie mountbatten-windsor armstrong-jones background story bridal gown british royal family british royals canada carolin commonwealth countries coronavirus customs dna doll dresses dubai duke of sussex earl of snowdon emperor fantasy movie gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg house of windsor interesting introduction jack brooksbank jewellery jewelry king willem-alexander line of succession list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal family northern ireland prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess laurentien queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress stuart sussex swedish queen taiwan thailand tips tradition united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×