[Beso]

Originally Posted by jet

Nice man. He was Meghans hero and worked hard to give her everything, she said so herself, until she met Harry and was too ashamed of where he lived and his appearance to let him meet her future posh husband.

For once, the band madness and the song embarrassment, would be true.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Nice man. He was Meghans hero and worked hard to give her everything, she said so herself, until she met Harry and was too ashamed of where he lived and his appearance to let him meet her future posh husband.

A nice man that tried to make money on his daughter's engagement by setting up situations with the paparazzi and selling stories on his own daughter.

If this was anybody else's father but Meghan's, I don't believe for a second you would defend them.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A nice man that tried to make money on his daughter's engagement by setting up situations with the paparazzi and selling stories on his own daughter.

If this was anybody else's father but Meghan's, I don't believe for a second you would defend them.

The poor man was left to cope on his own after the romance hit the headlines with dozens of press camped outside his door and following him around taking unflattering pics of him looking dishevelled and buying some beers.

Then his other daughter sets it up that they get a few pics of him in a more controlled and flattering light and BOOM, Meghan and Harry come down on him like a ton of bricks and Harry apparently read him the riot act.
That was when it all started to go wrong. He should have been shown the respect of being introduced to Harry and given protection from the press. He was given no advice or direction at all.

He refused payment for any other interviews, the papers and media involved made a point of saying so.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by jet

Nice man. He was Meghans hero and worked hard to give her everything, she said so herself, until she met Harry and was too ashamed of where he lived and his appearance to let him meet her future posh husband.

How do you know what motivated her? Can you mind read?
And dont start with "respected royal correspondents" bc they can't mind read either.


Btw do you know those correspondents are widely disliked by all members of the royal family? For being nosey and presumptuous hacks.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

How do you know what motivated her? Can you mind read?
And dont start with "respected royal correspondents" bc they can't mind read either.


Btw do you know those correspondents are widely disliked by all members of the royal family? For being nosey and presumptuous hacks.

Official....

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Btw do you know those correspondents are widely disliked by all members of the royal family? For being nosey and presumptuous hacks.

Did you read that in the tabloids? Or are you talking about the one that Prince Charles didn't like? I guess thats why they get inside info and all.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by jet

Did you read that in the tabloids? Or are you talking about the one that Prince Charles didn't like? I guess thats why they get inside info and all.

They get gossip from staff and they get hostile briefings from time to time.
Neither can be considered objective source unless backed up by evidence and corroborated by independent sources.


When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal they sought 3 independent sources of every scrap of info they dared to publish. That's journalism not hack job for clicks or money

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

They get gossip from staff and they get hostile briefings from time to time.
Neither can be considered objective source unless backed up by evidence and corroborated by independent sources.


When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal they sought 3 independent sources of every scrap of info they dared to publish. That's journalism not hack job for clicks or money

Spot. On.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

They get gossip from staff and they get hostile briefings from time to time.
Neither can be considered objective source unless backed up by evidence and corroborated by independent sources.


When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal they sought 3 independent sources of every scrap of info they dared to publish. That's journalism not hack job for clicks or money

Yet they are proved right over and over again. You really don't know that the Royals leak stuff bit by bit so big dramas that are coming have less impact on the public?- they've been doing it for years.

[Cherie]

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

Well, they call Piers Morgan a journalist so the world is full of crazy things.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

Official royal correspondents

[Ammi]

...apparently according to the lawyers for The Mail On Sunday and Mail Online ...Meghan must have been fully aware that the letter would be published because her handwriting was so neat...I guess it’s a parent’s back in the day advice, like always wear clean underwear etc...’just in case your letters are published by the national media, make sure we can all read them, my love...neat, neat, neat at all times...’...


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/neat-handw...142751298.html

[arista]

The Mail will Win in Court

[bots]

Meghan is on sticky ground because unless the newspaper obtained the information illegally, privacy does not apply. If her father gave them a copy, they are perfectly entitled to publish it. They are also under no obligation to either print the whole letter or provide context to the parts they did publish

Seems to me her gripe is really with her father and that is extremely unfortunate if it gets aired in court

[Liam-]

Wether her father gave them the letter or not, I think there are guidelines and laws in place involving the manipulation of communications to skew the original meaning for a false narrative that the media have to adhere to.

I personally feel that it’s about time for another inquiry, our media, the majority of it run by only 4 people, has turned into such utter trash, in a time of political upheaval and divisiveness, media outlets should not be allowed to put out such biased, corrupt coverage as they have done for the past couple of years.

[bots]

The whole point of a free press is that there are very few restrictions on what they can print. Meddling with that will only be for the worse

[Liam-]

Free press yes, that’s the right to report on any story they want to, but they’re not allowed to purposely deceive and misconstrue something to achieve a false story

[Livia]

They should have slipped away quietly. No one would have noticed... instead we have another Meghan Media Circus. Far from taking them out of the limelight, the press are even more frantic to get to them now. Boring. Enough already.

[Nicky91]

not the OP, and those thread title changes

[bots]

shouldnt this thread be called cOURT?

[arista]

"High court megan markle "


Can admin correct the title please