IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home Forums |
Harry sues the Mail On Sunday
TOPIC: Harry sues the Mail On Sunday
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Quite rightly, the Mail will use the 'public interest' defence - which seems reasonable as H&M's Frogmore Cottage cost the UK taxpayer about £2.5 million.
Living expenses are also partially paid for - on an ongoing basis. H&M can't have it both ways - whilst preparing for premium life styles on both sides of the Atlantic.
Just as Ranier/Kelly and EVIII/Simpson in the past - their lives (eventually at least) be an open book, similar to Diana's.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Blue Boy wrote:
Copyright resides with the author of a letter and as such it cannot be published without permission
Totally incorrect.
If you write someone a letter - it's theirs.
Copyright isn't even vaguely relevant.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Blue Boy wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Whilst there are many things I feel the media should be sued for - printing a letter is not one of them. If someone writes and sends a letter, like an e-mail, one should expect people to see it. I cannot understand why people get so upset by haters, trolls, media and so on. Most trolls are brain dead. It's like being insulted by a Tourettes victim.
Copyright resides with the author of a letter and as such it cannot be published without permission.
JK, I assume you believe in copyright protection?
Quite right and I expect JK values ownership of copyright very much & would object if he wasn't paid a royalty for a composition used commercially.
Although I understand and endorse what he says about the Mali etc, it's still largely Hit & Miss whether they support you or demolish you.
They build you up and then knock you down (ask MWT !)
I'm with Harry on this and his response re: the experience with his mother is very pertinent and the ghastly fabrications published (there could be absolutely no possible way they could prove some of their more bizarre claims) seem aimed at Meghan because, well she's half black (her words) and American.
NEVER FORGET: much of this is largely driven by Rupert Murdoch who loathes the UK and all it stands for..and the rest of 'Fleet Street' play catch up.
The fading Sun "Newspaper" represents ( people forget it's incredible political influence in the past) to me so much that is wrong with the UK which has built up over the last 40 years and led us to the current state of affairs....a publication that profited handsomely of what is now legally Child Pornography ( Page Three Lovelies) while campaigning to drive "peedos" from their homes (and resulting in the deaths of innocents) promoting hideous wars in which 100,000s have died, Murdoch's twisted and often wrong predictions ( "The Iraq War is going swimmingly and oil will be half the price for years to come".. no doubled and then tripled) and leading a Brexit Campaign (whatever side you support) and promoting the gormless views of millions of Dick Head Brits that you are a TRAITOR if you think differently to a Sun editorial.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Noted.
But to claim damages, loss must be proven - if the international copyright symbol (C) wasn't included.
You are correct though (and thank you); the copyright belongs to the author, the actual letter to the recipient.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Fair enough - but I believe that my copyright symbol point applies in the US.
Where relevant laws are different - and have been updated recently.
But you expertise is appreciated.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Not related to copyright matters, I believe
But Harry is now sueing the Sun and Mirror
Obviously Meghan is the legal brains
As a former paralegal in TV's 'Suits'
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Harry sues the Mail On Sunday 4 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Barney wrote:
Yes Honey - Johnny Dymond (BBC) thinks the alleged voicemail interceptions relate to Harry's mobile phone, in the early 2000s.
Indeed, but I was thinking more of the general idea of Meghan Markle being a cold hearted cow who dumps friends when they have outlived their purpose etc.
If we look at the other way around, this is a girl who clearly had a warm relationship with her father. The photos show that they are close, and she spoke of him warmly on her blog thingy.
She had no negative press that I am aware of, despite being well known enough to attract it.
Then shortly after she meets Harry, she becomes isolated from almost her entire family and friends, and whatever "rift" there was, if any, was made public by Harry, not Meghan, when he made the statement that the royals were the family she had never had.
I have seen many many times. One half of a couple very subtlety isolates the other one and dominates them completely, leaving their partner thinking they can do nothing right, and then they gaslight everyone into thinking their partner is hard work/drunk/ neurotic/ selfish whatever, until you feel sorry for them.
I hope I am very wrong, but something about the body language between them makes me feel that it is Harry who is behind the "rift" and public leaking (I notice that People magazine are not being sued for originally publishing the letter!), and Meghan appearing to do nothing right.
He appears to be sabotaging his own wife
Far from it being "poor Harry" as people are saying, I suggest Meghan grabs her baby and gets on a one way plane to Mexico. Canada. Anywhere.
(I recognise that Harry is deeply hurt and this is often the response to it. It is observation, not judgement)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|