Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
MayQueeen · 08/06/2023 20:13

[was done]…

I thought the square brackets made it obvious it was being paraphrased 🤷‍♀️

Iwantcakeeveryday · 08/06/2023 20:13

if you have a listen to it you get the full interview,
But bear in mind, theybhave already admitted to unlawfulness in one instance with harry and more with other claimants... so actually its fine to say it, unlawfully, because they have actually admitted to it and paid millions in settlements.

Roussette · 08/06/2023 20:13

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 19:25

@Roussette you posted I wish every single person on every thread about this court case would listen to that.

I got the impression that this was because you thought his commentary was more significant than any other. My apologies if I got that wrong.

No need to apologise. For me... he set out quite a bit of procedure I didn't know about. That was useful.
And yes, there has been nothing but negativity about Harry's performance in court, so it was quite refreshing to hear different and having read a lot of the endless Harry ballsed it up stuff, I thought it might be good for some posters to listen to it.

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 20:18

I thought it might be good for some posters to listen to it.

Anyone posting on any thread about this case was what you posted.

But certainly, good to suggest commentators. I found the blackbeltbarrister suggestion posted yesterday (sorry, can't remember who posted it! but thank you to whoever did) very interesting, as they went into detail about what lawyers can and can't do to help witnesses prepare.

That's where I got that witnesses are told that if they can't remember they should just say they can't remember, so I realised that it wasn't particularly significant that JK answered that she couldn't remember very often about work events of 20+ years ago.

Roussette · 08/06/2023 20:20

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 20:07

Newsflash - his opinion is as valid, but no more, than any other. No need for everyone posting to listen to him rather than any other. But if you are interested, do listen.

Newsflash - No one is going to take a blind bit of notice of what I say or suggest, in fact some posters will probably make a point of not listening because I suggested it! 🤣😂

It's not a directive, I am an unimportant random person on a forum lol, do what you want!

tigger2022 · 08/06/2023 20:20

Are we allowed to post about the other litigants here?

(i am trying my darndest to keep out of trouble)

MayQueeen · 08/06/2023 20:21

Tigger2022 it’s an open forum post away 😊

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 20:22

I suppose so - I mean, it's the RF board, but it seems a bit odd to discuss the case (because Harry) and then suddenly stop?

Roussette · 08/06/2023 20:23

Anyone posting on any thread about this case was what you posted.

Yes... and your point is...

I don't understand. If you have a good source too, link it, I'll listen and/or read

SunnyEgg · 08/06/2023 20:25

Tbf I rarely watch things, mn is easy to dip into but not videos

But it’s also true if Harry was a bit woolly or whatever it’s not going to bother me

He probably did fine just not what people expected as he too said he was there to see what the evidence was

Roussette · 08/06/2023 20:25

tigger2022 · 08/06/2023 20:20

Are we allowed to post about the other litigants here?

(i am trying my darndest to keep out of trouble)

I've posted a lot about Nikki Sanderson today. Course you are!

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 21:06

Roussette · 08/06/2023 20:13

No need to apologise. For me... he set out quite a bit of procedure I didn't know about. That was useful.
And yes, there has been nothing but negativity about Harry's performance in court, so it was quite refreshing to hear different and having read a lot of the endless Harry ballsed it up stuff, I thought it might be good for some posters to listen to it.

Show quote history

@Roussette - thank you for that.

He put context on it - and what the outcomes could be.

He is clearly following it in the context of journalisim and what tabloid news does or does not do to that profession.

We need much more of that context - we have enough of the Haz /Grievence coverge.

Wonder why? <strokes long beard, looks at sky, while ponderring>

I

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 21:29

*We need much more of that context - we have enough of the Haz /Grievence coverge.

Wonder why? <strokes long beard, looks at sky, while ponderring>*

I wonder why you feel the need to denigrate posters who disagree with you? And then drag @Roussette into it, when I am sure they have too much respect for differing points of view to refer to them as 'Haz/grievence' coverage.

Come on, let's post positively about our own opinions rather than attacking others for theirs.

polkadotdalmation · 08/06/2023 21:46

MayQueeen · 08/06/2023 20:13

[was done]…

I thought the square brackets made it obvious it was being paraphrased 🤷‍♀️

Stop using big words 🤣

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 21:48

[...] is a convention, but maybe not everyone knows about it? Let's be charitable.

testingtesting · 08/06/2023 22:25

I

4plusthehound · 09/06/2023 01:01

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 21:29

*We need much more of that context - we have enough of the Haz /Grievence coverge.

Wonder why? <strokes long beard, looks at sky, while ponderring>*

I wonder why you feel the need to denigrate posters who disagree with you? And then drag @Roussette into it, when I am sure they have too much respect for differing points of view to refer to them as 'Haz/grievence' coverage.

Come on, let's post positively about our own opinions rather than attacking others for theirs.

I wonder why you feel the need to denigrate posters who disagree with you?

Actually I was refering to the tabloid newspaper coverage, specifically the Daily Mail.

After I listened to the Professor's analysis (in the rousette post) I went to the Daily Mail and a few others to see if he was right and what the what the tone was.

