Keeping up with the Markles

It's pretty cringeworthy to admit you've got your secretary passing along your instructions to the book writers and simultaneously claiming ignorance about what personal information he sent.
 
Hotwired said:
It's pretty cringeworthy to admit you've got your secretary passing along your instructions to the book writers and simultaneously claiming ignorance about what personal information he sent.
Click to expand...
It is cringe worthy, but also I'm assuming against the law to lie to a court about evidence given when the organisation you're suing has appealed?

The BBC has chosen its language very carefully in that article and it's clear Meghan told porkies to win the case, but I bet Meghan will simply get away with it.
 
The paper doesn't need to win the appeal to win. Harry and Meghan are being forced to admit wrongdoing in a court which is excellent content to get viewers/readers.
 
I said at the start of all this that Meghan didn't seem trustworthy, things didn't quite add up, me and the missus both said the interview with Oprah came across as not quite right as there were a few signs she gave away that if you watch enough behaviour analysts on crime programs would call out.

Wonder if Piers Morgan (even though he's a grade A rooster) will get any apologies from people lambasting him after saying he didn't believe a word of it.
 
She is a blatant liar but because of her status the court will be forced to give her the benefit of the doubt. :(
 
It works all the time in the commons and that's coming from ministers as well, so I don't see why others can't be immune from lying by doing it 'unintentionally'.
 
StriderX said:
It works all the time in the commons and that's coming from ministers as well, so I don't see why others can't be immune from lying by doing it 'unintentionally'.
Click to expand...
Yes but the commons isn't under oath as it would be in court, she should be brought in and charged but as people have already said I bet it goes no further
 
jpaul said:
Not sure why the letter being crafted in case it was leaked is incriminatory ... being sent to her father, after all, wasn't it
Click to expand...

Because actively preparing it for two audiences directly contradicts her claim that it was intended for one.
 
If an appeal is granted - and she had to give evidence, would the newspapers increased circulation offset the loss if they loose (ie win win)
she'd be made for a few years at least, and blessed for future netflix etc. commercialisation of their projects.
 
Damn, has this whole circus with Meghan really been running since November 27, 2017? I don't mean the forum topic, her constant coverage in the mainstream media. Her 15 minutes of fame lasts for years.
 
V F said:
Damn, has this whole circus with Meghan really been running since November 27, 2017? I don't mean the forum topic, her constant coverage in the mainstream media. Her 15 minutes of fame lasts for years.
Click to expand...

Andrew is next when he comes out from hiding behind Mummys skirt. I'd say he's sweating bullets but apparently he doesn't sweat.
 
V F said:
Damn, has this whole circus with Meghan really been running since November 27, 2017? I don't mean the forum topic, her constant coverage in the mainstream media. Her 15 minutes of fame lasts for years.
Click to expand...
But don't forget "they want privacy", yeah in the same way Amy Winehouse didn't want crack.
 
uber soldat said:
But don't forget "they want privacy", yeah in the same way Amy Winehouse didn't want crack.
Click to expand...

Just an cue she promoting herself again and her relationship as a "Royal". Ellen show next to play the clown and putting herself in the spotlight and more deliberate media attention. Strange behaviour for someone who doesnt like the media and has concerns on "intrude" on her privacy. No love for the Royals but she cant eat her cake and have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom