Duchess Meghan is working quite hard at the moment to be an "influencer."
She recently took the opportunity to go on video, with Harry, to suggest that people "vote against negativity" in the upcoming US election (given Meg's simping for Michelle Obama, that means not for Donald Trump) and also took time to send a video message offering encouragement to an America's Got Talent contestant who served time in prison while being wrongly accused of a crime.
(The contestant was named Archie, the same as the Sussexes's possibly mythical child, and the Daily Mail reports that he "smiled in disbelief" upon seeing the video. He may have been smiling uncomfortably because he had no idea who the Duchess was.)
Cause and effect
The question is, is anyone really being influenced by what Meghan says?
If so, whom?
Comments
Totally agree about the Data Protection act.
wanding? I missed that comment. ;o)
@WBBM and WB
As you’re both probably know Copyright laws and Data Protection laws are entirely different things. If she’s using the Data Protection Act against the MoS, she surely has no case?
That should have been...As you both probably know....
Meghan Le Murkle
And her ties to Ron Burkle
Show that all roads lead to So Ho
In her latest retract
Re- the Data Pro Act
Maybe time now to call on our Bo Jo
Precisely.
At the moment, we're not yet under general lockdown, unlike last time.
The winter's going to be awful though. The pure idiocy of many, particularly those who have just gone up to university, is almost unbelievable. God help us if they are allowed to come home at Christmas.
2021 is likely to be cancelled so all bets are off about anything happening on the Sussex front at this end. I do hope the trial goes ahead, even if she loses her opportunity to grandstand.
It's all me, me, I, I , me-again and people are just mean to lovely me. How she is so misunderstood, she never said this or that but if she did people just misinterpret her wonderful 'authentic' words, all the negative about her is a just a byproduct of trolldom.
Then the pièce de résistance of the entire video :-
I used to have a quote up in my room many, many moons ago, and it resonates now maybe more than ever when you see the vitriol and noise that can be out in the world, and it's by Georgia O'Keeffe.-
“I have already settled it for myself so flattery and criticism go down the same drain, and I am quite free. The moment that you are able to be liberated from all these other opinions of what you know to be true, it's very easy to live with truth and with authenticity, and that's how I choose to move through the world.”
LOL..... so full of 'power' and 'self empowment', while spending the entire interview playing the down trodden victim line to the hilt and then comparing herself to Georgia O'Keefe.
Her bedroom must have looked like a cell from the Chateau D'If with all those inspirational messages scrawled over the walls.
One of our party nearly got arrested at Phoenix airport- eventually the bleep was traced to the tiny metal lapel badge, in lieu of a ticket, from the then Arizona Mining and Minerals Museum (fabulous place, if you like that sort of thing).
Also used for drugs & explosives. I had one used on my backpack at Edinburgh - I had a Christmas cake wrapped in foil and it looked like a lump of Semtex on the screen. The smell of almond paste didn't help either!
Once the trial is over the news hounds will be unleashed.
All that was hidden will miraculously resurface, and much more.
The papers may join together?
Start a joint kitty to pay for the inevitable law suits.
`Chateau D'If' - Wonderful!
It's the word `authenticity' that gets up my nose. Narcissists lack any sort of `Authentic Self'; what they offer is something constructed from bits of other people and she's the textbook case.
Might ANL be able to use this in their defence - that she says she's unfazed by both flattery and criticism?
Her delusion is absolute.
Due to family circumtances and illness, I have been unable to post here for some time although, to be honest, I only posted infrequently. However, I have been able to read all the posts and comments and have come to some conclusions (if anyone has already posted what I am about to say, please accept my abject apologies in advance).
I have noticed a distinct air of frustration and despair hanging over the blog regarding the stripping of the Harkles' titles, etc, and I must admit to sharing some of this frustration but have been thinking things out.
