Page 31 | Extensive Phone Hacking by MGN

Roussette · 2023-12-15T11:04:25+00:00

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'.

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 20:54

Janiie · 18/12/2023 20:51

'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.

👏👏👏

Cakester · 18/12/2023 21:05

the fact they are historic and claimants have had to do this via the civil route, is actually part of the problem some people want addressed. They should have been held fully accountable back then and they weren't. This shouldn't be minimised because it was historic, the same papers exist today and many of the same people are still in the industry despite potentially having committed crimes. It's about the fact that powerful people that have got away with extensive illegal activity, are now beginning to be held accountable, if even for now just in the civil court.

Original poster

Roussette · 18/12/2023 21:07

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

Why are you muddying the discussion with that comment? No one, but no one has talked of Gaza and Ukraine or suggested they should not be reported on or called it 'mindless trash'. I actually feel uncomfortable about your post even asking that.

OP posts:

Original poster

Roussette · 18/12/2023 21:08

This shouldn't be minimised because it was historic, the same papers exist today and many of the same people are still in the industry despite potentially having committed crimes.

This 100%

OP posts:

Myfabby · 18/12/2023 21:12

Roussette · 18/12/2023 21:07

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

Why are you muddying the discussion with that comment? No one, but no one has talked of Gaza and Ukraine or suggested they should not be reported on or called it 'mindless trash'. I actually feel uncomfortable about your post even asking that.

Like I've said prior- see through strategy.

and as @TallerSally beautifully put it -Some are desperate to taint this with puerile and taunty derails.

I suggest we don't take the bait.

I suppose the Mirror is the ONLY paper covering Gaza and for that noble act, we should look past all the evil they perpretrate😂

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 21:13

@Roussette I'm replying to the poster saying 99.99% of newsprint is worthless gossip parading as news. So I'm disputing this with current news on two wars. I am allowed to respond to points made. Maybe address posters advocating newspapers being shut down?

Myfabby · 18/12/2023 21:14

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 21:13

@Roussette I'm replying to the poster saying 99.99% of newsprint is worthless gossip parading as news. So I'm disputing this with current news on two wars. I am allowed to respond to points made. Maybe address posters advocating newspapers being shut down?

😂😂😂

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 21:18

Frankly these hysterical posts demanding newspapers fold or print nothing but trash, is childish and puerile. Posters should try to keep the discussion to the point and not make this a personal vendetta by using wild irrational language. It does not lend itself to good discussion.

TallerSally · 18/12/2023 21:18

minou123 · 18/12/2023 20:42

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.

Actually I agree with you!

Unsure what (more PC terms) to replace it with...

... basically folks whose thoughts and behaviours wouldn't make their mommas proud...

minou123 · 18/12/2023 21:20

TallerSally · 18/12/2023 21:18

Actually I agree with you!

Unsure what (more PC terms) to replace it with...

... basically folks whose thoughts and behaviours wouldn't make their mommas proud...

Show quote history

🤣

That's better.

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 21:21

As I've said several times, no one denies Harry has highlighted the wrongdoing that took place over a decade ago and which doesn't take place in its present form any longer, and he deserves praise for that.

Myfabby · 18/12/2023 21:22

rosyglowcondition · 18/12/2023 21:18

Frankly these hysterical posts demanding newspapers fold or print nothing but trash, is childish and puerile. Posters should try to keep the discussion to the point and not make this a personal vendetta by using wild irrational language. It does not lend itself to good discussion.

😂😂😂😂

I'd be ashamed to be defending the mirror. It is disgusting, racist, sexist, misogynistic trash that only suits people with those sort of views or that are thick and deluded.

So if childish and puerile is what I get for speaking against such trash, bring it on

whattheactualfrog · 18/12/2023 21:28

@Cakester see my previous post I don’t necessarily think this was as strong as other claimants were hoping. As you say these were test cases, half of the claimants were dismissed, Harry was the most successful - and with him (as an individual - “extensive” relates to the overall culture at MGN) they only found moderate hacking and over half of the articles were found to have been lawfully sourced. When it comes to considering the articles which were not covered at trial he will be expected to settle along the same assumptions. It’s unlikely he will receive as much as he’s spent and many claimants won’t have the luxury of being able to take such a big financial risk.

minou123 · 18/12/2023 21:49

Cakester · 18/12/2023 21:05

the fact they are historic and claimants have had to do this via the civil route, is actually part of the problem some people want addressed. They should have been held fully accountable back then and they weren't. This shouldn't be minimised because it was historic, the same papers exist today and many of the same people are still in the industry despite potentially having committed crimes. It's about the fact that powerful people that have got away with extensive illegal activity, are now beginning to be held accountable, if even for now just in the civil court.

