General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[O-H Anglophile]

What pray tell is hollywood about this? Again, its tiring but the double standards are becoming absurd, many royals send out similar warnings multiple times a year about photos taken in downtime.

A warning is not litigation although they may file an IPSO complaint. Both Harry and William file multiple ones a year for photos taken.

But the bolded words are key--they are not "royals" anymore.

 

[Betsypaige]

I don't think they're bothered about being papped doing things in public spaces. They've never complained about it to my knowledge. I agree Meghan looks like she's working on her/their brand.

Well, she and Harry are threatening legal action, so...

 

[Hallo girl]

There are lots of public figures have what I call ad hoc photographs taken, walking along the street, leaving a restaurant.

Does every person that has their photograph taken asked their permission before it is taken. The Wessex's were at dinner a couple of weeks ago and their photographs were over the paper. Or are Harry and Meghan saying they are now private citizens.
The Middleton family are private citizens and they appear regularly in the newspapers.
What I am asking is does every photograph that gets published require the permission of the subject before it is published.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well, she and Harry are threatening legal action, so...

No they aren't. They apparently warned the media not to use the pictures taken on the dog walk. She was in a public place, and looked very happy to be papped from my point of view.

Anyone notice how Henry landed with barely any luggage? Either he's bought a whole new wardrobe whilst in Canada or he's left a lot of stuff at home.

 

[Betsypaige]

No they aren't. They apparently warned the media not to use the pictures taken on the dog walk. She was in a public place, and looked very happy to be papped from my point of view.

Anyone notice how Henry landed with barely any luggage? Either he's bought a whole new wardrobe whilst in Canada or he's left a lot of stuff at home.

Oops - the headline on the article I saw said they were threatening legal action, but I clicked on it now and the article states only about the warning.

If she’s so happy, and indeed she looked like she was smiling for the cameras, why the warning ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No they aren't. They apparently warned the media not to use the pictures taken on the dog walk. She was in a public place, and looked very happy to be papped from my point of view.

Anyone notice how Henry landed with barely any luggage? Either he's bought a whole new wardrobe whilst in Canada or he's left a lot of stuff at home.

Or he already moved the bulk of his possessions to Canada before the "website launch" 13 days ago.

 

[Zonk]

No they aren't. They apparently warned the media not to use the pictures taken on the dog walk. She was in a public place, and looked very happy to be papped from my point of view.

Anyone notice how Henry landed with barely any luggage? Either he's bought a whole new wardrobe whilst in Canada or he's left a lot of stuff at home.

Or in his new life he is not going to need all those suits and military clothes. Its not like he can't buy new clothes or have stuff shipped over. I wonder when he plans on returning to the UK. Surely he will attend the Trooping of the Colour? But who knows with these two...such a bloody disappointment!

 

[_Heather_]

Or in his new life he is not going to need all those suits and military clothes. Its not like he can't buy new clothes or have stuff shipped over. I wonder when he plans on returning to the UK. Surely he will attend the Trooping of the Colour? But who knows with these two...such a bloody disappointment!

Just my opinion but I very, very much doubt that he will attend Trooping the Colour or any other ceremony or family event in the UK for the foreseeable future.

 

[Zaira]

I believe this is pretty much at the heart of it. You're right that he's been stupid and selfish but not inherently wrong, per se. However, I really believe that, at least for the time being, she won't want to come or will flat out refuse and he won't come without her. The headlines won't be great either way but I think they'd be worse if he came on his own. At least for a time I would expect to see him only at funerals and possibly his father's coronation if that were to come soon (and for the record, I really hope we won't see any funerals or coronations soon) but even the coronation I'm not 100% convinced about.

The Times reported on Sunday that he will be back in Feb for engagements actually. He is still technically a working royal until the Spring.

 

[_Heather_]

The Times reported on Sunday that he will be back in Feb for engagements actually. He is still technically a working royal until the Spring.

Until the spring, yes. And probably only because there were already engagements on the books that couldn't be cancelled or would look terribly bad to cancel or replace him, though I admit that I don't know what those engagements are. After the official cutoff point I don't look for her to ever be back in any capacity that even remotely involves the RF and for the time being, I don't believe he will, either.

 

[Kataryn]

No they aren't. They apparently warned the media not to use the pictures taken on the dog walk. She was in a public place, and looked very happy to be papped from my point of view.

Anyone notice how Henry landed with barely any luggage? Either he's bought a whole new wardrobe whilst in Canada or he's left a lot of stuff at home.

Handbaggage, I think. The rest would have been unloaded and brought to his next flight without being pictured.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Handbaggage, I think. The rest would have been unloaded and brought to his next flight without being pictured.

Except, Henry steps from his flight to Vancouver Island, gets straight in a car and then drives off. No loaded luggage at all.

 

[poppy7]

Except, Henry steps from his flight to Vancouver Island, gets straight in a car and then drives off. No loaded luggage at all.

They dont pick up tbeirboen luaggage. Someone else does or they send it on.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of posts have been deleted/edited including responses as they were off-topic for this thread. Please concentrate on General News here and not start a re-hash of everything being said in the "Stepping back" thread. Further posts better suited to the latter thread will be deleted without notice.

 

[Eskimo]

Except, Henry steps from his flight to Vancouver Island, gets straight in a car and then drives off. No loaded luggage at all.

Maybe there is no luggage because it is a staged shot?

 

[Pranter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219628887098916865

Interesting info about privacy laws in B.C. Assuming this is accurate!


LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219628887098916865

Interesting info about privacy laws in B.C. Assuming this is accurate!


LaRae

HA, somebody in the SR camp did do their research didn't they!

 

[Gawin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219628887098916865

Interesting info about privacy laws in B.C. Assuming this is accurate!


