The trials and tribulations of Harry - thread 2

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation of

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4812092-ph-lost-bid-to-challenge-for-right-to-pay-home-office-for-his-security?page=10&reply=126688485

Haha… “The Duke of Sussex … also referred to Paul Burrell as a 'two-face s—-'.” Worth it all for that!! 🤣

tigger posted this on last thread - I think we can all agree with that

Indeed! 🤣

👍🏼

Did he say that in court? It's ok as it true lol

The full context:
In one article, published by The People on 28 December 2003, Harry is reported to have called his mum's former butler as a "two-faced s".
In his statement, Harry confirms this is something he would have said.
"I also would have used the phrase 'two-face s', as is reported, and believe this could have been lifted directly from a voicemail I had left," the duke wrote.
Highlight of the trial so far 🤣

Mind you , but hypocritical of him to slam Burrell when he's done the same thing!

They should make Burrell pay the court costs since he always needs to be involved

Paul Burrell and Harry remind me of that Spider-Man meme

I'm not sure 'rocks' have much cash @tigger2022 🤣

Queen 👸 🤣

.

Sky news saying there will special programme on the trial at 9pm tonight

When are they due back from lunch?

Court resumes at 2

I’ve seen people claim this is all about Milly Dowler 🤯 her phone was hacked after she was murdered and her voice messages read which led her family and the police to believe she was still alive. They also auto-deleted after they were read so could have slowed the investigation down. The hacking led to NOTW shutting down, Leveson and the jailing of 3 journalists.

The idea that even if you accept that is the same as celebrity tattle (including the sordid things HG has done) how exactly does this help Millie’s case in any way? What extra closure will it provide if a celebrity who suspects without evidence they may have been hacked to obtain gossip about polo injuries and birthday parties brings a weak case and wins or loses a few quid in court? If this is really all about the ‘real’ victims, the ordinary people, why not bring much stronger cases on their behalf instead? Instead the “real people” are either not participating at all, or down the chain as victim #98 or 99, behind people who are bringing cases about trips to the pub.

The Guardian just posted this quote from his statement:

"Having seen me grow up from a baby (being born into this ‘contractual relationship’ without any choice) and scrutinised my every move, the tabloids have known the challenges and mental health struggles that I have had to deal with throughout my childhood and adult life and for them to then play on that and use it to their own advantage, I think is, well, criminal."

After reading that I can see why he is giving evidence, the problem I think he has though is that tabloid articles about an individual are not illegal. He still hasn't said anything, as far as I can tell, that constitutes evidence of hacking.

It is all very sad. I hope his evidence doesn't affect others who are also suing.

tigger2022

are people really doing that?! Either they really don’t understand the nuances or they’re just trying to tag their hero’s case onto thing of that nature just to try and make him some like a noble avenger

It might well be 'criminal' in the sense it is used to mean 'immoral', but that doesn't mean it is literally criminal in that it is against criminal law.

MrsLeonFarrell

but he also seems to forget he’s happy to court media attention when he profits directly

Harry doesn't seem to have understood the difference between really horrible and unfair and actually illegal.

Unless his legal team have much more to present?

@MayQueeen even if you take Harry at his word, how exactly would this relatively weak trial about someone completely different provide any more closure than the actual criminal trials of 3 journalists?

I'm sorry, any sympathy for Harry left me when he thoughtlessly violated others privacy without any thought about thier mental health or safety!

That is also true, and it's true for anyone who depends on publicity. I like what someone said up thread about immoral not being the same as criminal, I think I'm Harry's mind they are.

Unless of course he has some evidence he is holding back until after lunch.

I hope Chelsy Davey has given her blessing for her name to be used in court.

Yes, reading that part of his statement raises the question for me if he understands the colloquial way 'criminal' is used and how that is different from a legal definition, and then again how criminal law is different from civil law! The impression I got is that they are all mixed up in his head as 'illegal'.