Page 13 | Charles too busy to see Harry

runner2023 · 2023-03-28T08:18:08+00:00

Really...? He has had his State visit to France cancelled, so two days freed up. Some families do not learn.

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 15:03

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 14:36

The star witness (a private investigate who went to work for Harry (maybe that was his motive??)), made an initial statement which I think a lot of the evidence for the prosecution rests on, recently made another statement where he said none of that happened. No idea of his motives for either statement or which one is true but if a witness lies or retracts statements then nothing he says can be trusted as the truth. That is why it will probably go to trial to have his evidence tested for truthfullness. It could also mean the whole case is thrown out. ANL strongly deny the allegations and after all this time its a difficult call, but as they say, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Show quote history

Burrows has made a statement about doing illegal stuff for the News of the World and Harry was a target of this so I agree that he's hardly an innocent.

Roussette · 02/04/2023 15:07

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 14:44

@MarshaMelrose It's nothing to do with private or commercial flights. Harry has said holiday makers should take less flights and their flights will be commercial.

Typical harry hypocrisy. He's entitled to fly wherever and whenever he wants (private jets included) but the peasants can't have their once a year foreign holiday. entitled, much

So.. are you saying Harry should never fly? Let's be clear about this.

What about David Attenborough or Charles... should they never fly either? They talk eco stuff a lot. Charles takes zillions of flights, mostly private planes. At least 40 in any given year. Where's your outrage about that? He also takes helicopters all over the place... two 112 mile trips in a helicopter in January to talk about climate change! I'm surprised you haven't posted about that given your 'harry hypocrisy' comment.

Just Harry who should never set foot on a plane again. Okey doke. Got you.

Have you any idea how daft it sounds to criticise Harry who took a commercial flight but not your King?

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 15:12

@Snorlaxing Yes its quite odd. Why would someone confess to phone hacking when its a criminal act? He says someone cut and paste the statement and he had nothing to do with it and didn't sign it. I know if I have submitted any witness evidence to court every page is signed and dated, although it is now electronic.. curiouser and curiouser!

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 15:16

@Roussette Another one trying to gaslight me into thinking I said something I didn't say. I didnt say he couldn't fly. I was responding to a poster about harry saying the peasants shouldn't fly on holiday when he took 4 private jets in 11 days. I dont even think charles does that and william and kate fly Ryanair. Maybe they are the ones harry is referring to?

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 15:21

Oh you love the gaslighting word. You make claims all the time about the royals, ‘ none of them want to talk to him’,l… ‘Harry’s faux concern for Charlotte’- thats assuming you know what he feels too. Harry has never once said ‘the peasants’ and he never once said that anyone should ‘never fly’.

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 15:23

Howsimplywonderful · 02/04/2023 14:58

I am rather intrigued by the whole thing.

I’m not a legal expert (just some law and order and a smattering of Matlock in my youth - it hasn’t aged well) 😀 so would appreciate someone who does explaining it all

Is this evidence the basis of the case so if it’s proved to be fake does the case proceed to trial or is it dismissed ?

Will all applicants proceed to trial or will some then drop out ?

I'm a TV detective too so I'm assuming that this PI is the star witness as he's often discussed in conjunction with the case (happy to be corrected if I've got the wrong end of the stick)

I guess it depends what basis the individual claimants place on the statement. If the falsified statement convinced them to sue then they might withdraw but if there is other evidence that they consider as important then maybe they will stick with it. (Obviously I have no clue if the falsified statement is false or the likelihood that it's false. )

I am guessing that G's statement will be important because someone has lied to the court which is perjury. If it's true that G didn't sign the statement then presumably the judge will look at other prosecution evidence.

FWIW I'm in no doubt that ANL will have done some dodgy shit but like a cheating spouse, they will only admit to what can be proved. If this case collapses, I will not be surprised if another pops up in the future.

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 15:24

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 15:12

@Snorlaxing Yes its quite odd. Why would someone confess to phone hacking when its a criminal act? He says someone cut and paste the statement and he had nothing to do with it and didn't sign it. I know if I have submitted any witness evidence to court every page is signed and dated, although it is now electronic.. curiouser and curiouser!

