Extensive Phone Hacking by MGN

[Roussette]

So... Harry has won his case.

As lawyers are saying now... this is massive. 15 out of 33 accusations of hacking by Harry were upheld as a result of phone hacking and other illegal practices.
Hacking and blagging were even taking place during the Leveson enquiry.

He has won damages of £140,000 plus. And before this thread descends into Harry hate, please think of all the other claimants who have also had their claims upheld and damages awarded to them. They went through hell, medical records hacked and reported on, trackers on cars, phones hacked...

It's not about the money, it's about 'accountability of power'.

can you provide a source? That doesn't;t make sense. Did you read the judgement? It says clearly:

There are 148 published articles on which the Duke of Sussex relies.... In order to make the trial manageable within the 7 weeks allotted for it, a selection of 33 of Prince Harry's articles was agreed by the parties as a representative sample

She knows this. She has a whole thread dedicated to the claims. Usual muddying the water strategy which is so sad, seethrough and pitiful.

There are 148 published articles on which the Duke of Sussex relies.... In order to make the trial manageable within the 7 weeks allotted for it, a selection of 33 of Prince Harry's articles was agreed by the parties as a representative sample

I think this needs to be pinned on the top of every post

Which cases?

Do you mean some of the 33 test articles were rejected because they occurred out of the country?

None of the 33 articles were 'rejected out of hand'.
The judge listened, reviewed and examined all 33 articles.

The judge found that 15 articles, UIG had been conducted. And 18 articles were not as a result of UIG.

They will now look at Harry's other 115 articles.
There are also around 100 other people (claimants) who are suing Mirror Group and all their articles will now be looked at too.

To do this, they apply the judges findings from the test articles and apply the judges decision to each case.

The Democrats did uncover some of it before the election. And the Republicans even more – rightly so, as it was their candidate.

But the cost to democracy of the Republicans choosing to run a human being as broken and craven as Trump has been a dramatic drop in the level of integrity and honesty demanded of politicians in the US; and in trust in politics. I mean, we can joke about them being low already, but this was a significant fall even from there.

The Republican party backed him even after he was caught bragging about sexual assault; they backed a man who, whenever he is taxed with wrongdoing (even well-evidenced financial wrongdoing), consistently plays the martyr and shouts that any and all attempts to hold him to account are mere empty politicking. And more importantly, parts of the Republican party continue to back him while he does this – giving his story credibility in punters' minds.

An entirely natural consequence of this behaviour, is that the Democratic party saying about any Republican candidate "This person's a liar and here's the proof," no longer has any impact whatsoever.

People who like the feelz they get from the candidate, now have cover to pretend to themselves that it's all just an empty political attack à la Trump.

The fact that it was Republicans themselves who removed Santos is about the only good thing about this story. It showed there were some depths some were not prepared to plumb.

The actual result is more nuanced than some want to admit.

The Mirror is not just a celebrity gossip column. If they went bust we’d lose far more than just that. Like most tabloids, entertainment is revenue-generating content that means they can do the other things too. MGN has a readership that wouldn’t switch to MN-approved media (basically The Guardian and The Independent) if it vanished.

The vast majority of stories published by MGN now and historically have been lawfully sourced. The people working at MGN now are majority not the same people responsible for this. Unless criminal proceedings are launched, those responsible will probably go unpunished and leave innocent people to take the punishment for them.

All that said, I don’t actually think MGN will go bust. From Harry’s perspective I think he got what he wanted: his day in court, an admission, a payout which signifies a win and that he was a victim, and an answer as to the extent of the hacking.

As for all the claimants overall, this is not as resounding as they probably hoped for. Bearing in mind MGN already admitted hacking they had 2 defences - 1) that claimants were out of time and 2) if the judge rules they aren’t out of time to minimise damages by proving as many stories as possible were legally sourced. Half of the first 4 claimants were dismissed, and even the most successful claimant who was probably Harry demonstrated only that he was a victim of “moderate” hacking and therefore got a moderate payout. It’s not a win for MGN by any means but certainly not their worst case scenario. H will probably end up spending more than he is awarded. Harry has money to burn on justice but many of the claimants won’t. Some might decide that based on the odds, they can’t afford to proceed.

