I know there is no chance (as it appears on almost everything this century) of changing opinions on Harry & Meghan. But her latest victory is a serious blow to media and the constant war on someone who dared challenge them. This was what I found most clear in the excellent Amol Rajan two part BBC series. Even he (and the BBC) avoided pointing out the effects of the confrontation. Anybody with a brain cell has seen the media, almost universally, opposing the Sussexes. And most members of the public, with neither the time nor inclination to waste space considering detail, accept the media picture.

Fair enough in this busy world. But (like the law and false allegations) NOT fair when it influences consequences. As we're seeing in New York with Ghislaine Maxwell. There is not and clearly cannot be any evidence against her. Only similar false allegations painted by consumption of the media or direct communications between claimants. If there IS proof or evidence we'll hopefully be hearing it when it is exposed in court. But this world and our species have gone badly wrong when there can even be a trial simply on flimsy claims.

This is what Meghan's case (and the Judge's decisions) illustrate. So open and shut was the evidence, there could, in any fair society, be no trial. When Meghan clearly says her father COULD leak a letter and media claims this proves she thought he WOULD do so, it boggles the mind that any judge could allow a trial.

Blatant (possibly criminal) attempt to pervert the course of justice; the latest trend in human behaviour.

HOPED he would leak it, not thought. In fact, he didn't, until after she leaked it herself and he was forced to clarify six months later.

Still... it was her (revolting) letter to do what she wanted with, so it was inevitable.

Mr King, I am thoroughly astonished that you, of all people, could describe an organised (possibly paid) campaign against the royal family, and biased reporting IN THE MIDDLE OF A FLAMING COURT CASE AND INVESTIGATION INTO WORKPLACE BULLYING as "excellent".


Can we assume that you now think that the practice of screwing the jurors and public's minds by calling claimants "victims" and the accused as "rapists" is also excellent?
It is exactly the same thing.

However, if you only look at the headlines, I can see why you might be fooled.

Clearly I've not examined the detail as much as I should have Honey. I thought the court case was over (it certainly is now). Her use of the word COULD influenced me. I thought the TV show was excellent, very balanced and fair, but what do I know?

Mr Knauf said Meghan sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: "Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability."

But in her written evidence, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, but "merely recognised that this was a possibility".

I am not sure who comes out of the court case
worst.
Meghan's inclusion of the word "daddy" to "pull at the heartstrings" if it was leaked was absolutely repulsive, BUT, it makes you wonder what sort of people are running the palace, that makes this kind of behaviour acceptable?

Jason Knauf is hailed as a hero. I disagree.
If someone who worked for me pulled a stunt like that I would be immediately expressing my disgust, not going along with it, as he did.

So, if we can assume that Jason Knauf is a manipulative little shit, how can we believe his evidence about Meghan's "bullying"? I am thinking that this might be the real purpose behind the trivial and unnecessary court case?

On the other hand, now that we have seen evidence of manipulation, combined with the multiple contradictions from Harry in the Oprah fiasco, we are not going to believe their wild claims of racism in their own family, so this will be beneficial to Prince Charles in his upcoming libel case.

As I said Honey, these days it seems impossible to change peoples' opinions. I'm bound to see the media as the villains, having experienced some of their behaviour. You're bound to be against Meghan & Harry since you see them as dodgy characters. This is the new Century!

JK2006 wrote:
As I said Honey, these days it seems impossible to change peoples' opinions. I'm bound to see the media as the villains, having experienced some of their behaviour. You're bound to be against Meghan & Harry since you see them as dodgy characters. This is the new Century!

I don't "see" them as dodgy characters. Some of their proven antics have been disgusting, true, but it can happen with unwell people.
I am also very open to the suggestion (as stated in previous post about Knauf) that some of their claims might well be true.

As usual I tend to be in the middle; they have faults and have done silly things. Media has been fair at times, not at others but always only looking at what is the best story; Buck P is trying to cope with new media, new century, changing attitudes and sometimes succeeds sometimes fails. People make false allegations for many reasons, often misunderstandings. Meghan has faults; so does her Dad. Harry blames media for too much but they were to blame for a great deal. None of it is simple; all is complex and nobody, these days, seems able to avoid simplicity.