|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 3, 2023 18:08:59 GMT
Some people choose to believe their spin. Others don't.
I have checked the claims of facts being trumpeted by some on here. And so much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I shall leave it at that and not return to this thread
Indeed I wish it were possible to completely block a thread so it would never show again.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 3, 2023 18:29:14 GMT
Some people choose to believe their spin. Others don't. I have checked the claims of facts being trumpeted by some on here. And so much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A guy who had a fight with his brother and Father said he'd like to reconcile? What exactly is he spinning? I don't get it? Apart from pointing out what the gutter press is like, I don't actually see what they have ever spun and surely you already knew that was true? Surely...
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 3, 2023 19:26:11 GMT
The press (and government) would rather we talked about the Royal Family fallout than the real problems of this country. It’s not a co-incidence that when there is no good news there’s always a royal story to fill the void.
No bread? (or Heating/houses/decent wages/education/social care/dentists/nhs/roads that work/trains) Let them fight about the Royals
It doesn’t matter folks. Don’t let them distract you!
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 3, 2023 19:29:53 GMT
Do people actually think the royal family launched a sabotage mission of Meghan by briefing journalists? Why. Because they hate her?
This is Diana territory. She was paranoid too. Thought they were all out to get her. Turns out not in any way, they were just getting on with life.
Meghan didn’t fit and didn’t deal with what is a horrendous media system. They do treat women horrendously. Perhaps are eye should be on the fact that we sustain the media.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 3, 2023 20:32:04 GMT
Do people actually think the royal family launched a sabotage mission of Meghan by briefing journalists? Why. Because they hate her? This is Diana territory. She was paranoid too. Thought they were all out to get her. Turns out not in any way, they were just getting on with life. Meghan didn’t fit and didn’t deal with what is a horrendous media system. They do treat women horrendously. Perhaps are eye should be on the fact that we sustain the media. There was a briefing spree against Diana - Charles, as heir, very much needed to get public opinion on his side. Many journalists from the time will confirm that there was briefing against her going on. Diana wasn’t ‘paranoid’ about everything; she was simply wrong about the mechanism by which *some* of those stories were obtained. It’s quite obvious now, Post-Leveson, that she was a victim of phone hacking. And it’s quite obvious now, Post-Bashir revelations, that she had concrete reasons to believe that she was being betrayed by the people who worked for her, because evidence had been manufactured. Obviously that will have a negative effect on someone’s mental state. Many phone hacking victims have said that their trust in their nearest and dearest was destroyed by it. And there was a briefing spree against Meghan, because William and Kate needed to get public opinion back on their side. The accusations of a lack of work ethic have never quite gone away (and when you look at how many fewer public engagements they do than other Royals, it never will do) and they were already suffering from a relative deficit of glamour and enthusiasm, even before the affair rumours started circulating. There have been multiple journalists saying *on the record* that they were briefed against Meghan by their ‘sources’ at Kensington Palace. In fact whenever the displays of press racism became too blatant and the criticism of press behaviour too pointed, you’d get journalists throwing up their hands and saying ‘but the stories came from Kensington Palace!’ Valentine Low even said that he’d been told about Meghan’s mental health struggles and her email to the HR department seeking help, but the lawyers vetoed the story because it would have been a blatantly illegal invasion of medical privacy. How the hell do you think *that* story got to him without an investigation of the HR personnel taking place - leaking confidential information like that would normally get an HR professional fired for gross misconduct!
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 3, 2023 20:33:31 GMT
Oh come on, they briefed against Diana too.
The golden rule of the monarchy is that everyone exists to prop up the monarch and the direct heirs. A huge part of that is the unspoken agreement with the press, which is becoming more visible by the day.
The royals make quid pro quo deals with the press, they give the press stories about lesser royals in exchange for the press killing stories about the direct heirs. Harry has always been a scapegoat for William - look at the Nazi uniform photos, those photos were leaked in order to keep William’s part out of the press. The rash of negative H&M stories being leaked were to bribe the press not to cover the Rose Hanbury thing.