So to summarise I think the loss of MGN would be terrible even in spite of what they used to get up to - but I think based on this they will live to fight another day. It’s not a NOTW situation.

Paragraph 862 of the judgement states the judge cannot rule on incidents that took place abroad or out of the courts jurisdiction. I think it relates to the Chelsy Davy dumping him story? A South African investigator submitted an invoice. Maybe not dismissed out of hand, but it wouldn't have taken long to rule out of jurisdiction?

@whattheactualfrog So to summarise I think the loss of MGN would be terrible even in spite of what they used to get up to - but I think based on this they will live to fight another day. It’s not a NOTW situation.

It would not be a loss whatsover. I went to the blasted page for research purposes and the main headline is

Lotto lout Michael Carroll's sister died after cocaine binge on day of cousin's funeral

No one, MN or not needs to be reading this sort of vile trash. I pray they go down. No one with half a brain cell will miss this sort of nonsense.

I don't think anybody has the right to dictate what people can and can't read. If it's not to you taste then don't read it. It's a very slippery slope when you start to ban populist newspapers or gag social media platforms.

It's also a fine line these industries need to tread. Invading other people's privacy and spreading lies and gossip is equally unacceptable. I think I'd rather put up with the Covid jab implant nonsense, than have stories such as a billionaire sexually harassing young men censored.

That's not what paragraph 862 states, at all.

The judge makes it clear that if a journalist/editor, based in England/ Wales, instructs and pays a private investigator, who is based abroad, and the journalist/editor knew the PI will obtain the information unlawfully under English law, then the judge will find UIG happened.

What the judge explains he is unable to do is judge if the PI commited illegal activity under that particular country's laws.

It has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

862. One issue that arises on numerous occasions is the right approach where the PI
(usually a freelance or ‘stringer’) is operating abroad. I am in no position to judge
whether what was done abroad was illegal under local law, and the question of
how English private international law applies in relation to activities conducted
abroad was not addressed at all by the claimants. I will therefore only find that
the payment record is evidence of UIG if it is clear that the work must have been
instructed by the journalist or editor (from England or Wales) knowing that what
was requested was unlawful under English law as a misuse of the Duke’s private
information

Agree, it’s a case of two things can be true. Breaking the law is bad and censorship is bad.

Exactly.

It's not about 'being to somebody's taste' and 'don't read it then'. I'm sure Nikki Sanderson didn't want to be called a whore and a slag in the street because of a Mirror story. I'm sure Ms Wightman didn't want her cancer diagnosis spread everywhere after a MNG blagger rang her consultant.

Spreading lies, misinformation, gossip and trashy made up stories as clickbait is in no one's interests.

Surely your last point is offset by the fact we have defamation laws? Isn't that what Harry has partly won his case in? A free press is the cornerstone of democracy, even though it's clearly not perfect.

On, not in... no edit facility on the app.

😂😂😂

Yeah what they did was already illegal which is why they could try to bring action. The scope of the case was about legality not tastefulness.

If there was a publication which operated completely lawfully but was entirely celebrity gossip, you weren’t into that sort of thing, you found it tasteless and didn’t understand why people kept buying it, you couldn’t and shouldn’t be able to get it shut down on the basis of any or all of those things.

862 One issue that arises on numerous occasions is the right approach where the PI (usually a freelance or 'stringer') is operating abroad. I am in no position to judge whether what was done abroad was illegal under local law, and the question of how English private international law applies in relation to activities conducted abroad was not addressed at all by the claimants. I will therefore only find that the payment record is evidence of UIG if it is clear that the work must have been instructed by the journalist or editor (from England or Wales) knowing that what was requested was unlawful under English law *as a misuse of the Duke's private information.

