Harry is in town to fight against the Daily Mail - VIDEO

[vera99]

I'm sure we will all wish him well fighting the good fight against the Fail !
https://twitter.com/elliecostelloTV/status/1640274470395838465

'God speed Harry and his sword of vengeance'

Vera can you answer something? While I agree that newspapers should not invade people's privacy do you not think its a teensy bit ironic that Harold has done exactly this himself? It's funny that he rightly expects privacy yet he has shared a plethora of private conversations and sensitive private situations without the others consent. Can you not see he is once again being a massive hypocrite?

Agreed. It takes a lot of courage to take on the all powerful tabloid media scum criminals. Even King Charles was afraid to do so.

Good luck to Prince Harry.

The Prince of Hypocrisy hero of the hour has arrived and everything is going to be fine, phew what a relief.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn phone hacking and want the perpetrators to be held responsible and punished for invading peoples privacy, whilst, at the same time, condemning Harry for invading peoples privacy and spilling their personal secrets too.
I don't see much difference, other than Harry did it to people he says he loves. After all, they've all just done it for money and with no care or consideration of any personal consequences.

Well said, @vera99.

That's an awful picture of him. He's got too much hair!!

Harold has done exactly this himself

He has not. He has never hacked peoples phones.

That's not true. King Charles has sued the newspapers. And won.

I was just about to say something along these lines.

The phone hacking is a separate issue. Though I'm puzzled it's taken so long to get to court.

Charles sued Mail on Sunday:

The Prince of Wales has launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday after it published an extract from his private journals in which he called Chinese leaders "appalling old waxworks".
Prince Charles claims the paper breached his copyright and confidentiality when it used last week's state visit by the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, as a pretext to publish a diary entry containing his thoughts on the handover of Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997.
Entitled "The Handover of Hong Kong or the Great Chinese Takeaway", it derided the "awful Soviet-style display" of goose-stepping Chinese soldiers during the handover ceremony.

A statement from Clarence House said the prince had made the decision to take legal action "reluctantly".
"The Prince of Wales's office has been advised by lawyers that the Mail on Sunday has breached both the Prince of Wales's copyright and confidentiality," the statement said.
Sir Michael Peat, the prince's private secretary, said the decision was "a matter of principle".
"Like anybody else, the Prince of Wales is entitled to write a private journal without extracts being published. This journal was copied and passed to the Mail on Sunday without permission.

We have made this clear to the Mail on Sunday on five occasions, both orally and in writing. Nevertheless, the Mail on Sunday proceeded to publish these extracts despite the knowledge that it was a breach of the Prince of Wales's copyright and confidence."
The Mail on Sunday said it was "surprised" by the prince's decision and disputed that the journal was a private document.
"The Mail on Sunday has not at any point accepted that last Sunday's story about the Prince's account of the handover of Hong Kong involved any breach of copyright or confidentiality," a spokesman for the paper said.
"This was not a private journal. It was widely distributed and viewed, as Clarence House confirmed to us, as a historic document intended for eventual publication.

The story raised important questions about Britain's relations with China and the prince's influence on British political thinking. We believe the public has a right to know the considered views of the heir to the throne on the matters of great public interest.
"The reporting of leaked documents is a classic journalistic enterprise. We are very surprised at the action taken by Clarence House which, if pursued, raises serious issues about the freedom of the press."

“If he was doing it for the money he would have taken the payout like lots did.”

Yes. Exactly this @Roussette. This isn’t rocket science and the tabloids are the villains here, not Harry.

Honestly, it’s a struggle keeping up with the twisted pretzel logic required to demonise Harry for his courage in this situation.

Whenever someone writes about their own life and story, especially to defend lies previously written, they will end up talking about other people in their life. You’d have to be against biography’s and any mention of anyone else to have a go at Harry for talking about others in his book or interviews. He’s allowed to talk about how others treat him. Like Charles did when he said his mother wasn’t very present in his life and the school his parents sent him to was so awful.

