I love the Mail On Sunday - the main paper supporting my cause. But I've always said that the Mail is both the best and the nastiest paper in Britain. At its best it knows a good story when it sees one and can campaign for a cause such as exposing bent, corrupt or incompetent police, lawyers and False Accusers. It also knows a good story when it sees one - crucify celebrities preferably pretty female ones. Attacks on Gays. Attacks on people of colour. Attacks on Meghan. Let's see how this pans out. Supporters of a "free press" will say any muzzling of hacks is wrong. The truth, as usual, is in between. Responsibility is the key word. Ramifications and consequences MUST be examined before publication. I'm hating these attacks on Meghan who seems like a bright and decent girl to me.

Enough is enough. The media know a big pool of money is there to buy their way out of trouble.
This should give a good reason to warrant a full investigation into why the media's (obvious) disdain for Royals and police exists. Hopefully it will result in the mail taking all of the phone hacking media down with them and result in Leveskn 2.

Hoisted by their own petard.


Lovely!

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.

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.

If the girl's own family are bleating to the press they can hardly not print it, and once she has actually joined in by having "friends" publish the contents of a letter she had supposedly sent to her father, and using her speeches at work to contradict him, it is a bit late to be suing anybody!

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?

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?

But suing them for breach of copyright ADMITS that the letter was genuine, and it does NOT show the Duchess in a good light.

They are sabotaging her well enough on their own. They need no help from The mail.

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.

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.

Come on people. This goes beyond just a letter.
The family have been a target and a source of bread and butter income for the media for long enough. Often to their own detriment.

People are dead around media behaviours and the body count is still unknown.

They were warned by the prince going back.

I don't sympathise with lunatics whether they are right or wrong.

Barney wrote:
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.




Dear Barney, Before making such a bold statement you should really get your facts right. Copyright protects all original literary works such as poems, novels, song lyrics and also letters. The owner of a piece of work is the person who created it, in this case the writer of the letter although the physical letter belongs to the recipient.

The reason why copyright is important is that it offers legal protection and if a newspaper chooses to ignore the law then the author of the letter can sue based on that legal principle.

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.

Barney wrote:
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.



Barney, Before making claims about the law and the legal system you really should get your facts correct. Exclusion of the copyright symbol doesn't diminish the rights of a copyright owner. They can bring the same actions for infringement regardless of whether they had or had not included a ©

www.newmediarights.org/business_models/a...right_notice_my_work

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.

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'

Barney wrote:


.....I believe that my copyright symbol point applies in the US.



Perhaps next time you'll think twice before telling someone they are totally incorrect and then trying to justify your position with another piece of information that isn't relevant to the UK and the legal action being discussed

Barney wrote:
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'





Barney, I have a really horrible feeling that it is Harry who is behind all the nonsense, not his wife.

Yes Honey - Johnny Dymond (BBC) thinks the alleged voicemail interceptions relate to Harry's mobile phone, in the early 2000s.

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)