I believe the BRF are holding back until the results of the trial in January are known. To immediately cut the Harkles off at the knees, so to speak, could well bring accusations of trying to influence the outcome of the trial. No, I think the RF will wait to see what dirt on MM turns up and whether her lies are exposed. If she loses the verdict, and her credibility, then they may well lose all titles at the yearly review when it would not cause such a fuss. Remember, if MM loses the case then she will be branded a liar, something I fervently wish for, without anyone actually saying she is. Her reputation and any vestiges of influence she may have will go straight down the drain.
The trial is only 3 months away and the year's review will take place 3 months after that - only six months to go. When you think of a monarchy which has lasted for 1,000 years (except for an short interregnum in the 1600s), six months is really just a tiny drop in the ocean of time. Just like the BRF, we can wait - I honestly believe that the best is yet to come, Nutties!!!
Can we assume that she's attempting to run the case and ignoring legal advice as per usual? No lawyer should confuse 2 different pieces of legislation, let alone a hotshot from London.
Gotta laugh!
TIA
Just took a look at the Judge who ruled in favour of MoS yesterday. Recent panellist on round-table about how to improve judicial diversity. A true advocate for women and minorities who has obviously seen right through the Meghster.
Here it is embedded in this DM article...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8786507/Meghan-Markle-says-doesnt-focus-criticism-flattery.html
1. In terms of copyright infringement, she should have a strong case. People magazine stayed well within the bounds of fair use when one of her 'friends' quoted from both letters. MOS went way beyond the bounds of fair use when they gave Thomas a platform to defend himself against defamation of character. They could have achieved that without quoting such a large portion of her letter. (IMO, they knew she would react badly and wanted her to because they would get so much material from a legal case.) The only way Meghan can lose this is if MOS can prove that Meghan intended the letter to be published, so stock up on popcorn ...!
2. Adding the protection of data related claim is absurd and she must lose this part of her claim. Posters have explained this clearly in posts above. Free speech is too precious to be taken away to spare the feelings of a narcissistic snowflake. (There are other ways this can be done without suppressing free speech.)
3. There is another claim related to privacy. (The Cambridges were successful when they sued about photos that were taken of them sunbathing on a secluded balcony of a private home set in quite extensive grounds.) Unfortunately for Meghan, there are numerous examples of her sharing very private information via intermediaries, such as Scobie, her make up guy, hairdresser, and various named and unnamed friends. Even if Meghan is successful in this claim, the MOS have far more salacious material for articles than they probably hoped for.
Posters at LSA used to call Meghan batsh1t crazy. Her latest speechifying is perhaps not her most bizarre performance but her word salad now makes no sense at all. She completely misuses the word 'transcend' so that it makes no sense and talks in bizarre circles that ends up with her negating what she reasonably can be assumed to want to say. To go back to the post for this thread, who she influences and to do what is the measure of how dangerous she is.
Pretty Rose : What mother calls her child 'little one'?
reply from Redcarman : One who can't remember it's name !!
reply from Olpol : Maybe she has a choice of three in her cupboard and he's the shortest?
The count is also three for the DM USA home page
Her PR people are out there, spinning Megsy every single day. And via multiple outlets. She is copying the Kartrashians
.....The only way Meghan can lose this is if MOS can prove that Meghan intended the letter to be published, so stock up on popcorn ...!
---------------
I have a feeling ANL might run with that 'intended it to be published' defence as we heard last week .
"The defense claimed yesterday that..... 'the duchess discussed the letter with the communications team at Kensington Palace and had written it with a view to it being read by third parties and/or disclosed to the public, in a bid to improve her public image.' "
I expect the relevant KP person or people to be called as a witness.
@Disgusted,
LL. No doubt. If the drains were separate, I should imagine flattery drain to see a little trickle and a veritable deluge for criticism. I hope she has the drain doctor on speed-dial.
______
LOL!!
Right? At this stage she needs a specialist :D
Best Comments at the DM on the video so far
Pretty Rose : What mother calls her child 'little one'?
reply from Redcarman : One who can't remember it's name !!
reply from Olpol : Maybe she has a choice of three in her cupboard and he's the shortest?
I thought maybe it was some California oddity.