LaRae

Interesting...wonder if that's why they are in British Columbia?


More information: https://bccla.org/privacy-handbook/main-menu/privacy2contents/privacy2-11.html

See:


The judge is required to rule that there was no privacy invasion if:
5. the defendant is a journalistic publication, and the matter is of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest. These journalistic protections do not extend to the way the information was obtained if the information was obtained through a violation of privacy. That is, the journalist’s source may not be protected by the journalistic exception;

I wonder what constitutes "public interest" in British Columbia?

 

[Pranter]

HA, somebody in the SR camp did do their research didn't they!

They certainly did! Smart. I'm guessing they won't be moving to Toronto etc.

I hear B.C. is a beautiful place to live.



LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219628887098916865

Interesting info about privacy laws in B.C. Assuming this is accurate!


LaRae

Interesting ! If I am not mistaken, under the constitution of Canada, "property and civil rights in the province" fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature (Sec. 92 of the Constitution Act, formerly British North America Act, 1867). So that may well be indeed an example of specific B.C. law as opposed to Canadian federal law. Can anyone confirm it ?


It is really interesting how Australia and Canada are federal states (not unlike the US) , but with a parliamentary system of government under the Crown as in the UK (a unitary state).

 

[Pranter]

Interesting...wonder if that's why they are in British Columbia?


More information: https://bccla.org/privacy-handbook/main-menu/privacy2contents/privacy2-11.html

See:


The judge is required to rule that there was no privacy invasion if:
5. the defendant is a journalistic publication, and the matter is of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest. These journalistic protections do not extend to the way the information was obtained if the information was obtained through a violation of privacy. That is, the journalist’s source may not be protected by the journalistic exception;

I wonder what constitutes "public interest" in British Columbia?

Here's more (which may overlap your post):


The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.

Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

 

[Gawin]

Interesting ! If I am not mistaken, under the constitution of Canada, "property and civil rights in the province" fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature (Sec. 92 of the Constitution Act, formerly British North America Act, 1867). So that may well be indeed an example of specific B.C. law as opposed to Canadian federal law. Can anyone confirm it ?


It is really interesting how Australia and Canada are federal states (not unlike the US) , but with a parliamentary system of government under the Crown like in the UK (a unitary state).

I posted a link to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in my previous message.

Here's a link to Privacy Act posted on the official British Columbia Law website:
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96373_01

 

[Pranter]

Interesting ! If I am not mistaken, under the constitution of Canada, "property and civil rights in the province" fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature (Sec. 92 of the Constitution Act, formerly British North America Act, 1867). So that may well be indeed an example of specific B.C. law as opposed to Canadian federal law. Can anyone confirm it ?


It is really interesting how Australia and Canada are federal states (not unlike the US) , but with a parliamentary system of government under the Crown as in the UK (a unitary state).

The guy posting the original links is a, and I quote his comment: "Canadian Lawyer and Commentator on British/Commonwealth/World Monarchies and Royal Families, Crown Law, a ΦΔΘ alum."

 

[Lumutqueen]

The guy posting the original links is a, and I quote his comment: "Canadian Lawyer and Commentator on British/Commonwealth/World Monarchies and Royal Families, Crown Law, a ΦΔΘ alum."

Do you mean the man who tweeted in the link you posted? Because he's a realtor.

 

[Pranter]

Do you mean the man who tweeted in the link you posted? Because he's a realtor.

No ...this guy: https://twitter.com/RoyaltyandLaw

 

[Eskimo]

HA, somebody in the SR camp did do their research didn't they!

There is going to be no lawsuit. The company behind the pictures is heavily used by A list celebrities who want to be papped to generate positive PR. They work hand-in-hand with pretty much all big celebrities for this. Even if we assume Meghan did not set this up, suing them would ensure that her new A-list friends evaporate into the ether

 

[Mbruno]

Here's more (which may overlap your post):


The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.

Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

"Fair comment on a matter of public interest", see Gawin's link, may be on the statute books in B.C., but is actually a standard adapted from English common law. It has been applied many times by English courts in high profile libel cases involving the underlying principle of freedom of the press for instance. I don't know if it has been invoked in the context of violation of privacy though.


An important difference, however, between English (and apparently also B.C.) law and US law is that, in England, the defendant may claim "fair comment on a matter of public interest" as a defense (Canadian/UK spelling defence) , but he has the burden to prove it. In the US, on the contrary, it is the plaintiff who has the burden to prove that the publication acted with malicious intent and blatant disregard for the truth, which is a much stronger standard of protection for press freedom. Again, I am saying this in the context of libel (not privacy) cases.


EDIT: Another interesting point about "fair comment" in English common law is that the comment doesn't need to be factually true to be fair. It suffices for the person making the comment to genuinely believe it to be true at the time the comment was made and to have done his/her best to verify it.

 

[Lumutqueen]

There is going to be no lawsuit.

It's nice to know someone can predict the future.

I never said there was going to be one, however considering this law is British Columbia specific, where they chose to be based, it's very telling that they took paparazzi into consideration into their move.

 

[Gawin]

No ...this guy: https://twitter.com/RoyaltyandLaw

A Canadian lawyer tweeting on Royalty and the Law! I'm definitely going to follow him!

And I can't tell you how refreshing it is see a link that isn't from the Daily Mail!!! Thank you!!!! ?

 

[Pranter]

A Canadian lawyer tweeting on Royalty and the Law! I'm definitely going to follow him!

And I can't tell you how refreshing it is see a link that isn't from the Daily Mail!!! Thank you!!!! ?

I know I was so excited!

I added him to my follow list too! Poor guys going to see big jump in followers I'm betting!



LaRae