Morestrangerthings · 09/06/2023 02:32

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/prince-harry-exposes-huge-amounts-of-intrusion-by/102454656

Thank you for that link It was a refreshing recounting of how Harry was composed and clear during questioning by KC Greene - who apparently is thought to be a formidable barrister/KC. And what Harry has achieved. And there is now plenty of similar accounts to be read regarding Harry’s composure and responses during his court appearance.

As Mixedrecycling has pointed out academics also have biases etc. And it’s never wise to form an opinion from just one source. However, Professor Barnett is not a single source holding this opinion now, there are many. But even if he was only one source saying this, I’d take his educated opinion any day of the week over that of self interested tabloid media that are going for clicks ( money), and often have a low standard of journalistic/editorial/owner integrity. As we are being reminded of now, and as we saw in the first Levenson partial enquiry.

Prince Harry exposes 'huge amounts of intrusion' by British media

Trusted and independent source of local, national and world news. In-depth analysis, business, sport, weather and more.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/prince-harry-exposes-huge-amounts-of-intrusion-by/102454656

Morestrangerthings · 09/06/2023 02:35

kirinm · 08/06/2023 11:09

It's 'regulated' by a regulator paid for by the newspapers themselves.

A quick google suggests it's never ordered a single fine since it's creation. Broadsheets wouldn't sign up to it because it fell short of the level of regulation the Leveson inquiry recommended.

Show quote history

Very interesting about the broadsheets, kirinm.

DogOutInTheDark · 09/06/2023 07:29

Roussette · 07/06/2023 16:26

How do you know he hasn't spoken to his ex-girlfriend who he remains on very good terms with, and asked her permission to go ahead with referring to her and what happened?

How do you know 'he has thrown her under the bus'? How do you know she isn't cheering him on from the sidelines?

I don't know it, I think one can assume it from his track record.

In the telegraph today (in a piece about this v topic of Chelsy having her privacy invaded again over this current Harry saga ....)

"Did he bother to consult her ....? According to a Davy family friend, he did not."

Even if Harry has consulted Chelsy and she said ok (I doubt it, but let's assume), it still won't be pleasant for this v private lady to have this all dragged up again. You can agree to someone doing something (out of kindness to them) and still hate that it's happening and that they r doing it.

Roussette · 09/06/2023 07:59

DogOutInTheDark · 09/06/2023 07:29

I don't know it, I think one can assume it from his track record.

In the telegraph today (in a piece about this v topic of Chelsy having her privacy invaded again over this current Harry saga ....)

"Did he bother to consult her ....? According to a Davy family friend, he did not."

Even if Harry has consulted Chelsy and she said ok (I doubt it, but let's assume), it still won't be pleasant for this v private lady to have this all dragged up again. You can agree to someone doing something (out of kindness to them) and still hate that it's happening and that they r doing it.

Show quote history

That is just opinion from you. I read the article to which you are referring. Written by Petronella Wyatt who sounds quite deranged in her dislike of Harry. It just drips with venom, much like she has done for very many articles. As for 'according to a Davy family friend' ... I take that with a mountain of salt.

In part of the article she more or less says there's nothing wrong with phone hacking, she was hacked, and would be more worried if she wasn't as it means she isn't very important Shock Making out phone hacking is perfectly OK is pretty awful in my book. Tell that to Millie Dowler's parents.
Her article is vitriolic and unpleasant... that is her modus operandi. Wyatt is a great friend of Camilla, she wouldn't be writing anything different would she?

You don't know that she is hating this happening! She was bugged and tracked too! The fact Harry and Chelsy split up about 12 years ago and she and her husband happily came to Harry's wedding tells me they are on good terms and I imagine they have discussed this court case. Just my opinion of course, like your post is just your opinion.

Howsimplywonderful · 09/06/2023 08:39

Harry had 133 cases to pick from for his selection He could have picked cases that didn’t invade his ex girlfriends privacy.

She has led a life out of the spotlight, surely she has no interest in being dragged back into it

ArcaneWireless · 09/06/2023 08:43

We just don’t know.

I sincerely hope he asked her if it was ok. She has moved on with her life and even if she was hacked too, she may not be up for folk bringing it all up again.

She may be as dismayed as he is with regards to their relationship failing.

I suspect though that she is thanking all the saints it all ended and she is living a happy life.

Roussette · 09/06/2023 08:48

Obviously it is easier for some posters to assume she didn't have a clue about this.
Personally I doubt that
Just opinion from all of us

As for the cases he picked, I imagine he took legal advice on that as to what would be best

Sweetpeasaremadeforbees · 09/06/2023 08:52

Didn't Harry say that the case would be distressing for him and Chelsy? So he's bringing Chelsy into it despite knowing it will upset her.

She has led a life out of the spotlight, surely she has no interest in being dragged back into it

I agree, I think it's more likely that now she is married with a young child she would want to leave the past in the past. As for being at H and M's wedding being proof of anything, well I quite liked the couple at that time but after everything they've said and done, I now can't stand them (Harry more so than Meghan). A hell of a lot has changed in the last 5 years.