Posters at LSA used to call Meghan batsh1t crazy. Her latest speechifying is perhaps not her most bizarre performance but her word salad now makes no sense at all. She completely misuses the word 'transcend' so that it makes no sense and talks in bizarre circles that ends up with her negating what she reasonably can be assumed to want to say. To go back to the post for this thread, who she influences and to do what is the measure of how dangerous she is.
________
Maybe it was there I read where a hypnotist stated Ms. Skanky uses the word salad technique and other attempts at banality to put the viewers in a sort of trance. Robert Greene states in "The Art of Seduction" that banality is a good technique to hook the victim in.
Neither hypnosis nor any attempts of false seduction would work on me. I'm too determined to not be controlled.
Did anyone ever see that suggestion about Ms. Salad Finger's use of word salad?
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwMUivqDRg9OItTsxJTFFIy8xLTy0qBgBnUQhm&q=salad+fingers&oq=salad+fingers&aqs=chrome.1.69i59j46j0l4j69i61l2.6570j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The wiki entry on the series made me just about wee myself picturing La Markle (not hard to do at this stage) lol...
She just said that George Floyd was murdered when in fact, that hasn't been proven yet. She should have said "alleged murder" or "death". And then she says that what she says isn't controversial!
It is important the MoS lawyers do not relax after securing FF as a defence tool. The judge made it clear their defence may collapse during the hearing. They should also pay attention to what the judge described as the importance of what Scobie DIDN't say rather than what he did say.
I expect they will remember Diana's Morton book denials and will ask the correct questions, like did you share your writings with Meghan or Harry at any stage for comment; did you check the accuracy of your data with them in any shape or form; did you get any other exchange with them or their team in the process, personally or via intermediary; how exactly did you get access to intimate details of yoga poses and bathroom habits as well as private thoughts of individuals; how would you explain your note that you HAD talked to the couple and what do you mean by "where appropriate".
The biggest danger at this stage is getting overconfident but I am sure a good lawyer would know that.
Should be interesting to see how they play this, poor Megan the victim who has gazillions of images of herself on the internet even before Harry and exposed her personnel life in The Tig and supposedly in a tell all intimate blog about a working actress.However, that will not go down well if she wants to go into politics where is the strong, powerful woman, surely mot in tears every night.
______
Women like her know to use the Pitiful Pearl act to get a foot in. She used it on Harry (and Charles). So yes to this! Which is a classic antithesis to the powerful woman approach...
*Pitiful Pearl= the silent film version "You must pay the rent!"... "I can't pay the rent" as the Canadian Mountie on horse back saves her...yada yada...not the PP doll...
Are Americans really getting taken in by her?
_______
No, no and no.
Her PR wants the world to think we are taken in by her. We think she's an idiot just as you think Harry is an idiot. But I would never claim her as "my idiot". Just the idiot that has embarrassed the Hell out of America along with the man in the WH (whom she hates...)
She just said that George Floyd was murdered when in fact, that hasn't been proven yet. She should have said "alleged murder" or "death".
Wow, that's something I would have thought that might have come up on Suits. Or even in real life like OJ, Menendez, big name trial or even in the schools - US History when discussing setting up the Constitution/early government and why we set it up the way we did.
Sure to be brought by any opponent if she ever tries to run for political office. And, if they don't know about it, all the people who might not remember her fondly, would be likely to drop the dime on her.
Further proof that the BRF has good reasoning for not allowing the members of the family to speak publically to go rogue by writing their own speech.
Something else that’s different from the AGT video – her teeth. In her upper set, the 2 front teeth (what I call `incisors’ but dentists have another name) appear to have moved forward.
Also, for once, she attributed a quotation. It’s at:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/75861-i-have-already-settled-it-for-myself-so-flattery-and
I found it by googling `”Georgia O’Keefe`down the same drain’” – probably where she found it.
I notice she didn’t say when or where O’Keefe said it – that would have made it more convincing.
If she lets both flattery and criticism go down the drain, why doesn’t she ignore it when she gets called out? Of course, she’s not being criticised for what she’s said and done, she’s being racially vilified. As if I could forget that!.
