The Duchess of Sussex has accused the Daily Mail of breaching “clear ethical boundaries” by reporting from the bedside of her estranged father, following his claims he had not received his daughter’s messages.
Thomas Markle appealed to Meghan to see him in a Mail on Sunday interview at the weekend, after he underwent serious surgery in the Philippines.
However, a spokesperson for Meghan said she had been attempting to reach her father, and criticised the paper’s behaviour.
“Given that a Daily Mail reporter has remained at her father’s bedside throughout, broadcasting each interaction and breaching clear ethical boundaries, it has been exceedingly difficult for the duchess to contact her father privately, despite her efforts over the past several days,” the spokesperson said.
We know the Amerians get all uptight about journalistic ethics – when they’re not shagging interviewees – but it’s not really ever been a thing in this country….
Are there no depths this vile couple will not stoop to in order to make everything about themselves?
She’s rich enough. Shirley she can just fly to the Philippines and try the old joke.
“I’ve nothing against your right leg, Dad, trouble is, neither have you !”
The Express had a story about this. In typical Express style : “The THREE word message Megan had for her father” My immediate thought was “Gimme a hand, Pop”
That fucking newspaper group has NO ethical boundaries. Back in 1994 because it made my ex-wife sign a contract banning her and my daughter from speaking to any other news organisation for the price of two cattle class tickets to Cambodia, it tried to claim that the restriction applied also to me. Harsh words were exchanged in the British Ambassador’s office in Phnom Penh with a so-called investigative reporter. A couple of other insensitive exchanges during the same incident really cemented my opinion of the organisation.
I’m no fan of journalists, but what’s the ethical breach here? Bloke and daughter have falling out. Bloke wants to talk about it. What am I missing?
Obviously, the lying cunt is lying and she’s made no attempt to contact her old man. True, the Hatemail is the sort of paper which would invest money in having someone at his bedside 24/7 if it was feasible but I don’t think for a moment she’s bothered to contact him.
I also reckon the lawyer who came up with that bullshit is looking at it now thinking: “That sounded much more convincing in my head.”
Ah, Woodward and Bernstein. Remind me: which was the CIA man?
Woodward was US Naval Intelligence.
(Or so it is widely claimed.)
It would be unethical if Thomas did not welcome their presence by his bedside, in which case he could easily ask for them to be removed from the hospital.
If he is happy for them to be there (and there may be some moolah changing hands), what’s unethical? They are visitors of his choice.
She’s realised that her ignoring her father on the basis he doesn’t suit her lifestyle isn’t playing well. But then Meg cuts off everyone soon enough 🙁
In the court case scheduled for next month, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday is being sued by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, the campaigner Doreen Lawrence and the former politician Sir Simon Hughes.
It’s like a celestial map of cunts.
Also I know big baldy Doreen Lawrence looks like Telly Savalas just came out of a coal mine, but it’s Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, OBE to you, swine. She earned those titles because her son was murdered?
Hurley, mind…
Yarp.
Murdered because he was helping his mate sell drugs on someone else’s patch.
Elizabeth Hurley …sigh…
I keep wondering how he pays his urgent medical bills. Not his daughter or son in law. A golden opportunity for the Mail
What is stopping her from flying out to see her father?
And when she gets there, telling the reporter to wait outside?
Also, why is there even a reporter there? WTF gives a shit about her, let alone her father?