Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

The Prince and the Press: Continuing the Discussion on Prince Harry and the UK Media

972 replies

MrsMaxDeWinter · 06/06/2023 10:12

A few weeks ago, there were three really great long running threads about Prince Harry and his battles against the UK "popular press."

I thought I would do one that looks at Harry's current court action.

For those interested in the kind of balanced view you won't get from the tabloids, all of whom face conflicts of interest, here is the Guardian take, which is the springboard for this discussion.

It is not possible to take any of the tabloids seriously when they report on Harry's legal cases. Former editor Alan Rusbridger, now of Prospect, has observed that all tabloids covering this story are acting unethically as they have not declared their conflicts of interest: Harry is suing all of their media houses.

The only papers with no conflict of interest are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Financial Times.

So I will be following this from the Guardian live page.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

Diana, Meghan and the tabloid press: Harry finally gets his day in court

The Duke of Sussex has made it his life’s work to change the British media landscape. He’ll get his chance this week in the phone hacking case against the Mirror Group

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
mixedrecycling · 07/06/2023 11:22

tigger2022 · 07/06/2023 11:18

I also think… what if he loses? Does everyone say “oh, guess they did nothing wrong then, as you were”? I really doubt a loss would change anyone’s mind either - there are a lot of comments about shining a light which is a pretty vague objective, but why would MGN interpret a win as anything other than a win?

Show quote history

Well, quite. Given how rife hacking seems to have been, it would be odd if his phone hadn't been hacked. Whether it can be proved is another matter - the one being tested in court.

MayQueeen · 07/06/2023 11:23

AlexandriasWindmill · Today 11:14
I do think it's likely he was hacked. It would be odd if he wasn't considering the hacking cases that have already been settled.
But, in general, I think people don't realise how many members of the public do contact the media with stories and how journalists cultivate sources in lots of places so they can get scoops.

I also think he was hacked, there was a culture of it. On the other thread, there were interesting points that once journalists would find a germ of a story maybe through illegal means they would prob then go to back it up by talking to other parties. That way they’d have plausible deniability if called out etc. of course conjecture - but I’m guessing that’s how they’d operate.

im still waiting for the smoking gun. I don’t think the flights were that, other posters went through the process they would follow to obtain info like that. And it was through deduction and talking to people responsible for booking/admin etc.

Roussette · 07/06/2023 11:25

tigger2022 · 07/06/2023 11:20

They haven’t asked though? If they wanted to be removed from the line of succession, removing two unpopular members of the RF would be an easy win for the government. It’s just one privilege too big to lose.

Show quote history

I have no idea how it works. But I imagine that King Charles would have to request it.
And that could easily not be the right thing to do at all.

CathyorClaire · 07/06/2023 11:27

They haven’t asked though? If they wanted to be removed from the line of succession, removing two unpopular members of the RF would be an easy win for the government. It’s just one privilege too big to lose.

Agree.

If a king can abdicate, removal of a couple of potential heirs or state counsellors at their own request should be a breeze.

It's quite telling neither have done so.

MayQueeen · 07/06/2023 11:30

‘It's quite telling neither have done so.’

yes it really is, and just goes to show, none of this is about democratising and dispersing power

mixedrecycling · 07/06/2023 11:30

They could easily chose not to use their titles, or use HRH Prince/ss for their children. So, I don't think cutting ties with the institution is part of the plan at all!

Ineedwinenow · 07/06/2023 11:32

I don’t have an option one way or another on Harry ( I don’t know him or his wife so can’t judge) but going on the basics facts of this case, he’s provided no evidence he was hacked, unless he’s got some evidence for the next few points he definitely doesn’t have a strong case here, hacking does happen and those responsible should face punishment but listening to the Mirror’s barrister on the points that are in court at the moment, hacking didn’t happen in these instances. Harry needs to take his own emotions out of this and bring solid evidence to the stand

I hope the others bringing the paper to justice are more successful in their evidence

PicturesOfDogs · 07/06/2023 11:33

mixedrecycling · 07/06/2023 11:30

They could easily chose not to use their titles, or use HRH Prince/ss for their children. So, I don't think cutting ties with the institution is part of the plan at all!

It’s odd.
By using Prince and princess for his children, he’s essentially rubber stamping a ‘public interest’ on them, which wouldn’t be there if they were plain Master and Miss

Ineedwinenow · 07/06/2023 11:35

That should have said opinion not option! Bloody autocorrect

AlexandriasWindmill · 07/06/2023 11:35

Not to try to police the thread but it's not about titles. It is about the current court case.

mixedrecycling · 07/06/2023 11:41

True! But the impact of privilege in the way the trial is run is linked.

feellikeanalien · 07/06/2023 11:53

I will be interested to see what happens if MGN do lose the case. Obviously there will be financial repercussions but the tabloid press have deep pockets. Will this then lead to criminal prosecutions and closure of, say, the Daily Mirror? Will there be calls for a Leveson 2 type enquiry? Or, will it all eventually just blow over and return to business as usual?

As a previous pp said (can't remember if it was on this thread or the other one) if there is a public appetite for such stories the press will continue to print them.

Although Harry's particular examples may not be proved I can't imagine that not a single instance of hacking will be discovered in the cases of the other claimants. I only hope that something positive comes out of this and there isn't just some knee jerk reaction which simply leads to those in the public eye being more able to cover up dodgy behaviour rather than innocent members of the public having easier recourse to remedies if they are exploited by the tabloid press.

