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.

Yup, absolutely loved that paragraph and it's so true, the more "baggage" you carry in life the more harmful it can be to you, if you don't lighten that load. That's one thing the Californian's are good at: Therapy!

Yes @BelleHathor and I actually can’t stand that whole therapy speak thing but, therapy has really helped me! My anxiety used to keep me housebound and now it’s not much of an issue.

Thank you @BelleHathor for the Twitter link and the link to Moehringer’s piece in the New Yorker. I’m still waiting my turn at the library to read Spare, (I’m nearing the top of the reservations list,finally).

I’m looking forward to reading the real thing and not “Murdoched chunks laced with poison” (Thanks JJ Moehringer, for that phrase). Given how manipulative the media are known to be, I should be surprised there are people who believed any of the ‘translations’ pushed our way by Murdoch and the rest, before and during, Harry’s book release. Just goes to show how many people want to believe what they want to believe, not be challenged to think differently.

Yes, that paragraph confirms characteristics of an enmeshed family system. To be a member you conform and stay silent and are not encouraged to develop. Its a priority to act unified and rally around all the flaws and secrets of the family and keep up appearances. To speak out results in repercussions and you are expendable. Expressing your self your opinions and preferences is what keeps you sane but at a cost. Requires courage. I think Harry is brave.

❤Glad that it helped you, taking care of your mental health is just as important as taking care of your physical health. It's one thing that I am proud of the younger generations for recognizing. I personally enjoyed therapy, after initially being resistant (the language lol!). I recognized that I had work to do.

There's a lot of generational trauma that can be broken by people dealing with their own baggage and not passing it on to their children aka breaking the cycle. Dealing with sexism, racism and all the other isms can be difficult. Especially when there is such an empathy gap in society.

It's like Harry's ghost writer said, so many people who had experienced similar situations, really resonated with Spare.

@Morestrangerthings No problem at all :-), Don't be surprised, by wrapping stories in emotional language it's easy to manipulate people. Look at those headlines at the Express, they're designed to provoke a reaction where all logic goes out of the window.

*There's a lot of generational trauma that can be broken by people dealing with their own baggage and not passing it on to their children aka breaking the cycle. Dealing with sexism, racism and all the other isms can be difficult. Especially when there is such an empathy gap in society.

It's like Harry's ghost writer said, so many people who had experienced similar situations, really resonated with Spare.*

Absolutely agree @BelleHathor so much damage has been done by bottling things up and not dealing with unhealthy families. My parents suffered so much and then so did their relationships with their children, because both had trauma in their childhood and family secrets to keep it impacted them as people and particularly as parents.

This is a long but great read, still getting through it but for anyone that wants more info on former investigators and everyone involved in trying to get the people really responsible to be held accountable, this is a must read! I didn’t know that some of the investigators are so involved with Hugh, Harry & hacked off.

Prince Harry vs the pressFor years, Britain’s most powerful newspapers spied on anyone they thought might lead them to a juicy story. No victim was ever so angry and so fabulously wealthy that they could afford to risk everything in fighting back. Until now
Prospect Mag

What a read. Just shocking.

And why in god's name Harry isn't being applauded from the rooftops for going ahead with this case, and not settling, I do not know.

But instead on here, he is maligned for this act of bravery. Whatever happens with this group of people pushing forward, Harry included, it will be better for all of us

The case starts tomorrow I believe

Yes @Roussette the thing is a lot of people are applauding him, what’s why the press works so very hard at discrediting him. I did not know about the owner of byline investigations and I didn’t know former investigators for the tabloids had given so much info to Hugh, Harry & everyone. That party!!! 1800 cases against the sun was it? Paid off? Never been convicted, just paid people off they committed illegal acts against. That’s not justice. I’m glad for the civil cases but very mad there aren’t criminal ones. Murdoch needs to be held accountable.

Yes, and Leveson 2

The amounts paid out are gobsmacking

Today’s fascinating development is that Prince Harry has filed a witness statement from Omid Scobie, who claims that when he was at the Mirror on work experience in 2002 he overheard Peirs Morgan being told that a story on Kylie was sourced from phone hacking!

I genuinely am a bit astounded by this, because clearly the statement had to be drafted and agreed by Harry’s legal team. Solicitors are officers of the court and their overriding duty is to the rule of law and the administration of justice. This is particularly so when conducting litigation* *

Solicitors are officers of the court and their overriding duty is to the rule of law and the administration of justice. This is particularly so when conducting litigation

As a lawyer, it is improper to serve a witness statement which you know or suspect may not be true. In addition, you are under an obligation to check the truth of facts stated in a witness statement if you are put on enquiry as to their truth. If you previously put forward a witness statement from say, a Mr Omid Scobie, that contained a positive assertion that “any suggestion that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had collaborated on Finding Freedom was false” which you (and the court) later discover to be a lie, you are most definitely put on enquiry as to the truth of any future statement from Mr Scobie.