.How long did she spend rehearsing it? So authentic (*Hollow laugh*)
I just listened to parts of Meghan's speech for the Forbes thingie.
She just said that George Floyd was murdered when in fact, that hasn't been proven yet. She should have said "alleged murder" or "death". And then she says that what she says isn't controversial!
Montecito Megsy fancies herself a BLM supporter and BLM always says George Floyd was murdered. They never say alleged. The knee on his neck didn't help but Floyd was high on multiple drugs including fentanyl. He was a wasteoid. He was resisting arrest. He was in a near death state. The police had already called the EMTs. It is crazy that the black community has elevated this drug addled criminal into hero status.
She was living at KP at the time and that address is public knowledge. This goes for Nottingham Cottage and Frogmore Cottage too.
That doesn’t exonerate MoS from publishing it though. Perhaps they will make a case that there was a genuine Public Interest in the contents of the letter being known, not just that they stood to benefit from the public being interested in it?
`Public Interest’ has been called "the welfare or well-being of the general public" – including our right to expect a public figure to behave with a reasonable amount of integrity, which doesn’t seem to have happened here.
Can our legal eagles enlarge on this please?
CBC news did a report about a social media/internet expert that decided to analyze the incredible amount of online dislike and anger of Meghan and found that most of the comments were from women. I'm a man but I can't believe many women would tell their daughter that Meghan is a good role model. She has a severe personality disorder and some men think she is attractive (with all the plastic surgery and other treatments) that has served her well to sleep and lie her way up the social ladder to find fame (but really infamy) and great wealth (so far from the Royal Family.)
@Sylvia...I saw a photo of Meeeegan at the whitehouse; Obama was close by in the frame, as well as another guy I didn’t recognize. Perhaps Ron Burkle?
@Martha
Apparently RonBurkle did escorted MM to the Whitehouse in 2015?
Might the man pictured in the background possibly be security (could the man be watching MM trying to approach P.O. for the picture where she looks like she is talking with the president?)
From Twitter
In 2015 Meghan was a bad actress on a show no one watched, a nobody with no money, wit or style. Yet...she was invited to the White House, even escorted there by billionaire Ron Burkle. Why?
Picture of event @Whitehouse
https://images.app.goo.gl/JtuM6qsYBMSJxLmGA
She went to the WH as Ron Buckle's " + 1 ". Many speculated as to what she did to/for Buckle in order to get to go. They were not dating or anything at the time.
The GDPR defines a personal data breach as 'a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed'.
Personal data breaches can be categorised into:
* confidentiality breach, where there is an unauthorised or accidental disclosure of or access to personal data. This type of breach is most common with patients' records.
* availability breach, where there is an accidental or loss of access to or destruction of personal data. For example, the sort of problem that might arise after a cyber attack that prevented access to and/or destroyed records.
* integrity breach, where there is unauthorised or accidental alteration of personal data.
A data breach may involve all three categories, depending on the circumstances.
https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/gdpr-data-breaches
I don't see where there is a reach of the DPA - can any legal eagles?
So, if I give someone a letter in general in the UK, that person cannot share my letter with anyone? Is that the basic copyright law in the UK? Or is it, they cannot profit off my letter? Just curious, it might be more nuanced than this.
I believe here in the US a letter from sender to receiver is a gift to the receiver and they may do what they wish with it. Correct me, if I'm wrong!
Regardless, the lawsuit is dumb and a waste of time. I do enjoy the judge slapping down Meghan to emphasize that it is a personal lawsuit, not a public debate of privacy!
I agree with the statement made above:
"BTW: We don't see "Archie" because the kid absolutely cannot get more attention than Markle herself. She's jealous of her own kid." I don't think this can be emphasized enough. She wanted to make money off of him, and if she can't she is going to hide him and continue to be the Star! She hides behind the 'privacy' crap, and tells Harry Archie needs a different regular childhood from him, but it's easy to see the truth with a mother like that! Narcissists hate giving up attention.
