Prince Harry’s bid to sue The Sun over phone hacking thrown out by High Court judge

[MamoruHisaishi]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-harry-the-sub-phone-hacking-high-court-judge-b1097090.html

Yes ! Re Charles .

But I was wondering :
Charles and Saville v Andrew and Epstein ?
Which is worse ?

This is what I mean about how the media controls the narrative .
I can’t believe that I once thought they just the reported the news!

Charles mentor and favourite uncle , Mountbatten was named as a pedophile in a court case .
Maybe the case hasn’t been heard yet but let’s see how that is reported

Re Harry - the judge has approved the continuation of the court case and the question will again be - how did the papers get the information?

Yes ,yes we know... Harry is the root of all evils.

Ps Harry is immensely likeable and charismatic

Yeh I’m not seeing it either.

I was wondering:
Charles and Saville v Andrew and Epstein?
Which is worse?

It's not Savile I was thinking of though, Novella - though hideous beyond belief he was never convicted of anything in life and at least (as far as we know) Charles didn't gift him money and provide him with a house

And yes, when the illegal information gathering bit comes up, Harry will indeed have to show that on the balance of probabilities this is how the rags got their stories
Whether he can do that remains to be seen ...

Andrew: Court papers recently suggests he has lied over some very serious issues including his contact with Epstein. He said he visited Epstein to terminate their relationship in 2010 while these papers suggest otherwise. He had Epstein actively trying to get some funding for an oil project. This was after Epstein had served an 18 month prison sentence for child prostitution offences and after he said he had terminated the relationship.

Charles: Friends with paedophile Bishop Peter Ball. 'Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, which was read to the inquiry: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”
Charles later arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house to be rented by Ball and his identical twin, Michael, also a bishop.

Yet It's H&M who are the ones to be hounded.

Re Harry - the judge has approved the continuation of the court case and the question will again be - how did the papers get the information?

I think from other cases the information will be personal data such as his National Insurance number and car licence plates etc, which the papers paid “Private Investigators” to obtain for them. In reality these were mostly ex-cops with corrupt contacts still working in the Police who would give them information from confidential databases, for a fee.

All the “juicy’ stuff that formed the basis of articles came from phone hacking.

Does the fact that some of PH's claim has been ruled out of time impact on his claim's likelihood of being one of the claims selected to proceed in the Autumn?

Also, how much prep/legal costs are incurred (by any claimant) between now and Autumn selection decisions or is all legal activity paused now until that moment?

IMO this is the hardest to prove. Private Investigators (& investigative journalists) gather information in a variety of ways.

Yes, some, likely illegal, but mostly from really digging deep in a way the public couldn't or wouldn't know about - public databases, records, random websites, tax records, land deeds etc etc, that can give snippets of info that they can use to piece together. Majority of it is gathering info via a systemic double checking, a tiny amount via illegal means.

I think it'll be hard to prove the illegal info gathering.

"They illegally found out which flight I took" - No we checked what flights/airlines flew to specific destinations and sent someone to hang about an airport for days. (as an example).

And I find it slightly laughable that H&M "rejected" the RF. They may have left the UK and working as Senior Royals but they insist on being titled and giving their children titles of Prince/cess. That's hardly rejecting Royalty - that's embracing it.

And Andrew is scum. Zero argument about that.

@MrsFinkelstein I think that sums it up nicely. Harry would do better to concentrate on work, not court cases. He hasn't come across well, and the judgement isn't good news for his personal credibility, and his time on the witness stand hasn't helped his cause. He's stuck with I have no proof, but I have belief, and that is good enough. Which it isn't in a court of law.

Free press is vital to a democracy - phone tapping illegal and for good reason, reporting on events, commentary the wealthy don't like - well that's part of free press. Harry would get more sympathy if they weren't always courting press attention.

I remember when I first moved to the UK and Jim Will Fix It was the most popular show going. I could never understand the appeal of Jimmy Saville - he seemed repulsive to me. But my ex MIL/FIL adored him, as did a lot of the British Public. He was popular for a long time, even though it seems it was clear what was going on behind closed doors to many people in the industry. That's where a free press is vital - how was he not exposed before? How did it happen and how to we stop it. Those questions are still relevant today as the powerful (be it talent, money or birth) still get to abuse power.

All of this .

Plus where are we with bags of cash Charlie.
Wasn't it confirmed that the law was broken ?

Whats happening ?
Harry helps there too .
How do people fall for this

unbelieveable22 · Yesterday 17:52
Charles: Friends with paedophile Bishop Peter Ball. 'Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, which was read to the inquiry: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

Does this not indicate that Charles believed Ball was not guilty? Rather naive of him - even stupid. But he's not saying, "Yes, you might be a scumbag, but I'll stand by you".

As for Saville - virtually everyone (except his victims) thought he was wonderful - he even had a fancy funeral and an ostentatious grave stone, which was later removed. Have to say he always gave me the shudders, but I knew no wrong of him then.

Here you go, @Novella4 - the Charity Commisssion have declared that they have no plans to take further action

Try to be surprised ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62011791

Plus where are we with bags of cash Charlie.
Wasn't it confirmed that the law was broken?

No, quite the reverse in fact. As mentioned above, it was signed off by the Charity commission but also and the charity’s (independent) auditors as legitimate.

Even the Guardian included in their reporting the qualifier that there was no suggestion that the payments were illegal.

May not be illegal but absolutely awful optics and looks dodgy even if it wasn't.
The Charity have promised they won't go for bags of readies again though

I really don’t see the big deal. Money went to charity.

£3million in carrier bags from Sheikh Al Thani, an ex PM of Qatari, who has bought up a lot of London, and is a beneficiary of arms deals, is named in the Panama and Pandora papers... nothing to see here...

I wonder why Charles didn't list the meeting in the CC? Because he didn't. Bit of an oversight there I would've said.

It's a nothing burger given that it was cleared!

"Optics" is a weak argument coming from the outside. "Optics" is an argument for the PR people to avoid having to explain things. Not a stick to use after you already know it's been cleared.

Oh sorry - I have got my ‘royal’ corruption scandals mixed up !
Hard to keep up to with the ‘royal’ scandals isn’t it ?

Bags of cash was one thing
Am I thinking of the cash for honours corruption scandal?
Is that the one where there will be a case to answer ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/23/two-men-questioned-cash-for-honours-inquiry-linked-king-charles-charity-princes-foundation

Crown (lol- let’s see if they do prosecute the crown, Magna Carta anyone?) Prosecution Service - have we had any news on this ?

The last I heard was that a file on Cash for Honours had been passed to the CPS and that they're "still considering it" Novella

I do hope you're not expecting them to do anything that would be inconvenient for Charles, and anyway didn't he blame Fawcett and claim to have known nothing about it?

Remember that the monarch can't commit a crime. If the monarch is the one undertaking it, it is not a crime. Either way, nothing will come of it.

Does it count if they weren’t the monarch at the time?

Does it count if they weren’t the monarch at the time?

No.

Reminds me of the line in The Madness of King George (I think) when the Lord Chancellor rips out George & Maria fitzherbert’s marriage certificate & is told by the vicar that it’s against the law. LC retorts ‘I am the law’ or similar.

Gist anyway.