For four generations, the heir has a press persona of being mature, sensible and regal, while the spare has a press persona of being a naughty wild child. It started with Elizabeth and Margaret and it’s already started happening with George and his siblings. It’s all completely fake and manipulated. It’s only a matter of time before we see “George worried about wild child Charlotte” headlines, and the press mysteriously manage to get their hands on photos of Charlotte drunk or whatever while George will continue to be painted as whiter than white. I’d put money on that happening by the time Charlotte is 18.
Plus no one is allowed to outshine the heirs. It’s pretty well documented that Charles was jealous when Diana started to become so insane popular, and the stories intended to put her in her place started after that. (Very similar to what happened after Harry and Meghan’s hugely successful foreign tour compared to Will and Kate’s disaster tours.) Then of course once Diana refused to be the quiet good girl and ignore his affair, the gloves came off and Charles/the RF did their outmost to use the press to make Diana out to be unstable and paranoid. Both Charles and Diana leaked stories, they both used and manipulated the press, and they both had their own pet journalists they’d leak to.
Anyway married-ins always get a rough ride at the start to test that they’re willing to sacrifice themselves for the Firm, and that they’ll tolerate bad press and tabloid lies without complaint. Kate passed the loyalty test so she’s protected now - the RF aggressively kill and deny bad stories about her, which they didn’t do when she first married William. Meghan obviously wasn’t willing to do the same. Plus it’s pretty clear they just didn’t like Meghan and didn’t see her as a suitable wife for Harry.
It’s fairly obvious some of the stories could only have come from royal sources. Both the court case and tweets from journalists confirmed Jason Knauf was leaking stories, yet Charles and Will hugely rewarded him. Either Knauf broke his NDA, betrayed the RF, and was plain incompetent at his job (in which case why did Charles and Will reward him so fulsomely?) or he was acting under orders. The journalist who broke the news that Kate and Meghan had a fight at the bridesmaids dress fitting is close friends with Carole Middleton and has a history of publishing pro-Middleton puff pieces. How many people were at the fitting or close enough to Kate to hear about a private fight? The only way that story could get in the press so fast is if someone present or someone close to Kate phoned up a journalist. So who’s this mystery person if not Carole?
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 3, 2023 20:59:02 GMT
Do people actually think the royal family launched a sabotage mission of Meghan by briefing journalists? Why. Because they hate her? This is Diana territory. She was paranoid too. Thought they were all out to get her. Turns out not in any way, they were just getting on with life. Meghan didn’t fit and didn’t deal with what is a horrendous media system. They do treat women horrendously. Perhaps are eye should be on the fact that we sustain the media. There was a briefing spree against Diana - Charles, as heir, very much needed to get public opinion on his side. Many journalists from the time will confirm that there was briefing against her going on. Diana wasn’t ‘paranoid’ about everything; she was simply wrong about the mechanism by which *some* of those stories were obtained. It’s quite obvious now, Post-Leveson, that she was a victim of phone hacking. And it’s quite obvious now, Post-Bashir revelations, that she had concrete reasons to believe that she was being betrayed by the people who worked for her, because evidence had been manufactured. Obviously that will have a negative effect on someone’s mental state. Many phone hacking victims have said that their trust in their nearest and dearest was destroyed by it. And there was a briefing spree against Meghan, because William and Kate needed to get public opinion back on their side. The accusations of a lack of work ethic have never quite gone away (and when you look at how many fewer public engagements they do than other Royals, it never will do) and they were already suffering from a relative deficit of glamour and enthusiasm, even before the affair rumours started circulating. There have been multiple journalists saying *on the record* that they were briefed against Meghan by their ‘sources’ at Kensington Palace. In fact whenever the displays of press racism became too blatant and the criticism of press behaviour too pointed, you’d get journalists throwing up their hands and saying ‘but the stories came from Kensington Palace!’ Valentine Low even said that he’d been told about Meghan’s mental health struggles and her email to the HR department seeking help, but the lawyers vetoed the story because it would have been a blatantly illegal invasion of medical privacy. How the hell do you think *that* story got to him without an investigation of the HR personnel taking place - leaking confidential information like that would normally get an HR professional fired for gross misconduct! Mmmm one journalist apart from Dan Wooten or Scobie because most say that isn’t how we get stories? Low got that story the employees who went to him. No doubt people talk with loose lips they always do but to claim it was systematic bullying…there is simply no evidence.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 3, 2023 21:06:39 GMT
