Link: Daily Mail
The Court of Appeal decided the Mail on Sunday was not entitled to publish quite as much of her letter to her estranged father Thomas Markle's as the newspaper did.
Had they run less of it, the judges said, the Mail would have been OK.
So, she won on a point about precisely how many of her words were permissible to be reported, assuming the letter was indeed private, surely an issue for trial.
(To be precise, 585 words from a 1,250-word letter was deemed too much.)
SShe can claim 'victory' all she likes after this court case, but all it really did was expose her real character to the world and the cold hard two-faced reality at the heart of Meghan and Harry's attitude to privacy.
As we've seen with stunning regularity since they quit Britain supposedly for the quiet life in America, they're quite happy to cash out their privacy for millions of dollars to the likes of Spotify, Netflix or Oprah Winfrey.
They just want to reserve their right to be feign outrage when others seek to commercialise their privacy without paying them.
As for the media, they've made it very clear they want to control the media and stop beastly journalists from writing stuff they don't like.
That's why they co-operate with drooling sycophants like that odious little weasel Omid Scobie, one of Finding Freedom's authors, but sue everyone else that dares to raise even a questionable eyebrow at their constant hypocrisy.
As with her proud use of a royal title bestowed by an institution that she constantly damages, Meghan Markle wants to have her cake and eat it.
But if I were her, I'd stick the celebratory champagne back in the fridge today.
Thanks to this court case, we've now seen what the real Meghan looks like, fork tongue and all.
It's not a pretty sight.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Link: Daily Mail
Responses are not allowed!