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

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

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

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-court-case-latest-comedians-ex-wife-up-next-over-ovarian-cancer-doorstep-12881275

Shocking what Fiona Wightman went through. 13 invoices relate to payments made for illegal activities relating to her. Blagging and voicemail deception whilst she was suffering cancer

Shocking what Fiona Wightman went through. 13 invoices relate to payments made for illegal activities relating to her. Blagging and voicemail deception whilst she was suffering cancer

Yes, this really puts the weakness of Harry's case into very sharp relief

The four who are testifying are part of a 'test case' for all the other litigants.

I don't doubt he and the others were all hacked or other illegal activities

The four who are testifying are part of a 'test case' for all the other litigants.

I don't doubt he and the others were all hacked or other illegal activities

Harry is there purely for the headlines, not for the strength of his case, which appears to be pretty much non-existant

I don't think it does at all, and think its a bit low to use this woman's experience to denigrate another of the litigants. Nobody on this thread is in the courtroom or has access to all the documents submitted so we cannot say which of the claimants has a better case or not.

*non-existent

Again, you have no clue that is the case at all. To say any of those claiming enjoys it for the headlines is missing the point of the claims entirely.

Again, you have no clue that is the case at all. To say any of those claiming enjoys it for the headlines is missing the point of the claims entirely.

Have you actually been following the details of the case? You don't seem very well informed about the evidence so far!

I have followed it as much as anyone here. I understand that its early in the trial and that none of us are aware of all the details necessary to pass comment on the strength of each claimants case.

I have followed it as much as anyone here. I understand that its early in the trial and that none of us are aware of all the details necessary to pass comment on the strength of each claimants case.

Oh, I would very much beg to differ! 😉

ok.

It does; both Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman appear to have very strong evidence, in stark contrast to Harry.

Did anyone see HIGNFY last week? I agree with Ian Hislop's opinion that Harry thinks it becomes the truth just because he says it is.

So agree
I have followed it as much as possible and I am with the litigants

To denigrate one of them because you dislike him is insulting them all
It's a group case and they deserve to be heard *all of them"

Is this going to veer into a Harry bashing thread as opposed to discussing the case and what's happening at the moment?

Yes it does

Yup

Sherborne says that various private investigation companies would try to "conceal" what their activities actually involved on invoices to journalists.

For example, he claims some searches labelled as "electoral roll" or "date of birth" were actually credit checks.

He says a search where journalists were trying to find out the name of a cancer patient "shows beneath the surface what kind of activity was going on" at MGN.

Yes very weak

poor witness

Discussing him and his evidence isn’t veering

Yes, this was also said during Harry's case with the reporter from MGN questioned on why so many requests were made at signifiant cost to a PI firm for things easily found for free online- something you'd typically get an intern to find for you.

I think that Sherborne did him a favour by adding his case to stronger ones as Harry’s was very weak.

And a barrister/KC makes all kinds of allegations, but most people look to the evidence to see if it supports his claims

Could you give an example of 'evidence' presented for Nikki and Fiona's cases that was lacking in Harry's? I don't mean their testimony, I mean evidence.

He has given his evidence though? It's been discussed in great detail

We are now onto the third of four witnesses in the case

@Iwantcakeeveryday

They had signed witness statements from friends and work colleagues etc to support their statements.

We are just comparing the relative strengths and weakness of the witnesses so far.