Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

Yes he seems to be a bit careless with the truth, I wouldn't want to be relying on him in the witness box. I suppose to be fair about his age he doesn't look 40 something does he, or is that just me being at the age where police officers look like they are still at school?

Yes you’re right, the most important and insightful thing to take away from this so far is Omid Scobies age.

@Iwasafool

Omid has had rather a lot of plastic surgery.

He’s also rather error prone so good luck to schillings getting him witness ready.

@Whaeanui

He has secretly colluded with The Sussex’s and lied about it. That’s the most important fact, and everyone knows it already.

It might explain why his buddy is in California with Meghan. No email trails this time 😜

Interesting! Well, I am all entirely up for hearing all about it from anyone who wants to blunder into a cross examination or anyone who’s really good in one. It’s all for a good cause (other than my own entertainment which I value highly).

Whatever happens, it won’t be boring.

Phone hacking is the most serious accusation by any of the claimants from what I’ve read and that is criminal:

*The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is the main criminal statute that deals with phone hacking. Section 1 of RIPA provides that the unauthorised interception of communications is a criminal offence, and covers the following types of communication:

• Fixed and mobile telephone lines
• Unanswered voicemail messages
• Emails
• Text messages
• Paper messages

Other forms of regulation covering hacking offences include Section 48 of the Wireless Telegraph Act, Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, and Section 55 of the Data Protection Ac*

That’s the most important fact

No it is not. If that’s what you actually think, that is shocking. I think the most important thing is they’ve admitted to unlawful activity and they’ll use that they got it from royal sources including Charles former staff, far more important.

Seems like a mistake to use Scobie in this case

Magnificent use of understatement there, Whaeanui

Actually I'd pay good money to see Scobie being cross examined; it'll just be a pity if it doesn't get that far

I guessed omid scobie was around 40+ years, but with enough plastic surgery to look around 26 (in his own eyes) but he looks so 'worked on' its obvious he is much older.

That’s the spirit Polka, when phone hacking is being discussed and a media outlet has admitted to unlawful info gathering against Harry and others, the absolute focus should be some man’s looks.

Actually I'd pay good money to see Scobie being cross examined; it'll just be a pity if it doesn't get that far.

So would a lot of people I expect😁!

@Puzzledandpissedoff I don’t like to call people names but he seems like a bit of a 🫣😬🤫 but I haven’t read about his involvement in this elsewhere because people seem to be discussing more important updates than him.

Wonder if anyone is ever going to be able to prove Piers Morgan’s direct involvement.
Despite Morgan’s strong denials that he commissioned phone hacking, he made references to the existence of voicemail interception as a tactic in interviews and in his own published diaries. The former Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman told the Leveson inquiry that Morgan had explained the practice to him at a lunch in 2002, with Morgan joking he knew about private conversations Ulrika Jonsson had with the then England football team manager Sven-Göran Eriksson. He also talked in a 2006 Daily Mail article about hearing Paul McCartney leave a voicemail for his then wife, Heather Mills.
From the Guardian article

Just in case anyone is thinking of relying on Whaenui’s google skills, the information she posted above has been out of date since 2016 when the Investigatory Powers Act was passed.

The IPA 2016 sets up an Offence of unlawful interception if a person intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(i)a public telecommunication system,

(ii)a private telecommunication system, or

(iii)a public postal service.

Thanks for the correction, I actually don’t mind actual relevant information but could you try your hardest to be less rude while you do it? Thanks so much.

Just in case anyone is thinking of relying on Whaenui’s google skills, the information she posted above has been out of date since 2016 when the Investigatory Powers Act was passed.

The IPA 2016 sets up an Offence of unlawful interception if a person intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(i)a public telecommunication system,

(ii)a private telecommunication system, or

(iii)a public postal service.

Thanks @Serenster for that informative post👍

@Serenster oh and since we have you as an expert at our disposal, what is the practical difference in the updates? Is phone hacking an offence that can result in a prosecution?

I hadn't thought about plastic surgery but that does make sense.

@StormzyinaTCup I can’t keep up with you, are you engaging with me again or still no talkies?

Well I think his looks are related to his age and it seems he might not have been honest about his age and that is very relevant to his reliability as a witness. Bit convoluted but it makes it a reasonable thing to be discussing if he is going to be a witness.

Not a surprise Stormzy 😂

Out of the days proceedings @Iwasafool is there honestly nothing else you’d like to talk about? That guys a dick, I have no idea of his involvement but seems like a weird focus truly. What did you think of MGN’s defence?

odd little man- he said Archie was having his 6th birthday the other day as well so not the most reliable of sources

You know when you suggested someone should try to be a little less rude did you think that should only apply to them?

@Whaeanui
if you are asking other posters for legal advice you should pay their hourly rate - it’s not a free service you know