Speaking of, I read the Blind Gossip items about crying (thanks for that, Nutties!) and it got me really worried about (if real) Archie! If she is faking crying, and doesn't feel sadness but hatred and anger she needs to get help for his sake pronto! I'm surprised the tipster didn't include Archie in the Blind, as if they pressed 'her' about him in anyway regarding emotional bonding! This makes me think there might not be an Archie.
@xxxx, even if Mr. Floyd was not wasted, you don't say he was murdered until there is proof to that effect, i.e. a conviction. It prejudices potential jurors and it also is libel or slander depending because the accused has not yet been found guilty and in most Western countries, a presumption of innocence is the basis for all criminal law.
I agree 100%. But BLM and twitter mobs/mobsters have already convicted them (the police arresting Floyd) in their court of public opinion. Pig ignorant Megsy joined them. She spews world salad all the time, so saying Floyd was murdered is a trifle for her.
@Sylvia...there are two photos, one of which from Lovingly.com (I think). Obama is smiling broadly at her.
@Sylvia
She went to the WH as Ron Buckle's " + 1 ". Many speculated as to what she did to/for Buckle in order to get to go. They were not dating or anything at the time.
This might be true for our yacht girl, I know I have never seen photos of Megs in the White House. A google image search shows nothing though google seems to misfire on tumbler images. And twitter is an image monster. Can google index twitter and facebook? Not all the time by any means.
While at first glance it appears that Obama is smiling broadly at mm, he's actually smiling at the woman next to and a little behind mm. You can see the woman's arm and hair.
Follow his line of sight...he's not looking at mm, but to the right of her.
You do have to wonder why a nobody like mm would be invited to the White House.
https://images.app.goo.gl/PYUkTi39PhzHdJUy9
Are we sure that wasn't photoshopped?
Also, why aren't there more from this event near Obama?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-wants-more-involved-21357298
^^ good article on her friends claiming she's been wanting to be President for a long time (LOL)
I honestly think she is kindred with Trump and seethingly jealous he made it to the white house. She forgets he also had a huge brand, JOB, and company prior to becoming president.
Gosh, her new brows make her look washed out. Her old brows gave her face more character (in a good way).
No worries! I can't understand why MM/her lawyers have gone for the DPA Act either.
@Not Meghan Markle
I thought it was known she was invoking the data protection act? I believe this suit was filed the day after the act became law.
The DPA 1998 was replaced by the DPA 2018. It took effect on May 25, 2018 so barely a week after H&M' wedding. Therefore the suit was filed in October 2019,
The words written in the letter count as `intellectual property' (ie they emerged from the thought of the writer, in a creative process) covered in the same way as the words in a book. You can show it someone but they are breaching copyright if they reproduce it elsewhere, without the copyright holder's permission, worse if it's for financial gain.
Btw, A single sheet of music can carry as many a 7 different copyrights, if not more: Composer of melody/arranger(s)/lyrics(eg 2 songwriters/ the typography/layout/the publisher's overall copyright.
The most dangerous, and tempting, area concerns hymnbooks. Headteachers can think they can get away with buying one copy and projecting it overhead for the whole school. I used to be in a `teachers' centre', when there were such things, and have had to dig my heels in and say `Not on our photocopiers' when HTs have tried to get me to do it for them. They never believed me when I explained and preferred to take risks; even a copyshop could have challenged them. (I've been challenged when I've asked for enlargements of my own photos)
I've also been `Copyright Czar' in 3 FE libraries.
I remember seeng the picture a long time ago. She's smiling manically and wearing a short maroonish coloured dress
Further back, I suggested she's ignoring legal advice again.
The Duchess has also reportedly argued that the Mail on Sunday breached her data protection rights.
The law that regulates data protection is called the General Data Protection Regulation or “GDPR”, and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under data protection legislation, a data subject has the right to control how their data is processed, subject to limited exemptions. It is possible to bring a data protection claim alongside a privacy claim, and other legal complaints eg perhaps defamation or harassment.
In its defence, The Mail on Sunday alleges that the information within its article relates to is data that the Duchess herself placed into the public domain, and that its processing was therefore not unlawful. It also disputes that the data qualifies as sensitive data.