It’s fairly obvious some of the stories could only have come from royal sources. Both the court case and tweets from journalists confirmed Jason Knauf was leaking stories, yet Charles and Will hugely rewarded him. Either Knauf broke his NDA, betrayed the RF, and was plain incompetent at his job (in which case why did Charles and Will reward him so fulsomely?) or he was acting under orders. The journalist who broke the news that Kate and Meghan had a fight at the bridesmaids dress fitting is close friends with Carole Middleton and has a history of publishing pro-Middleton puff pieces. How many people were at the fitting or close enough to Kate to hear about a private fight? The only way that story could get in the press so fast is if someone present or someone close to Kate phoned up a journalist. So who’s this mystery person if not Carole? There is no evidence Knauf did anything like this and when you hear journalists who know him talk about him they make it clear he went in fighting all the corners. Camilla Tominey? Seriously? She was on that BBC podcast talking about how she got that story. She took someone out for lunch they mentioned it but went all reticent. She kept digging. She broke the dating story too. Was that Carole too. Maybe as revenge for a finding Freedom slating Pippas wedding. I choose not to believe a lot of this stuff because we don’t know. There is no evidence and all we have is what H and M say. It’s a family row.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 4, 2023 10:46:17 GMT
Mmmm one journalist apart from Dan Wooten or Scobie because most say that isn’t how we get stories? Low got that story the employees who went to him. No doubt people talk with loose lips they always do but to claim it was systematic bullying…there is simply no evidence. Lots of journalists. Did you miss the whole thing with Jason Knauf and the Mail on Sunday?! It was in court documents that he was a source for the Mail! Or are you just ignoring it? And the BBC documentary The Princes and The Press, where several journalists talked about briefing on the record? Or this comment on the Jeremy Vine show from a journalist who says that she used to work in newsrooms and ‘it’s a fact’ (which I can only find clipped and shared in a tweet) Or the article that I already posted in this thread about the actual Netflix ‘we weren’t contacted for comment’ debacle: www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ellievhall/royal-family-press-office-harry-meghan-documentary-changeEllie Hall, the journalist who wrote it, confirmed that she’d been sent screenshots of said WhatsApp group. The amount of denial going on from some here is ridiculous. I know it’s disappointing to have your illusions about how the Royal Family operates shattered, but honestly, there’s so much independent confirmation that what Harry has said happens does happen. And frankly, it’s been obvious for years that it’s how the Royal Reporter system operates - it has to be, because the alternatives are that the reporters at supposedly reputable news organisations are just making all of their ‘Palace sources’ up or that the Royal Court has comprehensively failed in their due diligence when it comes to security of personal information and the integrity of the staff they hire to work for the Royal Family - which is absolutely mind-boggling when the monarch and heir to the throne both have access to confidential government papers.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 4, 2023 17:21:55 GMT
Low got that story the employees who went to him. No doubt people talk with loose lips they always do but to claim it was systematic bullying…there is simply no evidence. I can’t believe I missed this bit earlier. Yes, Low got that story from the employees who went to him. The ‘employees’ *are* the press secretaries. Because they are the ones authorised to speak to journalists. Otherwise the minute he admitted he had been sent that story the HR department should be sacking someone for gross misconduct. There’s a record of whoever that email was sent to, and they are not allowed to breach confidentiality by revealing it to *anyone else* who might go to the press with it, let alone speak to the press themselves. Obviously, that is gross misconduct. It’s a breach of GDPR! The only way that an internal investigation did not take place over *any* of these leaked stories, is if they are tacitly authorised by Kensington Palace. People act as if the normal laws governing data protection and privacy don’t apply to Harry and Meghan. They do! Which is why Meghan won a summary judgement against the Mail over the letter to her father
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 21:35:48 GMT
Jason Knauf was a witness in the court case. He wasn’t leaking to the press. It was a court of Law. Of course he was helping H and am with that book Finding Freedom.
