Harry and his truth

[TrashyPanda]

Let’s try again folks!

the aftermath of Harry’s court appearance and what happens next

Yes 👍 well done @TrashyPanda!

Thank you both.

much appreciated

yeah, apparently hating tabloids and their disgusting tactics is elitist now. Tell that to the folks in Liverpool!

I don't think Liverpudlians hate tabloids! Lol. Just The Sun. And not because it was a tabloid but because of what it wrote about Hillsborough. It was well read up until that point.

Some people read tabloids -
that doesn’t tell us anything about them, other than that they read tabloids

Ditto for broadsheets

some people watch Sky New/BBC News or read it online.

some people use other methods.

the point is that we do not know from which source (or combination of sources) a poster gets their information from, nor does that necessarily imo,y anything about them.

And just to prove the above - here is a DM link!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12188719/I-earn-1-000-DAY-Prince-Harry-lookalike.html

you don’t need to click on it, cos the photos show below.

it’s hilarious. The chap looks no more like Harry than I do! Well, if I dyed my hair and put on a ginger beard!

I am pretty sure BT dont store call records for long (max 2 years) unless they secretly keep them but don’t admit it to customers. Also I can’t imagine a PI openly admitting to phone hacking as wouldn’t that potentially land them a jail sentence? So some of the evidence posters are expecting to see as proof probably can’t be provided. Hence the testimonies being more circumstantial but maybe the general pattern and volume of incidences get taken into consideration?

they managed for the criminal cases ?

Agood question - a quick Google says 'at least 12 months', but as this has been used in some cases maybe some info is held for longer?

It would be interesting if anyone knows the answer

Good point. Surely in a court of law you have to have more evidence than it happened to them therefore it must have happened to me. Why bother having a judge in that case? Just anyone who has had a story written about them gets automatic compensation based on the theory that if it went to court all the judge needs to know is that it happened to other people.
What happened to having actual evidence?

I think the judge decides whether it is more likelythat the info comes from illegal or legal methods (even if the legal ones are a bit unpleasant like friends selling info)

I get that, but the argument put forward by legal people is that the weight of people saying they were illegally hacked - with maybe some having proof - will give the judge reason to think that all of those stories could have been hacked. No evidence required other than that. That's certainly the claimants hope and belief - as expressed by an advisor to the case who used to work for Hacked Off. Taccording to them, that's why they wanted all the cases to be heard together - to influence the judge.

So then, if the evidence is already in the legal sphere, that the Mirror journalists hacked phones, and the precedent is set that no actual evidence is required to prove it, surely in future everyone who says there was a story printed about them which couldn't have been known in any other way (in their mind) is surely going to be successful too. So if no evidence is actually required why bother to have trials at all?

The English judge in the Sun v Depp case ruled against Depp on two points which subsequently were proved to be untrue. And he ruled against him, not because there was proof, but because it followed a pattern of behaviour. Ironically, of course, the judge used those 2 points to as a reason to find against Depp on other points. So he was using untrue assumptions to make other assumptions.

It just seems very lackadaisical justice to me.

It just seems very lackadaisical justice to me.

Yes I agree. I don't understand how Harry only has to win with one of the situations described to win the entire court case. Surely each situation should be considered separately so he could win some of the individual cases but lose others. Civil justice seems very woolly compared to criminal justice and seems to favour those with very deep pockets.

He was suing that he was hacked. He gave 140 odd instances and the judge told him to present his 33 best. So these were the 33 he thought he could prove best. Lord alone knows what the others were like.

He isn't suing that he was hacked 33 times just that he had experienced being hacked at some time. Therefore, he only has to prove one instance of being hacked because that one incident proves his claim that he had at some time in the past been hacked. Because that's all his claim is.

Sorry if I have missed the point, but can I clarify 2 points:

1. Are they only looking at phone hacking? Or is it any other form of illegally obtaining information?

1. Is it just against the Mirror? Or does it include the Mail/Express etc?

Thank you Grace. Why did the judge ask him to choose 33? Why not choose 5 or 10 because surely if only 1 is required, if it's a strong enough case it should be sufficient?

I don't know why he chose 33. I think the original number was 147. Maybe 33 was as much as he thought he, and his prostate, could sit through. Lol. Or maybe it was the maximum anyone else was bringing. He might have explained it but I never read about it.
Maybe he thought 147 to 5 or 10 might be too big a cut down because, after all, Harry's allowed to bring 147 examples to prove his case.

All forms of illegal activity. Harry brought up that his car was bugged.

Just against the Mirror.

He has cases against the Mail and Sun pending.

https://www.nysun.com/article/tuesday-deadline-looms-in-prince-harrys-visa-case-amid-questions-over-his-admitted-drug-use

wondering if we will hear anything today

Interesting @TrashyPanda ! , do hope so .

wondering if we will hear anything today

Monday's news reports seemed to be touting yesterday as the day the decision would be made. Understandably the headlines became dominated by the terrible events in Nottingham but still not even a minor report on this.

Wonder what the hold-up is?

Latest

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-harry-visa-case-live-b2357471.html

Surely no one thought these records would be made public? There’s no way Harry would not be granted a visa. Strings will be pulled. Money and influence will be brought to bear. Very unfair.

Tells you everything you already knew about who pulls the strings (usual suspects) 🙄

Catspyjamasfit · Yesterday 23:11
Surely no one thought these records would be made public? There’s no way Harry would not be granted a visa. Strings will be pulled. Money and influence will be brought to bear. Very unfair.

Completely agree. If any lowly functionary had dared to apply the rules in respect of his application there would have been immediate input from higher up.

Maybe that’s why he’s reverted to “Prince Harry” and ditched “just call me Harry”?