[bots]

The Duchess of Sussex will receive £1 in damages from Associated Newspapers after the Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy.

The nominal sum was set out in court documents which formally confirm the newspaper has accepted defeat.

The Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter that Meghan sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018.

The media company will also pay an unspecified sum for a separate case of infringing her copyright.

Associated Newspapers previously indicated it was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court, but the company has now accepted defeat in the long-running case.

Last February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.

Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079

--------------------------------

[Crimson Dynamo]

Archwell has raised a mighty 50k in 12 months,...

[jet]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Archwell has raised a mighty 50k in 12 months,...

It's actually 37k LT.
They are too greedy lining their own pockets to care about promoting their charity....and Harry's Travalyst had made the Princely sum of 12k.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by jet

It's actually 37k LT.
They are too greedy lining their own pockets to care about promoting their charity....and Harry's Travalyst had made the Princely sum of 12k.

How much have you raised for charity in the last 12 months? I'm assuming a lot.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

How much have you raised for charity in the last 12 months? I'm assuming a lot.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

[jet]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

How much have you raised for charity in the last 12 months? I'm assuming a lot.

Those amounts are pathetic for a high profile couple who have been busy raising many many millions in deals all for themselves.

Interesting piece in the DM - must be all lies of course....

[Financial details of the Sussexes' charities and companies in the US are far more scant, thanks to their decision to incorporate their organizations in Delaware, notorious for its lack of corporate transparency.

Anti-corruption organization Transparency International has slammed the state as 'a place where extreme corporate secrecy enables corrupt people, shady companies, drug traffickers, embezzlers and fraudsters to cover their tracks when shifting dirty money from one place to another,' – although law-abiding businesses also incorporate there.
Though both Archewell's HQ and the couple's home being in California, all their charities and associated companies are incorporated in Delaware.
Even a company set up to hold the Archewell trademark was founded in Delaware – and appears to have not yet filed documents with the California Secretary of State despite being based in Beverly Hills.]

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by jet

Those amounts are pathetic for a high profile couple who have been busy raising many many millions in deals all for themselves.

Interesting piece in the DM - must be all lies of course....

[Financial details of the Sussexes' charities and companies in the US are far more scant, thanks to their decision to incorporate their organizations in Delaware, notorious for its lack of corporate transparency.

Anti-corruption organization Transparency International has slammed the state as 'a place where extreme corporate secrecy enables corrupt people, shady companies, drug traffickers, embezzlers and fraudsters to cover their tracks when shifting dirty money from one place to another,' – although law-abiding businesses also incorporate there.
Though both Archewell's HQ and the couple's home being in California, all their charities and associated companies are incorporated in Delaware.
Even a company set up to hold the Archewell trademark was founded in Delaware – and appears to have not yet filed documents with the California Secretary of State despite being based in Beverly Hills.]

None of this answered the question I asked.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

How much have you raised for charity in the last 12 months? I'm assuming a lot.

You do realise you are making a ridiculous comparison…

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

You do realise you are making a ridiculous comparison…

Here I was thinking ridiculousness was the tone for the crimes of Meghan Markle threads.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by jet

It's actually 37k LT.
They are too greedy lining their own pockets to care about promoting their charity....and Harry's Travalyst had made the Princely sum of 12k.

Tbf we're in a Pandemic.

How many people do you think are donating to Charities full stop at the moment? Let alone specifically H&M's?

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf we're in a Pandemic.

How many people do you think are donating to Charities full stop at the moment? Let alone specifically H&M's?

Don't try to bring rational thinking into these threads Mock

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Don't try to bring rational thinking into these threads Mock

In all seriousness though 2021 was the year of irrational opinions, we need 2022 to be an improvement on that.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf we're in a Pandemic.

How many people do you think are donating to Charities full stop at the moment? Let alone specifically H&M's?

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's charity - total for the year to 31 December 2020 was £11.8m, an increase of 77% on 2019 (£6.7m).

The Telegraph.

2020 was the worst year of the pandemic.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by jet

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's charity - total for the year to 31 December 2020 was £11.8m, an increase of 77% on 2019 (£6.7m).

The Telegraph.

2020 was the worst year of the pandemic.

2020 may have been worse for the Pandemic, but it's still a huge problem two years later.

[Jordan.]

The £1 might sound like small change, but Meghan's big ambition was about the principle rather than the pay-off.

Very true, our moral Princess

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Very true, our moral Princess

What morals?

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What morals?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What morals?

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Very true, our moral Princess

True grace

[bots]

it doesn't just sound like small change, it is small change

[user104658]

The money really isn't the point in cases like this. I feel like people obviously know that, but they'll crow anyway, because... well. That's wot we do now'days, innit.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The money really isn't the point in cases like this. I feel like people obviously know that, but they'll crow anyway, because... well. That's wot we do now'days, innit.

Well we're not people if we're not nitpicking at people 24/7.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The money really isn't the point in cases like this. I feel like people obviously know that, but they'll crow anyway, because... well. That's wot we do now'days, innit.

No that’s not what some of us do.

Two self pitying liars got found out, so we mock them for the Idiots they are.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

No that’s not what some of us do.

Two self pitying liars got found out, so we mock them for the Idiots they are.

But the court ruling in their favour and awarding £1 demonstrates that they were in the right and the paper was in the wrong, however there’s no evidence that they were financially disadvantaged by what the paper wrote. That’s the point of the token payment. People are trying to frame it as the court giving some sort of petty “piss take” verdict which is not the case and would be horrifyingly unprofessional and worrying if it was.

But people are like “Ha ha ha £1 the court clearly does not believe them and is mocking them haha cockadoodledoooooo.”

Load of nonsense.

If the court didn’t believe them the court would have ruled against them and not upheld the claim. They wouldn’t have ruled in their favour but only given £1 damages in some sort of playground “psyche!!!” prank for goodness sakes.

People just don’t understand the purpose or significance of the £1 damages so they make up their own (daft) explanation.