Did he testify at the Leveson Enquiry and maybe has immunity from prosecution for his testimony (or have I been watching too much US TV where the legal system seems to run on deals)

Roussette · 02/04/2023 15:28

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 15:16

@Roussette Another one trying to gaslight me into thinking I said something I didn't say. I didnt say he couldn't fly. I was responding to a poster about harry saying the peasants shouldn't fly on holiday when he took 4 private jets in 11 days. I dont even think charles does that and william and kate fly Ryanair. Maybe they are the ones harry is referring to?

W&K have taken about 3 or 4 no frills airlines in a great many years. And once they did this, and they had to fly the plane down to them specially, thereby defeating the whole idea of going on a scheduled flight.

you said "He's entitled to fly wherever and whenever he wants (private jets included) but the peasants can't have their once a year foreign holiday. entitled, much" which insinuates he should not be flying at all !

Did you not read my post where it is fact that Charles takes about 40 private flights a year, if not more, and he did two 112 mile helicopter trips to give a talk on climate change just two months ago?
Now that is hypocrisy!

Harry on a commercial flight with other passengers is not.

Why do you keep talking about gaslighting? It is just disagreeing with you, that's all !

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 15:34

@Howsimplywonderful no the entire case isn’t just based on this one witness- his statements were given to bbc in some documentary. The main defence for ANL is the time limit- claimants argue it’s from when they found out- and ANL also says that they should of always suspected them despite the fact they told leveson enquiry they did not have anything to do with hacking bugging etc there’s more to it but that’s their main defence.

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 15:36

Tbh I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone with Charles security issues to take private flights or planes. From a safety only perspective.

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 15:37

Gaslighting is trying to get someone to question their own mind or reality. Pretty sure nobody here thinks any of the posters they’re chatting to gives enough of a fuck about them to actually question their own reality based on our comments. I mean. Really.

themessygarden · 02/04/2023 15:40

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 14:44

@MarshaMelrose It's nothing to do with private or commercial flights. Harry has said holiday makers should take less flights and their flights will be commercial.

Typical harry hypocrisy. He's entitled to fly wherever and whenever he wants (private jets included) but the peasants can't have their once a year foreign holiday. entitled, much

Harry looked like he had been in the sun, considering that he transited through Miami to London, it is possible that he and the family were on vacation in one of the Caribbean islands and he possibly had to interrupt his holidays to attend the court hearing. It may explain why he came via Miami, which would be a strange transit if he was coming directly from LA. Private from islands to Miami and then commercial Miami to London.

Roussette · 02/04/2023 15:49

Isn't it sunny where he lives in California?

BellePeppa · 02/04/2023 15:52

KnickerlessParsons · 31/03/2023 13:11

I honestly find him deeply unpleasant to look at nowadays and it’s all down to his awful behaviour and smugness.

I think that it's largely due to the fact that he never smiles these days. He constantly looks as if he has the weight of the world on his shoulders - I think he thinks he has.

When he does smile though there seems to be an unpleasantness around it, I’m thinking specifically at times when he feels he’s ‘got one over’ on people, eg when he said they didn’t say the RF was racist the press did - he gave this smug smirk I’ve seen him do on a number of occasions. He does of course smile very brightly for the cameras (as clearly seen going to the UK court, despite the trauma it causes him and when his wife’s not with him - I think that’s when he shows his most genuine smiles 😄

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 16:00

I am rather intrigued by the whole thing

Very much so, I feel there is a lot more to come out yet.

wordler · 02/04/2023 16:07

@Roussette

W&K have taken about 3 or 4 no frills airlines in a great many years. And once they did this, and they had to fly the plane down to them specially, thereby defeating the whole idea of going on a scheduled flight.

Actually just in this point it wasn’t W&K’s fault directly that the plane flew down to London to take them back to Scotland - the airline wanted their logo and not their partner airline logo on the plane so that they’d get the free publicity if there were shots in the newspaper.

Indirectly their fault because if they hadn’t booked the plane that wouldn’t have happened.

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 16:12

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 15:34

@Howsimplywonderful no the entire case isn’t just based on this one witness- his statements were given to bbc in some documentary. The main defence for ANL is the time limit- claimants argue it’s from when they found out- and ANL also says that they should of always suspected them despite the fact they told leveson enquiry they did not have anything to do with hacking bugging etc there’s more to it but that’s their main defence.