This sounds very vague to me and I fail to see what 'data' was contained in the published excerpts.
Could you clear up something for me? In your last post you mentioned "personnal" info, and then later in the same post, "personnel" information. Are you trying to say "personal," meaning private to an individual, or "personnel," which involves employees?
*********************************
Is Ron Burkle one of the people Lady C was alluding to when she said MM had dark and powers forces backing her?
"Data" is an interesting word. The Oxford dictionary gives one definition as:
"a collection things known or assumed as facts"
What can we glean from this? Would MM's having said that she was so hurt by Tom's actions be considered data, as she considered that a fact in her letter to him (whether she really was truly hurt by it or not)? In that case, just about everything in the letter, and the excerpts printed by the MoS, would be considered a collection of facts that MM presented in her letter to her father. Notice it said "assumed" facts."
Wow, so we have a copyright expert in our midst! Thanks for clarifying Meghan's letter issue.
So the issue at hand is if she put the letter out there with the intent that others report on it. Keyword, intent.
If she truly intended for privacy, as a public person, there would be zero collusion of using her personal information for the press?
I see how it's going to be very hard for her to prove her case, then. We are talking Meghan Markle here, in the press everyday with varying stories agreeing and denying various issues in her life.
When is she going to use her Press to talk about anyone or thing else?
This is the photo from the daily mail of mm at the White House.
https://images.app.goo.gl/PYUkTi39PhzHdJUy9
Yes she was at the White House in 2015
https://ladygreyhound93.tumblr.com/post/186814888350/ah-yes-the-first-indication-that-she-was-going-to
Schroll down about 25% and you will see this image is from Meg's intagram of 3-17-2015
CAPTIONED:
"Such a pleasure to meet you Mr. President" (Obama)
www.meghanforpresident.com
"We are going to rebuild, and rebuild, and rebuild until it is rebuilt." !!!
I googled and it looks like they are REAL quotes from megs. LOL
I get it. The last big Windows update really messed up my laptop, too.
Meghan is plain scary with her unquenchable thirst for fame and power. She walks on people to get what she wants.
The scariest part is she ruins everything she touches. She managed to cheapen and dim the Monarchy within just one year.
Re personal data:
Personal data only includes information relating to natural persons who:
can be identified or who are identifiable, directly from the information in question; or
who can be indirectly identified from that information in combination with other information.
In the context of the DPA, data could be a name, date of birth, telephone number etc, information from medical records etc. I have re-read the MoS excerpts of the letter and still can't see what might come under the DPA (I am not a lawyer).
Words fail me.
""We need news sources that tell us the truth," says woman who never, ever tells the truth"
has anyone seen this???
www.meghanforpresident.com
@Theonethatgotaway
Theresmore !!!
"With the right tools, we can create an incredible future for all
I find that when you strip all the layers away, as people, we can find deep connection with each other, and a shared understanding.
It is my mission to unite this aggressive, confrontational, and dangerous world to bring us all closer"
I just read the Meagan for President site you sent- except for the donation site.
For those who haven't seen it yet this Meghan's statement:
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, I have heard your calls to become President of the United States of America.
It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few months, that I feel prepared to make this decision. With your support I believe we can bring equality, empowerment, and kindness to this dangerous, aggressive and confrontational world we live in.
I look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.
Together, we will lead.“
our calls to become president???!!
Thanks! That made my day:) I'm glad someone does!! I hang in there because I know many people read here (who the regulars have no clue are reading).
I'm not everyone's cup of tea but when someone gets me they really get me and that's a damn good feeling.
I looked at the M for President and came up with some Nov 2019 Canadian ET stuff.
I think a couple of things:
the world changed in spring of 2020 and covid threw spanners in a lot of "how the presidential spring was run" and many people who might be talking of running ... were left behind so more tried and true could benefit from a smaller field.
However, this was the year of crazy didn't see that and can't this be over yet (nope). So, just as we talk about HM playing the long game, no one has anything much to lose by keeping the website open (except it costing a few bucks).
just an thought, and I have been wrong before in life.