I agree.

Using the term 'historic' really minimises the nature of these cases and the long term effects it has on the victims.

It's not that historic. It was happening just over 10 years ago.
I mean, it happened in this century and we are only up to year 23.

Plus, can I add this civil case was not just about phone hacking and listening to voicemails.
The judge found instances of the unlawful gathering of flight information, credit card statements and phone bills.

My opinion is; if you think the tabloid gutter press has stopped doing this, I think you are a little naive.
Print newspapers is in the decline and the competition for clicks on websites is fierce.
All of them want to have the latest 'exclusive'.

I don't trust the red tops.and I don't trust they have ceased gathering information illegally.

Myfabby · 18/12/2023 22:00

The minimisation is very irritating and childish. It's sprinkled all through, hollow victory, only won on half the claims, the damages awarded are insignificant etc and somehow the mirror is the beacon of free speech, and award winning investigative journalists. Who knows they may even win a Nobel Prize for all their laudable efforts.

Even Piers the twat tweeted today it's an ongoing issue and the rot is spread deeper than just the rags if he is to be believed

Most amusing to see other media organisations putting on their moral halos when it comes to illegal news-gathering.. especially @SkyNews & @guardian .
They're all a bunch of hackers.

So for all the eye rolling at the dragon slaying comment, this win hopefully is the catalyst for true change and much needed reform. We can only hope..

queentim · 18/12/2023 23:55

Myfabby · 18/12/2023 22:00

The minimisation is very irritating and childish. It's sprinkled all through, hollow victory, only won on half the claims, the damages awarded are insignificant etc and somehow the mirror is the beacon of free speech, and award winning investigative journalists. Who knows they may even win a Nobel Prize for all their laudable efforts.

Even Piers the twat tweeted today it's an ongoing issue and the rot is spread deeper than just the rags if he is to be believed

Most amusing to see other media organisations putting on their moral halos when it comes to illegal news-gathering.. especially @SkyNews & @guardian .
They're all a bunch of hackers.

So for all the eye rolling at the dragon slaying comment, this win hopefully is the catalyst for true change and much needed reform. We can only hope..

👏👏 👏👏

Angrycat2768 · 19/12/2023 07:49

minou123 · 18/12/2023 21:49

I agree.

Using the term 'historic' really minimises the nature of these cases and the long term effects it has on the victims.

It's not that historic. It was happening just over 10 years ago.
I mean, it happened in this century and we are only up to year 23.

Plus, can I add this civil case was not just about phone hacking and listening to voicemails.
The judge found instances of the unlawful gathering of flight information, credit card statements and phone bills.

My opinion is; if you think the tabloid gutter press has stopped doing this, I think you are a little naive.
Print newspapers is in the decline and the competition for clicks on websites is fierce.
All of them want to have the latest 'exclusive'.

I don't trust the red tops.and I don't trust they have ceased gathering information illegally.

Show quote history

I agree. Why can't the have a truly independent press complaints and standards committee? Not a glorified boys club run by the worst culprits and pretendingvto be an independent press complaints commission I mean. Does ofcom prevent the BBC reporting on Gaza? Or do they hold them to account when there are complaints about their coverage. Some of the best investigative journalism has been done by the BBC and Channel 4 for example. Also papers who do a lot of this investigative work are papers like The Guardian and The Times. 99% of the content of tabloids like The Mail, Sun, mirror, etc, is gossipy rubbish, and they may not chase people down the street but they pay people for photos of celebs do they have outsourced their harassment to everyone with a camera phone and so they can do it on the cheap.