Yes I’m sure the employees that were sacked did talk…that is their right.
The journalists all said that the two couples were very easy sneak with eachother and I have doubt when relations broke down that they were.
I wouldn’t be listening to an American journalist though, what do they know.
I don’t see any of it as dark and twisted and conspiracy as you seem to. I see it for what it is. Family relations broke down. There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. One continues to out in the open but I do not think they set out to destroy Meghan and ai doubt they have a What’s App group.
The press get briefed sure on the story someone wants to send out but doesn’t mean they write it. Meghan and a Harry brief,
The absolute worst at all this skull duckery is Charles. Who was quite frankly unbelievable around 20 to 25 years ago but that seems to have levelled out.
the media should not have published that letter. They won because they published too much. But it was her friends who leaked its existence. It wasn’t Thomas Markle. Once the media knew about it they hunted it down. Of course the royals give stories to papers….does Harry not. It’s not necessarily against anyone else just putting the point across. Everyone knows when they read them. Every public figure does that. Is it nice. No. Is it the way it works. Yes. Do you have to grow up and work with the system. probably.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jan 4, 2023 21:47:52 GMT
There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. Wouldn't coordinated manipulation of the media be, by definition, a conspiracy?
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 22:02:22 GMT
There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. Wouldn't coordinated manipulation of the media be, by definition, a conspiracy? To get your own side across? then H and M do to. You can’t control the media. You can’t work with them. You literally can’t engage with them in any way if to you want to survive. But what if you are stuck in a Faustian Pact with them because you need them and they need you too. You do your best. You do have your story put forward if you need to. Doesn’t mean you destroy others. But in the end the Crown must survive. I watched the Royal Mob and a historian said that the British Royal Family survived while others, in some cases, lost their heads because they are pragmatic and a bit ruthless. You think it’s easy? Harry won’t win with the media in any way. He had a chance to escape thst dreadful co dependency he was born into…he hasn’t because he needs money. You don’t engage with them. You keep them at arms length. How is going on TV saying he wants his Dad back going to help him. It’s a disaster. It’s an unravelling of a human. If it was anyone else we would be shouting stop. But we consume them, because we think we own them. Well that worked out well for his mother. Harry won’t get a response from this. All trust is gone and his relationships are broken. And in the end all his journalist mates dying to give his voice an airing care not one jot for him.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jan 4, 2023 22:28:47 GMT
To get your own side across? then H and M do too. I'm not sure a husband and wife defending themselves would be considered a conspiracy by most people. Multiple members of an organization all carrying out similar actions to a similar end with no consequences from their management fit the definition much better. However, as an almost-disinterested viewer (American), in my opinion, pretty much everybody involved has messed this up.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 4, 2023 22:30:35 GMT
Jason Knauf approached the Mail on Sunday voluntarily, and offered them confidential material on Meghan (the judge rejected some of the material he offered as being irrelevant to the case). Knauf also made edited extracts from Meghan’s emails public, which were damaging to her; when Knauf was ordered to disclose the full unedited emails what do you know - they didn’t make Meghan look bad. There were also emails accidentally sent to Meghan’s lawyers showing that Knauf was working for the tabloid and against Meghan.
Multiple journalists have said Knauf fed them stories, and he’s been close friends with Dan Wootton since they were at university together. Knauf is the one who invented the bullying story, which no one else has backed up.
