Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Oh and btw -I see you’re using the “can you give me links” lark - sorry sunshine go annoy another sucker with your poor attempts

That is a reasonable request to know what proof you have that Scobie isn't a reliable witness because as far as I know in the law courts, a judge found him to be credible and didn't find Piers Morgan (of tabloid media) to be credible. I just want a credible testimony that Scobie isn't credible. I've produced a judge's opinion, surely you can produce someone other than the likes of Piers Morgan?

It's like people can't believe that Morgan is a world class berk/see you next tuesday while also believing that when it comes to H&M and specifically their hypocrisies he's been spot on. I suppose that makes him a suppressive person for Brand Sussex because he certainly hasn't been shy in taking any chance he can get to stick the boot in. I guess in the end if people are in the discomfiting position of agreeing with Piers bloody Morgan about two people then those two people have quite a PR problem. In the logic of some on this thread then agreement about one niche topic equates to blanket support.

sure 🤪

https://vinyldestination.ie/cdn/shop/files/8819a69a-968d-4274-aec4-8a3d514b1e7f_1104x1115.jpg?v=1693263372

Found an overview of his cases for reference.

Here is the reference to them from the BBC Court report. Although the BBC isn't what it used to be, it probably still does accurate court reporting.

Just for the record, H&M were in Canada/US for 15 months and no one heard a word from them. The reason they gave the Oprah interview was because the British press wouldn't leave them alone and they are the ones who couldn't stop talking about them. They gave one interview to Oprah to challenge all the fake spin stories that the British press kept spinning 15 months after they had stepped down as so called working royals.

I discovered something of interest the other day - in the US, media will not pay for interviews - its a code of practice. This explains how Meghan's father and sister only give interviews to the British and Australian press - because they get paid for them.

So, in short - the judge believed Scobie and he didn't believe Morgan (who couldn't deny it because he would have been lying under oath).

I'd admire Scobie - not easy what he did as a working journalist who will probably be blacklisted by many of the British editors because he blew the whistle on Morgan & Co. And we can see now how he is being attacked and his name blackened in the British gutter press. That takes guts.

Maybe Charles should have just called off the dogs and make the press leave Meghan alone and they wouldn't have the problem of a rabid press who just could not contain themselves when it came to a multiracial member of the royal family (except with Phil the Greek).

Why do they continue to cosplay royalty when they found freedom from it years ago? Maybe if they sank into obscurity, we could be free of them, too.

Post removed. I should read the thread more closely!

Thanks for this. However, it doesn’t seem to link to a threat to remove security. You said;

Have I missed something?

It was discussed a lot at the time (but not in the gutter press - Murdock owned right wing medi broadsheets such as The Times (and Telegraph). Sky were doing a lot of reporting at the time as well. The timing of when it all happened is telling.

What I couldn't understand is how Charles took back everything that the dying Queen had given Harry (including his military titles). What a hold the press must have on him and William.

If you want the full story about all of this, Byline Times does a lot of really good digging (they outed Dan Wootoon on what he was up to).

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Looks like the late Queen took them back

https://www.royal.uk/buckingham-palace-statement-duke-and-duchess-sussex#

Fascinating, thank you, I've read it once and will think on about it. One quick thought is that there's a paradox in financial terms between the £700k funding that Charles stopped, which seems to have forced Harry to seek commercial income to cover the costs of security at £3m. Where was the £2.3m difference to come from? It's a small point and I'm keeping an open mind about who did what to whom, why and when.