Cakester · 19/12/2023 09:02

whattheactualfrog · 18/12/2023 21:28

@Cakester see my previous post I don’t necessarily think this was as strong as other claimants were hoping. As you say these were test cases, half of the claimants were dismissed, Harry was the most successful - and with him (as an individual - “extensive” relates to the overall culture at MGN) they only found moderate hacking and over half of the articles were found to have been lawfully sourced. When it comes to considering the articles which were not covered at trial he will be expected to settle along the same assumptions. It’s unlikely he will receive as much as he’s spent and many claimants won’t have the luxury of being able to take such a big financial risk.

Yes, it is a great shame that the authorities haven't dealt with this and the Tories shelved Leveson 2, where this should have all been addressed, as now only the really wealthy have been able to pursue things to trial. However, MGN weren't offering these 100 claimants settlements, so now, based on this small group, they can enter negotiations with MGN. Also remember that the two dismissed, were out of time. It wasn't that they found no evidence of UIG. I think trying to minimise it because of the use of the term 'moderate' hacking is a bit of a tabloid trick tbh, MGN denied it and said there was zero evidence of any hacking. Thats clearly been proven completely false. Harry wasn't doing it for the money, all claimants knew the likely damages to be awarded based on Gulati from 2015, but costs are given to the winning side. How much is yet to be determined.

Cakester · 19/12/2023 09:06

*Plus, can I add this civil case was not just about phone hacking and listening to voicemails.
The judge found instances of the unlawful gathering of flight information, credit card statements and phone bills. *

Thanks for this @minou123 I was actually really shocked they got Harry's flight details at age 20. Are they getting William's too? or Charles'? I am surprised royalists aren't up in arms about it, its a massive security concern. If a pap or PI can get it, who else can? If they are still doing this kind of thing, as you say it wasn't just hacking on trial here, why isn't there more concern they got the 3rd in line to the throne, at the time, flight details? Thats serious to me.

Reugny · 19/12/2023 09:15

@Cakester yes - as other more reputable media outlets get them. They tend not to be interested.

Also the more reputable outlets have people coming to them with stories. So if for example the Met police hounds you or you have stuff on a certain corrupt politician then people know to go to a media outlet.

rosyglowcondition · 19/12/2023 09:46

I think no one is minimising the affect this all had on Harry, it must have been devastating to him. However William and Kate were hacked hundreds of times as opposed to Harry's 'modest' (according to the judge) number of times. Barroness Lawrence and Millie dowlers phone hacking I think were more devastating as they involved their dead children. So Harry's win must be seen in the context of greater wrongdoing.

You also have to look at this through the lens of 'public interest'. Whereas public interest stories should not be gained by illegal means, it is in the public interest to know that the 3rd in line to the British throne, a representative of our country to the world and someone enjoying great wealth and privilege at our expense, is using cocaine and behaving inappropriately with young women, as well as exhibiting racist behaviour. I'm not sure how republicans who support Harry and his stance against the RF can square the circle of this significant bad behaviour in his early years simply because of his recent anti monarchy behaviour, which many people also regard as appalling.

@Cakester Costs are not always awarded against the loser. If a Part 36 offer was made by the defendant and refused by the claimant, the rules state that costs are paid by the claimant if the award was less than the offer. The defendant offered £200K. this is speculative ..as we don't know if the Offer was made and the rules are come complex than I've outlined here. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Sorry can't reply further today as I'm busy all day, but I just thought a little common sense needed to be injected into the conversation.

lepapillon · 19/12/2023 09:52

rosyglowcondition · 19/12/2023 09:46

I think no one is minimising the affect this all had on Harry, it must have been devastating to him. However William and Kate were hacked hundreds of times as opposed to Harry's 'modest' (according to the judge) number of times. Barroness Lawrence and Millie dowlers phone hacking I think were more devastating as they involved their dead children. So Harry's win must be seen in the context of greater wrongdoing.

You also have to look at this through the lens of 'public interest'. Whereas public interest stories should not be gained by illegal means, it is in the public interest to know that the 3rd in line to the British throne, a representative of our country to the world and someone enjoying great wealth and privilege at our expense, is using cocaine and behaving inappropriately with young women, as well as exhibiting racist behaviour. I'm not sure how republicans who support Harry and his stance against the RF can square the circle of this significant bad behaviour in his early years simply because of his recent anti monarchy behaviour, which many people also regard as appalling.

