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.

Suddenly I’m teetering on the edge of pro hacking for Andrew. Damn. Easily swayed.

Well more like an hour now I suppose.

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. Was that necessary? Did anyone say the absolute focus should be some man's looks? No they didn't they were discussing his age as he seems a bit loose with the truth which is significant when he is going to testify and I said he didn't look in his 40s so someone kindly told me he had plastic surgery.

Your reference to "an expert" comes across as sarky.

Your post to me.

So yes I think you have been snippy with people, I have no idea if you meant it or not.

The ME oligarchs and dodgy arms dealers probably provided him with burner phones to communicate on 🤣

On the first day of the hearing (as was the case today) the claimant makes their opening, which is a summary of their case and their best arguments. Anything said about the defence at this stage is just the clamant’s view of it, not the defendant’s own case.

@Roussette yes I actually do remember Nicki Sanderson and lots of awful stories just not in detail. Poor young woman, can’t have been easy at all. I know it happens but people shouting that stuff in the street. Disgusting.

If this is the first day, and it's going to last 7 weeks, I can't imagine what is going to come up...

Thanks Serenster. I was sure I was quoting an article today earlier, where they quoted their barrister… have there been hearings before this where they first admitted to UGI? Possibly where the quote is from.

Ah, the defence filed documents which is where it’s from.

*In court documents released at the start of a trial in London, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) said it “unreservedly apologises” for instances of unlawful information gathering, which the publisher said “will never be repeated”.

Andrew Green KC, representing MGN, said the publisher will argue news stories that Harry believes came from unlawful activity “came from information disclosed by or on behalf of Royal households or members of the Royal Family*

Nothing useful to add but this thread is fascinating and providing understanding for me about this case where I was lost previously. Thanks all!

“came from information disclosed by or on behalf of Royal households or members of the Royal Family

If this is true it is absolutely terrible. Epic betrayal.

Is this then the point of the trial for him? To force disclosue?

Thanks so much for this - excellent article and much of what we’ve been worried about with the press is there. It’s interesting how many cases are open and the budget set aside for this.

@Whaeanui again, thank you for this thread. And the work you put into it. As a previous poster said, it’s helping to make sense of these cases. Thanks for links etc. And yes, IF Harry’s father’s aides (that is pretty specific) are involved, my opinion is it is pretty awful. Imagine growing up with that.

@4plusthehound this might be Harry’s intent. I follow this with much interest.

@serenster thank you for sharing your knowledge of legal matters. You’re also helping me to make some sense if it all.

To paraphrase Margo Channing - more or less ‘Fasten your seatbelts folks, we’re in for a long and bumpy ride.’

Which is part of what Harry has been saying all along - goodness me

Yes! Goodness me is a very polite way of saying, holy shit!

Well he is saying or accusing them of hacking etc to get the information. So I’m not sure. He did say somewhere that he might trust someone in his life but it’s also about who they trust. So I guess he’s already aware and possibly also wants that to come out.

@Morestrangerthings thanks and you’re welcome.

Interesting in light of his interview with Amol Rajan yesterday where he claimed to not be aware of any illegal activity during his tenure at the Mirror. He then as par for the course went on to attack Harry - choice quote “Harry lecturing you on privacy is like Trump lecturing you on truth” which is fascinating because it presumes that many people are not aware of their long friendship which ended because Piers spoke up a little and Trump didn’t like it. So this speaks to how unprincipled Piers is - to be on the side of someone so obviously lying in people’s faces but it suited him at the time to now try and position himself as being someone who asks the tough questions. Will be good to see how this pans out.

@skullbabe yes it will, he is a horrible little man and so vicious. I don’t know how he can be so unaware what is going on when he’s editor! MGN lawyers have said his diaries are unreliable 😐

I just watched the footage of Morgan at the Leveson enquiry, where he admits to listening to the voicemail of Heather Mills. I then watched him speaking to Charlotte church, and he explains how to easily go into someone’s voicemail. Just because you can access it, doesn’t mean you’re legally allowed. I still can’t get over how he got away with admitting to it but not being punished at all.

And seeing Morgan's doorstep interview yesterday, I thought... true to form. If ever he is challenged he hits out. Yesterday he did. Rather than talk about the trial, he hits out at Harry. A couple of years ago he did, until he literally flounced off, out of a job live on air. That's a man who can't stand criticism.
I hope he is in a cold sweat.

@Roussette yes me too. I do enjoy watching Leveson questioning him. He looked like a schoolboy annoyed he’s been called out and completely insistent he can do what he wants. His ‘I must protect the source’ nonsense didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Gosh, just only caught up with this thread.

Thanks @Whaeanui

Oh thanks for adding it @notanotheroneagain it’s definitely a good watch.

The conversation with Charlotte Church is interesting, because Piers was actually warning her and telling her how to avoid having her phone hacked

Morgan: "You can access, access their voicemail. Just by tapping in a number. Are you really telling me that journalists aren’t going to do that? If they know they can ring up Charlotte Church’s mobile phone, listen to all her messages…"
Church: "My God".
Morgan: "Right, now all you have to do and I know it’s hard because celebrities don’t like doing anything for themselves is actually change your security number."
Church: "Yeah, I’ve changed my security number".
Morgan: "And now you don’t have to worry".

So he clearly knew how the practice worked in 2003. That’s not proof that he engaged in the practice himself, however.

When the phone hacking scandal unfolded and the enquiries started, everyone who was following the investigation and court cases were having discussions about how, in practice, you hack someone’s phone. Because it sounds like something quite complex, but in reality it’s breathtakingly simple - someone just had to come up with the idea in the first place. I had several conversations with people about how it worked, for example, at the time. Luckily they weren’t overheard or filmed, or I might now be being accused of having engaged in it myself!

Wow, just wow.
About all Nikki had to go through !

Don't see how people can be fine with all this.

I remember some plebs lives ruined by these rags.

• They lied about a hairdresser, who ended up losing her business and had a young son at the time. I think it was mistaken identity, but they sustained the hate on her.
• A lady moved to the country side for a new start, and she was portrayed as a fantasist 'husband stealer'.
• They stole important paperwork from a millionaire, which as a result landed him in jail.

Too many to name.

https://bylineinvestigates.com/2021/06/21/%E2%80%A8lord-rothermeres-mail-on-sunday-suffers-another-humiliating-defeat-in-the-libel-courts-just-months-after-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-won-their-pay-outs/