One Law for us, but Definitely Another for Them

 If a newspaper, a social media user or a TV personality intrudes into my private life, exposes me or mine to ridicule or untrue allegations, and if I have somewhat deep pockets; I can sue them through a British Court of law. The ONLY thing which stops many from resorting to the Courts on this type of activity is that which I mentioned: the Cost of such an action.

When the Mail on Sunday printed whole sections of a letter from Meghan Mullarkey to her estranged Dad, Meghan and her pussy-whipped Prince promptly sued. The newspaper accepted the suit, battle lines were drawn, and various legal avenues were extensively and expensively pursued. The America-based Duchess suddenly applied for a long delay, which was granted for ‘personal reasons’. Mullarkey then asks the Judge for ‘summary judgement’; meaning that the whole idea of a trial is short-circuited, based upon the Judge’s reading of evidence produced in private: and that Judgement is granted.

The question must and should be asked; was the summary judgement given because the evidence submitted in private was so overwhelming, or was it delivered because of who Meghan Mullarkey and her ginger man are?

I don’t normally read or even comment upon these people, their ideals and strange ideas about their privacy, even when they have also revealed that their American mansion has ‘only’ 16 bathrooms: but I do feel comment is necessary when it seems that undue favour has been delivered.