It’s pretty undeniable that Knauf was leaking against Harry and Meghan, and hard to imagine why he’s been so excessively lavished with royal honours when at the very least he betrayed the RF, leaked to press, and was terrible at his stated job. Unless he was under orders from Charles or William.
I really don’t think it’s some kind of crazy conspiracy that the RF didn’t like the ambitious black American actress, and continued the patterns of multiple generations in sacrificing lesser royals to the press, and leaking stories in order to control their own media image.
Remember the Cambridges threatened Krishnan Guru Murphy with false arrest to cover up William’s secret political meeting. Their aggressive stance towards media coverage they dislike (the Tatler piece, the Botox claim, the hair extensions claim, the “human rights violation” thing, and Rose Hanbury) has been shown time and time again. Of course they leak stories and manipulate the press. Everyone in the entertainment industry does it, why should royals be any different?
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 22:54:26 GMT
Jason Knauf approached the Mail on Sunday voluntarily, and offered them confidential material on Meghan (the judge rejected some of the material he offered as being irrelevant to the case). Knauf also made edited extracts from Meghan’s emails public, which were damaging to her; when Knauf was ordered to disclose the full unedited emails what do you know - they didn’t make Meghan look bad. There were also emails accidentally sent to Meghan’s lawyers showing that Knauf was working for the tabloid and against Meghan. Multiple journalists have said Knauf fed them stories, and he’s been close friends with Dan Wootton since they were at university together. Knauf is the one who invented the bullying story, which no one else has backed up. It’s pretty undeniable that Knauf was leaking against Harry and Meghan, and hard to imagine why he’s been so excessively lavished with royal honours when at the very least he betrayed the RF, leaked to press, and was terrible at his stated job. Unless he was under orders from Charles or William. I really don’t think it’s some kind of crazy conspiracy that the RF didn’t like the ambitious black American actress, and continued the patterns of multiple generations in sacrificing lesser royals to the press, and leaking stories in order to control their own media image. Remember the Cambridges threatened Krishnan Guru Murphy with false arrest to cover up William’s secret political meeting. Their aggressive stance towards media coverage they dislike (the Tatler piece, the Botox claim, the hair extensions claim, the “human rights violation” thing, and Rose Hanbury) has been shown time and time again. Of course they leak stories and manipulate the press. Everyone in the entertainment industry does it, why should royals be any different? I have seen evidence of very little of that. Where are those emails to Meghan’s lawyers then? There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. He said. She said. We all said. No one said. Who even cares who said. I can’t remember who said. Someone said something once sometime. In the end. It didn’t work for probably very human reasons…it just didn’t work. It wasn’t what she thought. He loves her and couldn’t bare to see her unhappy. She thought she could control the media because celebrities do in a way. Everyone fed of everyone else. It turned toxic. Us against the world and now we have two very isolated people. Harry has lost his family and by his own admission some friends. Meghan doesn’t seem to have many family ties or long term friends either so in the end who wins. Nobody. William is looking at a reign unsupported by a sibling. Harry just seems lost. Meghan I don’t know just seems stuck in a victim mentality. So really! He said. She said. Small fries and it fixes nothing.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 4, 2023 23:39:11 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. As far as the emails, Low confirmed that Knauf is the one who leaked those emails to the Times, and again it's a matter of public record that he gave Meghan's letters and emails to the Mail on Sunday lawyers, and that he agreed to give a witness statement on behalf of the MoS. Thomas Markle also made very odd comments that named Jason Knauf by name, and he also claimed that there was an attempt during the engagement to get Harry to call off the wedding. Thomas Markle has lied far too many times for anything he says to be trustworthy, but it is strange that he named Knauf, a man he doesn't appear to have ever met. I can't help but be curious what happened there.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 23:56:16 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. I couldn’t pick anyone bar one or two people from my course at UNI out of a line up. So. I’ve heard so many stories of how Wooten is connected to this person and that person and he is friends with this persons boyfriend and on and on. He’s a journalist and a pretty irritating one. It still proves nothing. Where is the evidence. To use their own words show me the receipts and I will believe anything you like as long as there is evidence. Wooten has denied Charles leaked the story. If William had, Harry wouldn’t be shy saying it but he has hinted at Dad. I always thought Harry did because he was the one who gained, or so he thought from bouncing the royals into dealing with it. They had preferred to keep kicking it down the path. in the end though does it matter. All these people are gone. Knauf left. Wooten is on GB or something nice and irritating. Harry. Gone.