Balancing freedom of the press and the right to privacy is always a tricky thing to do.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 07/06/2023 11:54

AlexandriasWindmill · 07/06/2023 10:57

I don't think it matters that PH uses the media when it suits him (as did his mother). Either he was hacked or he wasn't and regardless of what he did then or does now, hacking isn't justified.
There's a lot of emotional testimony and tbh I don't think it's relevant or particularly helpful but I think PH thinks he may as well take advantage of the platform given by the case and the opportunity to put his views into public record.
It's interesting to me that they have taken the approach they have. As someone who isn't a KC, I'd think it would have been better to focus on articles where there were no previous publications of those facts and no official statements/responses and no external members of the public who could have leaked. It would have limited the number of articles but it may have felt stronger eg the flight details; calling Burrell a two-faced shit on a private voicemail to William (although I do wonder if that counts as hacking Williams' phone and was covered in William's case). But it may be that PH doesn't realise how many 'little people' were involved in organising or booking events/flights, etc.
I think PH's view of public interest is different from the public's view of public interest. Drug use; potential future wife - are public interest when you're 3rd in line. Childhood illnesses - not so imo.

I find your posts really interesting. Do you know where the best place is to read about the other claimants? I feel like I should know their stories too but I know this isn't the board to discuss them, alth0ugh some have been touched on here. There area. lot of claimants so I feel for those whose stories aren't being really heard.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 07/06/2023 11:55

AlexandriasWindmill · 07/06/2023 11:35

Not to try to police the thread but it's not about titles. It is about the current court case.

Thanks but you're going to be doing this for 7 weeks unfortunately as it will always come down to these nonsense meaningless side issues here

AlexandriasWindmill · 07/06/2023 11:57

Grin I often tell my DC not to try to be the playground police. I need to take my own advice Grin

mixedrecycling · 07/06/2023 11:57

feellikeanalien · 07/06/2023 11:53

I will be interested to see what happens if MGN do lose the case. Obviously there will be financial repercussions but the tabloid press have deep pockets. Will this then lead to criminal prosecutions and closure of, say, the Daily Mirror? Will there be calls for a Leveson 2 type enquiry? Or, will it all eventually just blow over and return to business as usual?

As a previous pp said (can't remember if it was on this thread or the other one) if there is a public appetite for such stories the press will continue to print them.

Although Harry's particular examples may not be proved I can't imagine that not a single instance of hacking will be discovered in the cases of the other claimants. I only hope that something positive comes out of this and there isn't just some knee jerk reaction which simply leads to those in the public eye being more able to cover up dodgy behaviour rather than innocent members of the public having easier recourse to remedies if they are exploited by the tabloid press.

Balancing freedom of the press and the right to privacy is always a tricky thing to do.

Good points, but is hacking still going on in the same way? I thought after the NOTW prosecutions it was far less prevalent. Of course, it might just mean the tabloids are better at covering it up...

polkadotdalmation · 07/06/2023 12:04

Just a question. If the other cases in this group are provable why aren't the police involved as these are clearly illegal acts? The fact they are not and no prosecutions have been brought, makes me wonder if the other cases are that strong. I know this is 'balance of probabilities' so the bar is set lower, but out of so many litigants there must have been something concrete?

Iwantcakeeveryday · 07/06/2023 12:05

Dear god, this is former deputy editor of NOTW, what an odious individual, he really seems to be saying that hacking is justified, he has no shame at all despite admitting he was involved in it and actually admits to chasing Diana around the world. No remorse. Doesn't;t care if its illegal. tries to k=justify it, as others have, because Harry took drugs?? wtf has that got to do with it??

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1666333573790461954

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1666333573790461954

polkadotdalmation · 07/06/2023 12:07

If Harry was 3rd in line to the throne and took drugs, I think that is in the public interest. A pot head king or even 2nd in line, is not a good look

KrasiTime · 07/06/2023 12:11

Some very interesting posts thank you
Particularly like yours @AlexandriasWindmill

I think on balance of probability he will win & imo he was hacked, unlikely not to have been in that climate I’d say.

A side issue but I’ve often wondered why Prince Harry is a posterboy for the republicans on MN. He’s still very privileged & wants the royal trimmings so monarchy is obviously still important to him.

tigger2022 · 07/06/2023 12:12

AlexandriasWindmill · 07/06/2023 11:35

Not to try to police the thread but it's not about titles. It is about the current court case.

The relevance to the case is what is in the public interest & how high the bar is for someone who chooses to hold titles, hope that explains it ☺️

Iwantcakeeveryday · 07/06/2023 12:14

what is in the public interest actually this case is about illegal acts. you cannot justify illegal information gathering because someone is 'in the public interest'. If that's the case then you could justify hacking William to find out if he is shagging around on the future queen. You can justify hacking Charles because he has too many pedo friends and we need to know if he's one ofthem.... I mean its not a very reasonable argument if applied equally to all.

tigger2022 · 07/06/2023 12:15

polkadotdalmation · 07/06/2023 12:04

Just a question. If the other cases in this group are provable why aren't the police involved as these are clearly illegal acts? The fact they are not and no prosecutions have been brought, makes me wonder if the other cases are that strong. I know this is 'balance of probabilities' so the bar is set lower, but out of so many litigants there must have been something concrete?

Some criminal law is enforced in civil cases. In the case of eg Milly Dowler that interfered with a murder investigation which is why there were criminal trials

Iwantcakeeveryday · 07/06/2023 12:15

A side issue but I’ve often wondered why Prince Harry is a posterboy for the republicans on MN. Posters having sympathy or empathy for the way someone has been treated and the fact they have no freedom to chose their own life, does not mean someone is a 'poster boy' for republicanism, clearly he is not as he's still stupid enough to believe in the monarchy