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

goldierocks

ooh thanks for sharing! Bet Paul b loved getting mentioned really, prob makes him feel relevant 😂

id also love to know what he knows - prob where all the bodies are buried

I think it's clear the other claimants have more compelling evidence than Harry does.

Just reading about the shelving of Levinson 2, all pretty shameful ☹️

Definitely.

but he doesn’t have much left at the front.

This is what I was trying to say upthread when people kept saying he needed proof/evidence. Strong circumstantial evidence can be enough, as shown here.

According to an article I read in the Spectator this morning the Sun has been paying out on average £100 million per year for the last ten years on hacking claims. According to a source at News UK 85% of this amount has been paid to lawyers.

A lucrative income stream indeed.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/harrys-crusade-the-prince-vs-the-press/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020230608%20%20AL+CID_c514625f0c1e28431a2066a2b81c2127

from the Spectator

What’s more likely is that, in his egotism, Harry has come to regard any kind of publicity, even an appearance in a civil court case into phone-hacking, as a therapeutic exercise – another chance to talk through his demons and air his many grievances. It doesn’t work, of course, because the reason Harry needs so much therapy is because of all the publicity he’s received. He’s hooked in what psychoanalysts call a ‘negative reinforcing loop’.

A very good point from the same article

the complaints of the Duke of Sussex and other celebrities against various newspaper groups aren’t about phone-hacking per se. They’re about making very well-paid lawyers even richer and enabling angry famous people to sue media companies to smithereens to placate their rage while convincing themselves that they are making the world a better place. In fact, the slebs are relitigating the past: there is no allegation of newspapers hacking after 2011

Wow just read it - makes many pertinent points that I feel many of us have voiced and alluded to previously - thanks for sharing!

Don Quixote meets Fear and Loathing in Montecito. - now that made me lol

Don Quixote meets Fear and Loathing in Montecito - funnily enough I also recently made the point that such a prolific illegal drug user, who is normalising illegal drug use amongst the more impressionable should maybe also think about how they are using their platform and be more responsible about it, instead of only being focused on being self righteous and calling out others, from chastising others on their carbon footprints to lecturing people on unconscious bias and racism etc.

whilst I sympathise with the hacking, it’s hard to keep feeling sorry for someone who happily leaks private info when it suits him, and who bullied and demeaned staff repeatedly

Other celebrities behave worse but they avoid the scrutiny because they don’t take the moral high ground. It’s the hypocrisy element that gets a reaction.

I just read the Sky live updates and it's moved onto Nikki Sanderson

"MGN has admitted its journalists instructed private investigators to unlawfully obtain information about Sanderson on four occasions.
Her case relies on 37 news articles from between 2003 to 2009, which the claimants say contain private information obtained through unlawful information gathering.
MGN has admitted one article was the product of unlawful information gathering and makes a "non-admission" on two articles, but denies the rest. "

Is a "non-admission" a "maybe"?

Is a "non-admission" a "maybe"?

Not admitted usually means you can't say categorically either way - sometimes where the knowledge is exclusively others outside the Defendant. Rather than maybe, it's safer to interpret as 'probably not, we can't say for sure, for you to prove'. But yes 'maybe' is one way of looking at it.

So for example, if a Claimant pleads in a personal injury case they have suffered pain, suffering, loss and damage as a result of an accident, very often the pleading in response will be 'not admitted, if there was such damage (Which is not admitted), it was not caused by the Defendant'.
this is because unless you can say categorically there was no damage (for example if the case is the Claimant wasn't even there), whether a Claimant in fact suffered pain or suffering is exclusively within their knowledge so a Defendant can't really deny it because they don't know.

On the other hand, the Defendant certainly won't admit that the Claimant has suffered pain and suffering. If asked, they aren't going to say 'maybe' , they'd say 'we doubt it but you prove it'.

Sorry to come at this from the back end, but is it all about phone hacking ?

I think it is that information was gathered illegally, and then used in a way that caused distress...

It’s unlawful information gathering. So that includes phone hacking but also things like blagging, bugging, trackers on cars and any other illegal method of obtaining information.

The outcome of this will be a win for the group, because I others have actually provided actual evidence...but Harry will prance about how HE won the case... Gauranteed.

Many thanks to all the posters explaining legal points

👏This has been a model thread with posters behaving in an exemplary manner (give or take the odd disruptor trying to break in). A true blueprint for modelling future threads on the royals board. Long may it continue. 😍

Hear hear! Very interesting and thanks to everyone with legal knowledge who have explained various points.

I have appreciated the legal points being explained, as well.

So they fact they’ve admitted one case against NS, how will that work?

I assume they will no longer go over this particular case in cross examination, and it will be down to the judge to award damages on it?

I had an interesting conversation with my DD last night. Explained to her that back in the pre-SM olden days, tabloid journalists used to use underhand tactics to obtain information, and then write it as sensationally as possible, all with a view to maximizing readership, advertising and sales. We ended up agreeing that SM is basically the same thing except the journalists have been cut out as middle men. Now, it's people (celebrities to everyday people) "curating" their stories and presenting them as sensationally or appealingly as possible, with a view to maximizing clicks and increasing their personal revenue. Some of it is blatant sales, some of it is story-telling with a motive. I told her that back in the day, journalists had to have at least a kernel of truth to get their articles past their in-house lawyers. They had to pass legal muster. We agreed that there are no such restrictions for anyone posting on Instagram or tiktok or youtube. Anyone can say anything.

Interesting, should Harry or his wife ever choose to re-join SM.

Thank you @WigsNGowns and the other posters with legal knowledge.

This thread flowed pretty well so was very enjoyable. I hope that this is the future of this sub board.

I wonder if celebrities tipping off the paps was more unusual back then ?

SM and smartphones have totally revolutionised celebrity gossip. We can all be paparazzi and gossip writers if we hang out in the right places.

It amused me that someone mentioned £75 being paid to a tipster who told the paper that Harry was in China White. £75!