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 0:08:22 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. As far as the emails, Low confirmed that Knauf is the one who leaked those emails to the Times, and again it's a matter of public record that he gave Meghan's letters and emails to the Mail on Sunday lawyers, and that he agreed to give a witness statement on behalf of the MoS. Thomas Markle also made very odd comments that named Jason Knauf by name, and he also claimed that there was an attempt during the engagement to get Harry to call off the wedding. Thomas Markle has lied far too many times for anything he says to be trustworthy, but it is strange that he named Knauf, a man he doesn't appear to have ever met. I can't help but be curious what happened there. Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. I’ve heard him refuse several times. It’s a court of law. Remind me who actually lied? He told the truth. Knauf was the one liaising with Thomas Markle. He knew him to speak to at least.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 5, 2023 0:29:49 GMT
Jason Knauf was a witness in the court case. He wasn’t leaking to the press. It was a court of Law. Of course he was helping H and am with that book Finding Freedom. Yes I’m sure the employees that were sacked did talk…that is their right. The journalists all said that the two couples were very easy sneak with eachother and I have doubt when relations broke down that they were. I wouldn’t be listening to an American journalist though, what do they know. I don’t see any of it as dark and twisted and conspiracy as you seem to. I see it for what it is. Family relations broke down. There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. One continues to out in the open but I do not think they set out to destroy Meghan and ai doubt they have a What’s App group. The press get briefed sure on the story someone wants to send out but doesn’t mean they write it. Meghan and a Harry brief, The absolute worst at all this skull duckery is Charles. Who was quite frankly unbelievable around 20 to 25 years ago but that seems to have levelled out. the media should not have published that letter. They won because they published too much. But it was her friends who leaked its existence. It wasn’t Thomas Markle. Once the media knew about it they hunted it down. Of course the royals give stories to papers….does Harry not. It’s not necessarily against anyone else just putting the point across. Everyone knows when they read them. Every public figure does that. Is it nice. No. Is it the way it works. Yes. Do you have to grow up and work with the system. probably. [br The denial here is amazing. You think American journalists can’t have British press sources send them information? Ellie Hall made it very clear that she got her story by doing basic journalistic work and following up a tip, and that the people she contacted and the production company confirmed that no British journalist had bothered to even contact them for comment. Knauf was briefing the press. That was in fact his job as press secretary. He briefed the press on the bullying story under his own name, and offered to be a witness for the Mail - again, briefing the newspaper’s editor on confidential correspondence, which the judge actually ruled made no difference to the case in the end but was used to smear Meghan in the press. The Mail had no right to publish private correspondence at all. Its existence being mentioned by a third party does not change that. The judge made it clear that the mention did not actually disclose any significant part of the letter itself - indeed the description of what it contained was inaccurate. The appropriate response would have been to seek a correction from that publication that mentioned it. *Someone* briefed the press on Meghan’s mental health struggles who had seen her email to HR. That person was clearly not authorised to share that information by Meghan. No-one has the ‘right’ to share that kind of deeply personal medical information about someone’s mental illness to a journalist without authorisation. If that briefing had not been authorised Kensington Palace should have hunted down the culprit to fire them for gross misconduct and take civil action against them for breaching their NDA, and made it abundantly clear that further such breaches of confidentiality would receive the same response. Which would have been a big news story. They did not do so. That indicates that the briefing was authorised. This is not rocket science.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 0:37:07 GMT
