Off Topic Meghan Mauls Mail !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
A paper I buy now and again, it's far away from my political views but at least it has actual news in it. As for the royals, send 'em to Yekaterinburg! :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: rovertiger
SW3 Chelsea Tiger said:
You didn’t answer the question .....surely the father who sold the letters is at primary fault
Click to expand...
You didn't understand my implication in the response I made.
The father "sold" his story, or was "solicited" by the newspaper for financial reward to provide "private" family information. Where lies the responsibility for protecting private family information?

I'd say follow the money source.

So far in the case, the courts seem to be taking the same position.

Scumbag press.
 
tigerscanada said:
You didn't understand my implication in the response I made.
The father "sold" his story, or was "solicited" by the newspaper for financial reward to provide "private" family information. Where lies the responsibility for protecting private family information?

I'd say follow the money source.

So far in the case, the courts seem to be taking the same position.

Scumbag press.
Click to expand...
The press didn't hold a gun to her Fathers head,he voluntarily offered the letter for remuneration.Yes,the press printed it but ultimately the Father must take responsibility?

The Courts suck!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citygirl and SW3 Chelsea Tiger
There is something duplicitous about this.
A celebrity, someone who uses the media for financial gain, sues for privacy. It’s a joke.

She took it to court in my view simply because to stopped a future source of income.

My view of Megan is that I admire her industry and progressive campaigning. I don’t like her as an actress. But she is a successful and determined woman.

She is also dollar driven and I do not believe that she was ever going to be a good fit into the Royal family. Harry is lucky to have such a wife but unlucky to have a wife who never could be a member of the royal family.

The scumbag press... Nah scumbag Father
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger
A set of attention seeking ****s that serve no real purpose squabbling and making the legal ****s richer.

She was a non-entity before, and getting married just made her a better known non-entity. It didn't suddenly make her an expert on anything, so who the **** would really care what she thinks or has done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oregon Tiger, Cambstiger, Baldrick's Cunning Plan and 5 others
DMD said:
A set of attention seeking ****s that serve no real purpose squabbling and making the legal ****s richer.

She was a non-entity before, and getting married just made her a better known non-entity. It didn't suddenly make her an expert on anything, so who the **** would really care what she thinks or has done?
Click to expand...
You are wrong about her being a non entity before meeting Harry. She was successful in her own right in the states both as an actress and campaigner. Financially she had more money than Harry.
Royalty just was a pot of gold for her. But although I don’t like her, I have to admit that she is no fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citygirl, SW3 Chelsea Tiger and DMD
The Omega Man said:
You are wrong about her being a non entity before meeting Harry. She was successful in her own right in the states both as an actress and campaigner. Financially she had more money than Harry.
Royalty just was a pot of gold for her. But although I don’t like her, I have to admit that she is no fool.
Click to expand...

I've been wrong before, not that it always changes my mind like. :emoticon-0100-smile
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Omega Man, SW3 Chelsea Tiger, Howdentiger2 and 1 other person
tigerscanada said:
You didn't understand my implication in the response I made.
The father "sold" his story, or was "solicited" by the newspaper for financial reward to provide "private" family information. Where lies the responsibility for protecting private family information?

I'd say follow the money source.

So far in the case, the courts seem to be taking the same position.

Scumbag press.
Click to expand...

For a second time - you haven’t answered the question......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howdentiger2
DMD said:
I've been wrong before, not that it always changes my mind like. :emoticon-0100-smile
Click to expand...
That made me lol

I read the mail, well some of it, Martin Samuel and Hitchens are good value. And I see all the headlines so I’m aware of the kardashians etc without ever watching the show or reading the articles.
But they way the mail has gone for her is disgusting, every single day article after article about different aspects of her life. All from a “source” or “friends” or the place **** stirrers itself.
And don’t give me this bollocks it comes with the territory. We’ve seen with Caroline flack etc etc what that does. And yes they often court publicity but aren’t aware or don’t think the backlash is coming
 
The Omega Man said:
You are wrong about her being a non entity before meeting Harry. She was successful in her own right in the states both as an actress and campaigner. Financially she had more money than Harry.
Royalty just was a pot of gold for her. But although I don’t like her, I have to admit that she is no fool.
Click to expand...

It was estimated she had around $5 million before she met Harry. I think Harry had considerably more than that.
A successful actress? She had carried a suitcase and starred in a TV series watched by 2 million, a paltry figure in the States. She was no higher than actresses in Emmerdale and Coronation Street.
I don't recall her being invited to fly on the private jets of stars and borrow their luxurious mansions before she met Harry.
She is a money obsessed gold digger who wants to use the media when it suits her but have privacy the rest of the time. You can't have it both ways.
As for being a campaigner, spare me the lectures about the state of the world and reducing our carbon emissions and thinking twice about a once a year flight to Spain from someone living in a house with 16 bathrooms who drives around in gas guzzling limos and uses private planes as frequently as we use taxis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cambstiger, Citygirl and Ric Glasgow
tigerscanada said:
For the third time, you can't read between the lines.
The father is a mere gullible pawn in the game. Probably the one to blame the least.
Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Bullshit - the father offered the letters for sale to the highest bidder. No one forced him, he wasn’t a gullible pawn.

He was motivated by pure greed & sold his daughter away - the press / media are largely blameless in this
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackAndAmberGambler, Howdentiger2 and Chazz Rheinhold
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back