Is it tabloid exaggeration that he's a star witness?

Totally agree that the defense is super dodgy- especially "if we did it then they should have known" .

Roussette · 02/04/2023 16:17

wordler · 02/04/2023 16:07

@Roussette

W&K have taken about 3 or 4 no frills airlines in a great many years. And once they did this, and they had to fly the plane down to them specially, thereby defeating the whole idea of going on a scheduled flight.

Actually just in this point it wasn’t W&K’s fault directly that the plane flew down to London to take them back to Scotland - the airline wanted their logo and not their partner airline logo on the plane so that they’d get the free publicity if there were shots in the newspaper.

Indirectly their fault because if they hadn’t booked the plane that wouldn’t have happened.

Ahhh yes, I remember now. Thank you.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 16:27

Going on Gavin Burrows Twitter link upthread, is he alluding that there has been some fabrication of evidence in order to bring this case to court? or is he saying something else? I'm finding his tweets a bit tricky to follow tbh.

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 16:33

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 16:27

Going on Gavin Burrows Twitter link upthread, is he alluding that there has been some fabrication of evidence in order to bring this case to court? or is he saying something else? I'm finding his tweets a bit tricky to follow tbh.

Yes. That's how I understand it too.

Last week there were reports that a witness had taken back their statement and sided with ANL. I assume he's taken to twitter to clarify things because people obviously wondered if he'd been paid off.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 16:38

Snorlaxing · 02/04/2023 16:33

Yes. That's how I understand it too.

Last week there were reports that a witness had taken back their statement and sided with ANL. I assume he's taken to twitter to clarify things because people obviously wondered if he'd been paid off.

Show quote history

Thanks @Snorlaxing

Gosh, its going to get very interesting if that proves to be the case, the questions that would need to be asked and answered.

Howsimplywonderful · 02/04/2023 16:48

@Whaeanui

Is time time statue the easiest way to shut down the case

From reading things the best legal route is not always the same as the moral route, which I sometimes struggle with as I think they should be the same.

This isn’t a defence of ANL in though just in case anyone thinks I condone bugging or spying in any way

As a side spy note - I started the the spy drama Slow Horses, absolutely fabulous writing and Gary Oldman and the rest of the cast as brilliant

MarshaMelrose · 02/04/2023 17:29

Roussette · 02/04/2023 14:04

Really? Now you are making me laugh. All you can criticise him for is this?

He's doing really well then! He flew commercial on a scheduled flight but you say he shouldd never get in a plane again... okey doke!

Show quote history

Now, you're being silly. 🙄 I never said he shouldn't get on a plane. But if he's telling other people to reduce their number of flights, surely he'd just attend the court case online if he wasn't needed there in person. Just more hypocrisy.

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 17:34

@Snorlaxing @Howsimplywonderful from what I understand, the man, burrows that’s retracted his ‘statement’, it’s what he said to a bbc journalist on a programme. But it absolutely doesn’t just rest on his involvement, that would be crazy because it would just be his word. They have to have material evidence. I don’t think the firms involved would take on these claimants without real evidence, you can search up Baroness Lawrence’s statement in the filing, she says evidence she has seen and she’s a smart woman who I trust. She feels personally very betrayed because she had thought she had a good relationship with Daily Mail, remember they have prided themselves on that and her statement is quite damning. The time limit is likely the most challenging part, it rests on whether the judge believes each claimant when they say they learnt of it, not when the crime occurred. To me, the ANL barrister seemed to try and push the defence that we knew about hacking longer than 6 years ago and the inquiry was 2011, so they should have checked to see if ANL had done anything then. Which is a weak argument considering Paul Dacre’s statement to the inquiry. I reckon you’ll see some claims dismissed and not allowed to proceed, and some allowed. I can’t see them getting away with it completely… but it has more or less happened before with others- The Sun hasn’t gone to trial yet but has paid off lots of people who couldn’t afford to carry on.

AppleDumplingWithCustard · 02/04/2023 17:50

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 13:13

I don’t think any of the claimants have enjoyed discovering someone was invading their private communications and this case is a long and expensive process.

Oh the irony. How awful having your private communications invaded!