Jason Knauf was a witness in the court case. He wasn’t leaking to the press. It was a court of Law. Of course he was helping H and am with that book Finding Freedom. Yes I’m sure the employees that were sacked did talk…that is their right. The journalists all said that the two couples were very easy sneak with eachother and I have doubt when relations broke down that they were. I wouldn’t be listening to an American journalist though, what do they know. I don’t see any of it as dark and twisted and conspiracy as you seem to. I see it for what it is. Family relations broke down. There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. One continues to out in the open but I do not think they set out to destroy Meghan and ai doubt they have a What’s App group. The press get briefed sure on the story someone wants to send out but doesn’t mean they write it. Meghan and a Harry brief, The absolute worst at all this skull duckery is Charles. Who was quite frankly unbelievable around 20 to 25 years ago but that seems to have levelled out. the media should not have published that letter. They won because they published too much. But it was her friends who leaked its existence. It wasn’t Thomas Markle. Once the media knew about it they hunted it down. Of course the royals give stories to papers….does Harry not. It’s not necessarily against anyone else just putting the point across. Everyone knows when they read them. Every public figure does that. Is it nice. No. Is it the way it works. Yes. Do you have to grow up and work with the system. probably. [br The denial here is amazing. You think American journalists can’t have British press sources send them information? Ellie Hall made it very clear that she got her story by doing basic journalistic work and following up a tip, and that the people she contacted and the production company confirmed that no British journalist had bothered to even contact them for comment. Knauf was briefing the press. That was in fact his job as press secretary. He briefed the press on the bullying story under his own name, and offered to be a witness for the Mail - again, briefing the newspaper’s editor on confidential correspondence, which the judge actually ruled made no difference to the case in the end but was used to smear Meghan in the press. The Mail had no right to publish private correspondence at all. Its existence being mentioned by a third party does not change that. The judge made it clear that the mention did not actually disclose any significant part of the letter itself - indeed the description of what it contained was inaccurate. The appropriate response would have been to seek a correction from that publication that mentioned it. *Someone* briefed the press on Meghan’s mental health struggles who had seen her email to HR. That person was clearly not authorised to share that information by Meghan. No-one has the ‘right’ to share that kind of deeply personal medical information about someone’s mental illness to a journalist without authorisation. If that briefing had not been authorised Kensington Palace should have hunted down the culprit to fire them for gross misconduct and take civil action against them for breaching their NDA, and made it abundantly clear that further such breaches of confidentiality would receive the same response. Which would have been a big news story. They did not do so. That indicates that the briefing was authorised. This is not rocket science. No they shouldn’t have but copywrite law is very specific and you are libel if you print over a certain percentage. They were always at fault but in the end they ended up embarrassing Meghan. As for the rest it’s just more stuff. Where is the proof in any of this.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 5, 2023 0:53:25 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. LOL, we're not talking about Watergate here, we're talking about tabloid gossip. Emily Andrews literally went on TV and talked about having lunch with Jason Knauf. Valentine Low made tweets explicitly naming Jason Knauf.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 1:02:37 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. You may not remember your old college classmates because you presumably haven't seen them in years or decades. If you found yourself working with a former classmate now, I'm pretty sure you'd remember. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Mine had hundreds on my course. Wooten isn’t a royal reporter. 21 is tiny for a Huge area like Political Science and He wrote very few stories. He’s dinned on it but that wasn’t his area. I am sure Knauf does hate her now. Evidenced by he left his job and then worked just for Kate and William. Why, is for them to have their own opinions on. But some very toxic stuff must have gone down.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 1:04:57 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. LOL, we're not talking about Watergate here, we're talking about tabloid gossip. Emily Andrews literally went on TV and talked about having lunch with Jason Knauf. Valentine Low made tweets explicitly naming Jason Knauf. Yeah…he was the communication secretary. Butter them up. Where are his tweets? Doesn’t matter what on earth they are investigating they don’t name sources.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 5, 2023 9:59:10 GMT
No they shouldn’t have but copywrite law is very specific and you are libel if you print over a certain percentage. They were always at fault but in the end they ended up embarrassing Meghan. As for the rest it’s just more stuff. Where is the proof in any of this. Your ignorance about the actual legal issues involved is either so profound or so wilful that this comment is nonsensical. It’s not even worth attempting to unravel it to explain. Hopefully others reading have enough basic knowledge of the laws around privacy, data protection and copyright to understand the point I am making. I must admit, when I made my earlier comment about William having an anger management problem I did not expect to see such startling confirmation of his temper and problems managing it as has been reported this morning. It’s very sad. And goes some way to explaining why a private reconciliation seems to have been so impossible for them.
