Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

That car chase

133 replies

kirinm · 28/02/2024 14:59

www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-actually-were-dangerously-chased-in-manhattan-nypd-says

So they weren't lying and instead the NYPD were lying.

I wonder if this will be picked up by any of the papers here.

OP posts:
yesmen · 29/02/2024 23:21

C1N1C · 29/02/2024 19:34

This letter, by John B Hart was sent right at the last minute of Harry's court date. Basically, the last moment possible in his quest to justify his own security detail while visiting the UK. John states there was sufficient evidence to arrest two people arrests for reckless endangerment. This does not mean high-speed chase, just bad driving.

The New York Post are saying that two arrests were not made, and that this letter was "sent in error".

Basically, this is a VERY convenient letter.

New york Post is owned by Rupert murdocs NewsCorp.

They were in litigation with prince Harry at the time.

I wonder who the paps involved were working for/

skullbabe · 29/02/2024 23:40

This letter, by John B Hart was sent right at the last minute of Harry's court date.

I hardly think a letter sent in December for a judgement in February could be considered last minute. Perhaps our colleagues who work in law might tell us otherwise.

Vespanest · 01/03/2024 00:01

skullbabe · 29/02/2024 23:40

This letter, by John B Hart was sent right at the last minute of Harry's court date.

I hardly think a letter sent in December for a judgement in February could be considered last minute. Perhaps our colleagues who work in law might tell us otherwise.

It would be the last minute for filling to allow the other side to respond

Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 01/03/2024 00:13

The JR hearing was over 3 days in December - 5/6/7 I believe. The letter presented by Prince Harry's team was dated 6 December and presumably presented to court on 6 or 7 December. The date of the judgment being in February is neither here nor there. The letter was presented in front of the judge and the other side "at the last minute" as far as the hearing itself goes, and far after the usual time periods for disclosure of documents. The ability of the RAVEC lawyers to consider that evidence and make any arguments about it was indeed left to the 11th hour by Harry's lawyers.

skullbabe · 01/03/2024 07:13

Plus ca change

So what we have seen in action is:

It didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's actually their fault.
And because of that, they deserved it.
And actually they engineered it all to affect a court case and so we’re back to step one.

Please read the judgement - there’s about 50 pages which are quite mind numbingly full of legal jargonese and redactions but there is some very interesting information about what was happening behind the scenes in 2022 before Elizabeth died security wise.

Checken · 01/03/2024 11:58

That’s a lot of distortion and misrepresentation right there.

And what a reductive and simplistic breakdown, it’s almost like you don’t want the detail and nuance there just so you can make your point. Is the bias conscious or unconscious I wonder?

OneHeartySnail · 01/03/2024 17:52

Is that the case? Surely NYC high end hotels have a way of admitting famous guests that mean they can avoid the paparazzi?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page