This is quite far from the original claim made earlier here.

Just a reminder this thread isn't about upholding free speech. Its about acts of unlawfulness.

@whattheactualfrog this was a test case, all the other claimants and rest of Harry's claims will now be addressed. The judge actually ruled that MGN engaged in extensive phone hacking at all 3 publications, beyond the timeframe previously believed and that senior executives and editors knew about it. This is quite significant to the other claimants not yet heard.

If you are referring to my comment of I pray they go down. Let me clarify that nowhere did I suggest they should be shut down. My prayer was based on the hope that dwindling readership, their gutter style and often inaccurate reporting, the hate speech aka vile comments their 1 brain celled readers leave on the pages and a slew of lawsuits would put them out of business.

This defence of free press and free speech is very interesting.

This is who you are defending?

• Libel, contempt of court, errors and criticism[edit]In the 1959 Liberace v Daily Mirror case, Liberace sued the Mirror for libel. William Connor had written a pseudonymous column hinting that the American entertainer was a homosexual; at the time, homosexual acts were illegal in Britain. The jury found in Liberace's favour and he received £8,000 in damages (estimated at £500,000 in 2009).[62] After Liberace's death, the paper editorially asked, "Can we have our money back, please?"[63]
• In 1991, shortly after the death of Queen's lead singer Freddie Mercury, the Daily Mirror ran a column by Joe Haines which contained extensive insults towards Mercury, HIV/AIDS victims, and homosexuals.[64][65] The article prompted an open letter in condemnation from folk singer Lal Waterson, later recorded as a song by her sister Norma.[66]
• In December 1992, Scottish politician George Galloway won libel damages from the Daily Mirror and its Scottish sister the Daily Record, who had falsely accused him of making malicious allegations about their foreign editor Nicholas Davies. Galloway had used parliamentary privilege to call for an independent investigation into allegations about Davies made in the book The Samson Option.[67]
• In May 2004, the Daily Mirror published what it claimed were photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at an unspecified location in Iraq. The decision to publish the photos, subsequently shown to be hoaxes, led to Piers Morgan's sacking as editor of the paper on 14 May 2004. The Daily Mirror then stated that it was the subject of a "calculated and malicious hoax".[68] The newspaper issued a statement apologising for the printing of the pictures. The paper's deputy editor, Des Kelly, took over as acting editor during the crisis. The tabloid's rival, The Sun, offered a £50,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of those accused of faking the Mirror photographs.
• In June 2004, American model Caprice Bourret won a libel case against the Daily Mirror for an article in April that year which falsely claimed that her acting career had failed.[69]
• In November 2007, the Daily Mirror paid damages to Sir Andrew Green after having likened him and his group MigrationWatch UK to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party in September of that year. The newspaper admitted that such allegations were "untrue".[70]
• In February 2008 both the Daily and the Sunday Mirror implied that TV presenter Kate Garraway was having an affair. She sued for libel, receiving an apology and compensation payment in April 2008.[71]
• On 18 September 2008, David Anderson, a British sports journalist writing for the Mirror, repeated a claim deriving from vandalism on Wikipedia's entry for Cypriot football team AC Omonia, which asserted that their fans were called "The Zany Ones" and liked to wear hats made from discarded shoes. The claim was part of Anderson's match preview ahead of AC Omonia's game with Manchester City, which appeared in the web and print versions of the Mirror, with the nickname also quoted in subsequent editions on 19 September.[72][73][74][75]
• In November 2009, the Mirror paid "substantial" damages for libel to Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo after it admitted that a story about him becoming highly intoxicated in a Hollywood nightclub was untrue.[76]
• On 12 May 2011, the High Court of England and Wales granted the Attorney General permission to bring a case for contempt against The Sun and the Daily Mirror for the way they had reported on the arrest of a person of interest in the Murder of Joanna Yeates.[77][78] On 29 July, the Court ruled that both newspapers had been in contempt of court, fining the Daily Mirror £50,000 and The Sun £18,000.[79]
• In October 2013, a defamation case brought by the Irish airline Ryanair against the Daily Mirror was settled out of court. The Mirror had repeated allegations about the airline's safety from a Channel 4 documentary which were not reflected by its most recent evaluation by the Irish Aviation Authority.[80]
• On 19 July 2011 the Mirror published an article labelling comedian Frankie Boyle a racist. He later sued for defamation and libel, winning £54,650 in damages and a further £4,250 for a claim about his departure from Mock the Week. The Mirror had argued he was "forced to quit" but this was found to be libellous by the court.[81]
• On 20 March 2017 the Mirror painted the traditional Russian pancake celebration Maslenitsa as a Hooligan training ground. One of the centuries-old tradition in this Russian festival is "wall-to-wall" ('stenka na stenku', Ru) which is sparring between men dressed in traditional folk clothes. This tradition was wrongly represented by the Mirror in the pictures and text, labelled as violent acts and living in fear without giving context or any information about this Russian traditional festival at all. The Mirror article was titled "Russia's Ultra yobs infiltrated amid warnings England fans could be KILLED at World Cup.", and received negative receptions from Russian media, also being described as fake news.[82][83] Representatives of the Daily Mirror acknowledged that the original material of the publication about Russian Hooligans was incorrectly illustrated with images of the traditional festival. In the updated version of the article the newspaper continued to insist that the photographed people were hooligans in the pictures, but gave no evidence of their participation in the festival.[84]
• In March 2019, the Daily Mirror faced criticism from social media users, as well as from columnist Owen Jones and journalist Mehdi Hasan, for covering the Christchurch mosque shootings with the headline "Angelic boy who grew into an evil far-right mass killer" in reference to perpetrator Brenton Tarrant. Users criticised it for humanising Tarrant while ignoring the victims, and for the perceived double standard of how attacks conducted by Islamists are portrayed more negatively than those by white supremacists. These criticisms typically contrasted the Daily Mirror's coverage of Tarrant with its coverage of Orlando nightclub shooting perpetrator Omar Mateen three years earlier, who was covered with the headline "ISIS Maniac Kills 50 in Gay Nightclub".[85][86]