@Cakester Costs are not always awarded against the loser. If a Part 36 offer was made by the defendant and refused by the claimant, the rules state that costs are paid by the claimant if the award was less than the offer. The defendant offered £200K. this is speculative ..as we don't know if the Offer was made and the rules are come complex than I've outlined here. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Sorry can't reply further today as I'm busy all day, but I just thought a little common sense needed to be injected into the conversation.

Yes these are very good points

whattheactualfrog · 19/12/2023 09:54

rosyglowcondition · 19/12/2023 09:46

I think no one is minimising the affect this all had on Harry, it must have been devastating to him. However William and Kate were hacked hundreds of times as opposed to Harry's 'modest' (according to the judge) number of times. Barroness Lawrence and Millie dowlers phone hacking I think were more devastating as they involved their dead children. So Harry's win must be seen in the context of greater wrongdoing.

You also have to look at this through the lens of 'public interest'. Whereas public interest stories should not be gained by illegal means, it is in the public interest to know that the 3rd in line to the British throne, a representative of our country to the world and someone enjoying great wealth and privilege at our expense, is using cocaine and behaving inappropriately with young women, as well as exhibiting racist behaviour. I'm not sure how republicans who support Harry and his stance against the RF can square the circle of this significant bad behaviour in his early years simply because of his recent anti monarchy behaviour, which many people also regard as appalling.

@Cakester Costs are not always awarded against the loser. If a Part 36 offer was made by the defendant and refused by the claimant, the rules state that costs are paid by the claimant if the award was less than the offer. The defendant offered £200K. this is speculative ..as we don't know if the Offer was made and the rules are come complex than I've outlined here. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Sorry can't reply further today as I'm busy all day, but I just thought a little common sense needed to be injected into the conversation.

Exactly, assuming true I think Harry still got what he wanted - his day in court, an admission, a modest sum that indicates a win, and a ruling on the extent that his phone was hacked. I think more likely than not he will have spent more than he gets in damages.

The question is whether the other claimants are in the same position and whether they have the money to risk.

Myfabby · 19/12/2023 10:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Cakester · 19/12/2023 10:10

rosyglowcondition · 19/12/2023 09:46

I think no one is minimising the affect this all had on Harry, it must have been devastating to him. However William and Kate were hacked hundreds of times as opposed to Harry's 'modest' (according to the judge) number of times. Barroness Lawrence and Millie dowlers phone hacking I think were more devastating as they involved their dead children. So Harry's win must be seen in the context of greater wrongdoing.

You also have to look at this through the lens of 'public interest'. Whereas public interest stories should not be gained by illegal means, it is in the public interest to know that the 3rd in line to the British throne, a representative of our country to the world and someone enjoying great wealth and privilege at our expense, is using cocaine and behaving inappropriately with young women, as well as exhibiting racist behaviour. I'm not sure how republicans who support Harry and his stance against the RF can square the circle of this significant bad behaviour in his early years simply because of his recent anti monarchy behaviour, which many people also regard as appalling.

@Cakester Costs are not always awarded against the loser. If a Part 36 offer was made by the defendant and refused by the claimant, the rules state that costs are paid by the claimant if the award was less than the offer. The defendant offered £200K. this is speculative ..as we don't know if the Offer was made and the rules are come complex than I've outlined here. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Sorry can't reply further today as I'm busy all day, but I just thought a little common sense needed to be injected into the conversation.

I don't know why I bother because you seem to just outright reject facts when presented to you and carry on with inaccuracies, but the offer was not made before trial, and I have copied from the judgement that MGN did not want to settle, and explained why to the judge. So no costs for the trial or preliminary hearing would be withheld because of the late offer. These are facts, and you keep carrying on about it despite being told this and having the judgement posted for you. The offer was made while they were waiting for the judgement.

I just thought a little common sense needed to be injected into the conversation.

Its a shame then that you haven't provided any. This is a case against one publisher. You're talking about NOTW when you talk about W & K, what happened to them then, does not negate what has just happened in court and you shouldn't use other peoples hacking as a way to minimise anyone else's. Again, this is just MGN, Harry has other cases against ANL and NGN, and none of his cases are limited to hacking alone.

As for the defence?? of the tabloids printing those kids of stories and whether they are of public interest, I guess its the same kind of 'argument' others would use in knowing whether William is cheating on the future Queen, or not.