on 25/12/2022, 18:32:55, in reply to "Re: New Zealand Prime Minister put in awkward position by Sussexes' latest Netflix project"
Previous Message
Yes, there is that contractual motive at play, but I would also speculate about the wider fallout going forward - and Jacinda Ardern may only be the beginning of that. Given her role and political prominence, it's not surprising that she is first among those in the original documentary to issue a disclaimer. But by the same token, other personalities present in the original documentary who are/were prominent in their field might well also wish to distanciate themselves from the Two Appropriators - for instance, the feminist activist Gloria Steinem, the climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and the American basketball player Stephen Curry. Each of whom might well ponder whether they would want to be drawn into a potentially litigious situation that this ongoing Netflix series could well generate, either in the UK or U.S. courts. My point being, we may well see any of those parties acting by way of some disclaimer to also ensure they are not dragged into a legal dispute by way of "perceived association" with the Sussex agenda. What think you? Previous Message
The repurposing of someone else's three-year old documentary suggests that the Sussexes are rather desperate to live up to the terms of their Netflix contract. And the NZ Prime Minister's rapid response shows the amateur nature of their attempts to venture into the political realm, where they are very much out of their depth. Previous Message
It is not a matter of her saying anything directly that is critical of either the Commonwealth or the monarchy. It is a matter of her finding herself in a changed situation than what she originally agreed to participate in - meaning, a documentary from the Mandela Foundation and involving profiles of several prominent personalities. A documentary which was subsequently appropriated by one Archewell Foundation (or some such name), operated by H&M, and with their added input into the original documentary. In other words, a completely changed context in which she now rightly wants to distanciate herself from the current producers/personalities in the event that at any point there is any legal dispute in which she might quite possibly be asked for her deposition. She has decided to distanciate herself by way of this public disclaimer, as a proactive measure to protect herself and her career. Who can blame her? Or as we say in English, "If you lie down with dogs, you may get up with fleas". Previous Message
I cannot imagine the PM saying anything bad or negative about the Commonwealth or herself being a leader. Ergo, she has nothing to worry about. Previous Message
More importantly than Charles being Head of the Commonwealth is the fact, as the article notes, that he is the Head of State of New Zealand. The Sussexes have put the Prime Minister in a terrible position.
212