I agree with most of your post @TallerSally .

But, I would suggest editing your post to remove the 'r' word.

Your post is strong enough without using this word.

We've got to vigorously protect the freedom of the press to be able to investigate for matters of public interest though.

Well, yes. But when historians are being denied access to Andrew's hidden for 105 years trade envoy antics despite numerous FOI requests it's not looking hopeful for the hacks.

stories such as a billionaire sexually harassing young men censored.

Watching this one with interest.

'And this applies equally to GBNews, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record'

Honestly. It's the media as a whole. Whether you watch Sky telly or gbnews a lot of it is celeb gossip.

Anyway as has been said these are historic claims. No one is hacking phones anymore. However we do not need to have a North Korea style media with massive censorship. If celebs are reported on well it goes with the territory. No one is chasing folk down the street these days or as I've said, hacking phones.

@whattheactualfrog Exactly. I never buy newspapers, though occasionally see stuff online, don't buy Heat, Hello or People magazine as they just don't interest me. Literally can't understand why people waste money on celebrity puff pieces, but my taste is not unilateral. Tbh I'm so overwhelmed with kids, work, home, DH abroad on work, that even watching the news is stressful!

@Cakester It is about upholding free speech when posters here are advocating that the newspapers who committed illegal acts are sued so heavily they shut down. Newsprint has always been a two edged sword. On the one hand campaigning for serious issues and on the other peddling salacious gossip. What actually put me personally off newspapers was the right or the left wing political bias.

If 99.99% of newspapers are filled with salacious, mindless trash, then don't buy them and don't watch those tv channels. Believe me there are far worse things on the internet on social media.

Is coverage of the war in Gaza or Ukraine mindless trash? It covers a huge amount of newsprint of late.