Quite different to hacking phones and making up lies.

There is a material difference between unconnected outsiders bugging and hacking third party communication which is illegal and a party voluntarily disclosing information about a connected party as Harry has done in Spare. Was it a wise or moral thing to do ? Probably not but once he had left the privileged bosom of the Royal Family well he has to eat and fed his family, so needs must. Have had a quick look through the US media they don't seem to be covering it like we are - maybe his fame has peaked ? I wonder where he is staying ?

Or, try this possibility:

Harry is also principled as are the other plaintiffs with no ulterior motive.

And this sort of hateful regurgitation of tabloid lies is exactly what the tabloids had in mind when they started dehumanising and vilifying Harry (and Meghan, to get at Harry) a few years ago when he refused to look the other way when subjected to their blatant criminality.

@PlanetLuna Yes.

As Peter Hunt (former BBC Correspondent and Royal/Constitution expert for various outlets) says...

"Harry’s presence forces the BBC - and other broadcasters - to give this legal action greater prominence on Day One than they may have planned to."

Good.

Please note... all those who criticised Harry for coming in the front entrance... so has Elton John at lunchtime, along with others.

Anything to force outlets to report on this case and the disgusting tactics of hacking is a good thing.

Anything to force outlets to report on this case and the disgusting tactics of hacking is a good thing.

Exactly.

Not the same at all. Totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Harry chose to reveal information from incidents or conversations that he was directly involved in, in which he had a legitimate interest, and about which he had a legitimate pov. They were his stories to tell in the first place.

That is quite far removed from journalists using illegal means to hack phones and go through the bins of innocent murder victims eg Lady Lawrence, mother of Stephen, and breaches of privacy such as using listening devices, payment of police officials, impersonation of indivuals, accessing of bank accounts and private financial information.

That is why I referred to the Leveson enquiry in previous posts (yeah we know the difference between Murdoch and Rothermere). Rebekah Brooks admitted during the hearing that police officials had been paid off, and yet no legal actions followed! And Leveson II was cancelled by Hancock.

And so here we are again…thanks to the courage of a few brave individuals who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet.

Harry did say that part of the reason for publishing Spare wasn’t just money, He wanted to get everything out there so the tabloids no longer had any hold over him and he got to tell his own story as he saw it.

Yes, they are very brave.

I’m incensed they have been subjected to this criminal intrusion just for tabloid profit. It’s horrible.

He didn't have to attend at all. It's just a hearing. And he could have entered through a private gate and avoided the press, who he's apparently so scared of, and the sound of cameras, which he says traumatise him.

🙄He entered through the main gates because he means business. They have a strong case. He is not hiding away here, that doesn't makes him a hypocrite. His therapy has probably helped him through his trauma, and he looks more confident now, perhaps he is healing/has healed? That doesn't make him a liar for having once said cameras traumatise him.

Rebekah Brooks admitted during the hearing that police officials had been paid off, and yet no legal actions followed! And Leveson II was cancelled by Hancock.

The Metropolitan Police, by any chance?

Funny how little press coverage there was before Harry & the others showed up.

The tabloids want to sweep this under the rug or distract with ridiculous made-up tabloid smears against H&M.

Why hadn’t the Daily Mail put this on their website like all their made up crap?

That’s why Harry, Elton & other plaintiffs showed up.

It's in the MailOnline

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11906335/Prince-Harry-arrives-High-Court-hearing-against-Associated-Newspapers-hacking-claims.html

Yes @Bluespecsandshoes ,
I fully agree with you, @Roussette and @EggyBreads.

This is an important case and good luck to the courageous plaintiffs.

9 minutes ago they must have been sweating what to say and taking no chances with the comments !

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

It's amazing to me that posters can't see the difference between Harry being hacked and bugged, and him talking about his life experience.

I guess you could say the Daily Mail's work is done.