^^
Given Omid’s new witness statement contains a positive allegation in relation to something he recalls overhearing more than 20 years ago, against someone in relation to whom Omid has a public history of past negative statements, I would have approached the idea of another witness statement from Omid Scobie with extreme caution. Once bitten, twice shy - he’s not someone I’d put my professional standing on the line for! Not Schillings, I see, though. Omid is going to have a fun time in cross-examination, I predict….

(And that is completely apart from the point that Omid was recorded in 2020 telling Andrew Billen of Tatler that he was 33 years old. Which would make him 13 in 2002 when he was doing work experience at the Mirror, according to his own account of his age. Like I said, cross-examination is going to be fun…🤣 )

I feel like this will shape up to be more interesting than planned!

Hope you're going to update us on the goings-on Serenster - appreciate your comments!

Seems like a mistake to use Scobie in this case. Thank goodness he’s not the star witness or what they’ll hang the case on. What a shame Schillings don’t have the access to the kind of legal advice this board has huh!

In other updates from todays court proceedings:

Ex-Coronation Street actress Nikki Sanderson felt like she was “public property” and experienced abuse in the street following “false insinuations” in articles published by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the High Court has been told.

The impact of the stories on Nikki Sanderson was aggravated by their false insinuations that she was promiscuous, causing her great upset and giving rise to her being subjected to mental and physical abuse, having people shout at her in the street calling her a ‘whore’, ‘slag’ or ‘slut’ and even being physically assaulted on numerous occasions,” Mr Sherborne said.

“It gave rise to her feeling in a constant state of paranoia, distrusting everyone around her.”
In its trial defence, the publisher says Ms Sanderson’s claim is brought too late, but “unreservedly apologises” over four payments made to private investigators which it admits are evidence of instructions to unlawfully obtain her private information.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-trial-mirror-hacking-live-updates-court-094516757.html

I didn’t know what the evidence for each case was or if it existed.

Wow and this Guardian article is good

Mirror Group Newspapers also insists many of the articles Harry believes were obtained via phone hacking or other illegal means in reality came through legal methods. This includes information being sold by the prince’s acquaintances, lifted from rival newspapers or briefed to the media by royal courtiers who went behind the young prince’s back.
In one instance, Harry alleges an article published when Morgan was Daily Mirror editor about the then 17-year-old prince catching glandular fever, entitled “Harry’s sick with kissing disease”, must have been obtained through illegal methods.
The Mirror’s lawyers state that the real source of the story was probably Charles’s former press chief Mark Bolland, who had a strong personal relationship with Morgan “involving regular calls, meals and drinking sessions together”. The newspaper group, which has deployed senior staff to reinvestigate the sources of many of the decades-old stories, implies that Harry should blame his father’s aides for intruding upon his privacy rather than journalists.

Guardian

If he was 33 in 2020 he'd have been 15 in 2002 wouldn't he? It is 18 years earlier not 20. Although saying that I suppose it depends when his birthday falls so it could be a year or so out.

So they admit UIG.

*The publisher of the Mirror newspaper has admitted there is “some evidence” of unlawful information gathering (UIG) in relation to a High Court challenge brought by the Duke of Sussex that “warrants compensation”.

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”.

However the publisher denies phone hackingwas used to target the Prince and is challenging claims that unlawful activity was used for 28 of the 33 articles Harry has complained about.*

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

Wow, they’re actually going to argue members of the royal family gave them information?

Actually the plot thickens, wiki and other online sources say he was born in 1981 so in 2020 he'd have been 38/39. Is he a bit of a fibber? So in 2002 he'd have been 20 or 21 depending on birthday.

many questions.

so what is this specific ‘unlawful information gathering’ that isn’t phone hacking? Email hacking? making someone breech an NDA? What are the specifics of what they’ve done?

And if it’s unlawful, can’t they be prosecuted.

And if it’s out of time and they can’t be prosecuted why are they admitting it?

members of the RF could be Eugenie or Freddie Windsor dropping gossip on a night out with old friends who tell their friends.

*so what is this specific ‘unlawful information gathering’ that isn’t phone hacking? Email hacking? making someone breech an NDA? What are the specifics of what they’ve done?

And if it’s unlawful, can’t they be prosecuted.

And if it’s out of time and they can’t be prosecuted why are they admitting it?*

All good questions! Perhaps due to evidence they are willing to admit something, but not the worst thing? I do wonder about prosecution.

Things can be unlawful without being criminal - so you can breach a law, but that doesn’t mean it’s a criminal offence that will mean you can also be prosecuted for it.

I don’t know what is alleged against the Mirror, but I expect it is likely that the “Private Investigators” they hired breached data protection rules, privacy rules, gathered information they shouldn’t have had access too etc. There’s not much a proper PI can legallly access to be honest.

(Iwasafool the point is that Omid was caught out fibbing about his age - he has a history of not being truthful)

@Serenster Oooh, I like a bit of legal drama and PH is not disappointing in that regard 😁!! Looking forward to any updates from you as I too appreciate your input.

I remember someone on a thread said they went to school with him, same year group, when she posted she was 43, so she reckoned he was 43 / 44, that was probably posted about 18 / 24 months ago, so he must be 45 / 46 now, if that is a good benchmark for his real age..