|
|
868 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 5, 2023 22:43:43 GMT
Best reaction of the day. Harold should raise an army in France, defeat Willy's troops near Hastings, after a quick victory declare UK as French territory and we can once again be in the EU. Sorted!
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 5, 2023 23:28:26 GMT
It's a terrible, terrible thing when a brother shouts at you. In other news, Harry also says he's killed 25 people.
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Jan 6, 2023 8:53:31 GMT
I must admit, when I made my earlier comment about William having an anger management problem I did not expect to see such startling confirmation of his temper and problems managing it as has been reported this morning. It’s very sad. And goes some way to explaining why a private reconciliation seems to have been so impossible for them. I think the most disturbing thing I read were the quotes in The Guardian when William told Harry that he didn't attack him. Add to that, "no need to tell Meg."
Anyone who's been in a hairy domestic situation with physical and mental coercion will immediate recognize William's words as gaslighting. He might as well have said "no one will believe you," like a hundred other controlling, bullying partners, only it's a sibling problem.
I've always felt as if William's man of the people bit seemed slightly strained, as if he's performing a role that's crafted to make him seem an ordinary bloke. Remember the stories about him sleeping rough with the homeless on London's streets? At least when Charles has done skits with John Cleese or the Shakespeare Hamlet bit, there's always been a twinkle in his eye, but maybe he picked that up at Cambridge. Apparently in private, if you're not of his class, William is only too happy to put you in your place, and that is exactly the sort of toff I hate dealing with. Most definitely not a man of the people.
I think it rather ironic that William calling Meghan difficult, rude, and abrasive would have been perhaps more effective if he hadn't hauled off and knocked Harry to the floor. The fact that after Philip's funeral both William and Charles talked over Harry and told him what he was thinking, rather than actually listening to his point of view is pretty rotten too, but not unusual in family fights. Quite frankly, I don't blame the Sussexes for leaving the country.
They have to sing for their supper. Leaving the protection (if you can call it that) of the Windsors, all they have are their names and stories to tell, and even that is only for a brief window of time. It's called free enterprise. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. I will never look at William and Kate the same way again. Ironic, considering how much stick she got for being the daughter of self-made upwardly mobile parents.
It's a good thing that Charles will be around for at least 20 years. In that time, perhaps the former Billy Basher (his nickname in nursery) will learn to get over his need for control and get a grip on his hot temper.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 6, 2023 9:12:43 GMT
You're right. I don't understand why his mother doesn't have a chat with him about that "hot temper", a few empathetic words from the right person might help.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 6, 2023 9:54:51 GMT
It's a terrible, terrible thing when a brother shouts at you. In other news, Harry also says he's killed 25 people. People’s reaction to this snippet have been doing my head in. He was an Apache helicopter gunner. His job as a gunner was to shoot and kill people on the missions that he was commanding. The gunner needs tactical control and so is in command. The people he was killing were the Taliban - who in return were trying to kill him. This has been public knowledge for years, and - as I’ve been saying since forever - one of the reasons why he has a heightened security risk. The Taliban are very well aware of his military service. And yet people are losing their minds now that he talks about the experience. As if this wasn’t already known - or, I don’t know, as if they never quite believed that he was an actual soldier who fought in an actual war and actually killed people while doing so.
|
|