Harrys name appears in P Diddy court docs? Why?

[GoldThumb]

I’m seeing this on TwitX this morning.

Prince Harry’s name appears in PDiddys court docs, in relation to his ‘sex trafficking parties’.

From how I’m reading it, it doesn’t appear to actually say Harry attended, but why would his actual name appear? He seems to be the only example mentioned by name?

I’m assuming this court doc is real, I’m very confused by this?

By his own word Harry isn’t a very nice person - he even reads out in spare that he has zero compassion for the matron at his school - then his racial slurs in the army - he didn’t even qualify for sandhurst in the first place

He’s always been beyond reproach because of his immense privilege-and somehow managed to emerge as a victim

he might act compassionate but his actions say otherwise -
maybe he’s going to come out as a p diddy victim next !

I'm afraid they reap what they sow. They courted the publicity initially but you can't choose when and why.

Are they seeing Harry as some kind of lifeline?

A very astute observation. I think that’s exactly what they are doing.

Straight reporting as you call it, straight from the horse’s mouth without critique, is still biased or at least not balanced.

Sampling the royal reporters with Twitter profiles - Roya Nikkah and Rebecca English both did the same straight reporting as did Scobie for the same events. You would not say that these journalists are biased in favour of Harry. Interestingly neither of them have commented on the recent report in recent with regards to African Parks - nor has Richard Eden, who definitely could not be considered in any way positive towards Harry and has actually never posted about any of Harry’s charities, nor Victoria Newton. I’ve quickly skimmed Richard Kay’s Op Eds - not a peep. The only one of these group to even post about it is acutally Scobie. So the standard for Scobie appears to be beyond that of other commentators.

P Diddy, another friend of Oprah, great company she keeps. 🙄

Are they seeing Harry as some kind of lifeline?

No they are using Harry as an example of the type of person that would attend the parties. They did not say that Harry attended the parties.

Appears the British press and the Firm are trying to use Harry & Meghan to take the spotlight off of William and Kate. That's why he's mentioned. The two have nothing to do with the mishandling of Kate & William's PR. Someone there (Piers Morgan, Clarkson, Camilla) is constantly berating these 2 human beings. Ask yourself why Camilla's close friend Jeremy Clarkson hates Meghan so much he wants her pelted with excrement.”

@AliceOlive is this a comment on this thread I’ve missed, or is it a comment from The Cut article? (I’ve used up my free reads for that magazine for the month). TIA

I dont think it’s easy for anyone who read that Clarkson article to forget it. I’m not surprised other people bring it up too. I’m reminded of Germaine Greers statement that women don’t realize how much men hate them. Not all men of course. But Clarkson’s article epitomized it for me. And women have internalized it, eg the editor who let that piece be published is a woman.

Sadly malice is there in most of the shite out there in media land. It is never fair but that is how it seems to go. Look at the malice that Harry directed at his family. Look at the malice directed at Kate over an illness for goodness sake. You can't pick and choose .

I’m always against guilt by association, people get away with shit because sometimes they are experts at hiding it, add that to money or fame and it’s a recipe for disaster. It doesn’t read that Harry has done specifically anything to be concerned about but some of the defending and deflection on this thread and elsewhere increases suspicions . I treat all royal reporters as people making a living off a mixture of direct PR, leaks, rumours and guess work. Some of them are complete arses, whose the biggest arse is irrelevant

@skullbabe I do not have your encyclopaedic knowledge of the twitter activity of every royal reporter. I have no doubt they all have their biases, and when they work for the same paper, probably tweet about different things, promoting their own articles and leaving colleagues to do the same with their own. However, Scobie was the one being discussed as you decided to pick up on another poster’s post. So I will avoid whataboutery and stick to your topic.

Scobie claims to be a balanced and neutral reporter. Many people find this a bit gaslighty and he is a proven liar. Scobie has continually demonstrated a level of inside knowledge about and heavy inclination towards the Sussexes to leave very many people with an impression, backed up with considerable evidence, that he is at best not neutral and at worst works on their behalf. I don’t really have much else to say about the man on this thread. But I will reiterate that, as a news story, Harry being named in this lawsuit is, unfortunately, the sort of stock in trade news that royal reporters would pick up on. Not because it’s Harry, but because it’s a sordid scandal where a royal has been named. He would have undoubtedly tweeted about it had one of the other royals been named.

P Diddy, another friend of Oprah, great company she keeps.

No Diddy is not a friend of Oprah. If you know anything about black culture you would know why. P Diddy and her are now in a cordial space where they are power players in media but this wouldn’t extend this to being friends.

I find the level of knowledge about Scobie - and at a poster’s fingertips, no less - quite extraordinary. How can all that information be collated and posted so speedily?

My specialist Mastermind subject (not that I’ve been on!) is a certain author, and I would struggle to provide such a comprehensive breakdown of their activities in a matter of minutes.

My Mastermind subject would be 'idle musing on royal egos'. I think for me what has emerged from Spare and the events of recent years is just how much Harry's ego (i.e. his perception of his identity) is dependent on his making constant comparisons. It's probably an unconscious process, from childhood.

I often thought that he does not seem to to able to see a person, thing, or event, and appreciate it for what it is or what they are (not without the aid of drugs, at any rate). It seems he cannot look without comparing the subject of his gaze or his thoughts to something else and finding it either better or worse.

If someone has more, he has less. Therefore, he computes (mistakenly) that he doesn't really have privilege and therefore he is a victim. He feels he should have the same as the person with more.

And he's living in a world where very many people have more than him. And he's a snob, from a snobby social background. His ego will fracture eventually. The resentment is already there.

Even his one mention of Andrew in Spare was a comparison in which he was the loser: 'Uncle Andrew ... was embroiled in a shameful scandal, accused of the sexual assault of a young woman, and no one had so much as suggested that he lose his security. Whatever grievances people had against us, sex crimes weren't on the list.'

Harry is unable to see his own security case on its own merits. 'But whatabout ...' is his stock in trade and there are a bunch of dafties all too eager to egg him on for some peculiar reason.

@skullbabe -just a reminder that this is what I actually said:

Interesting that Omid Scobie, who has tweeted copiously recently over what’s been going on with Kate, has said precisely nothing about this story.

You then responded:

Interesting claim because this poster knows people won’t check.

You can’t possibly know my mental state! As it happens I love it when other people look to see if what other people are posting is accurate, as often. If everyone did that the internet would be a much better place.😀

I said Omid has tweeted “copiously recently” about what’s been going on with Kate. In the last six weeks, going back to mid February we can see in relation to his tweets:

40% have been about William and Kate and the issues around her absence from public life
25% have been about other people (although I note several were defending Misan Harriman from allegations of altering photos in the way that Kate admitted she had done, so on the same themes as his Kate and William coverage. Oh and you mis-read his Penny Mordaunt tweet - it’s not about her at all, it’s about how he was right to claim this is the monarchy’s Endgame…)
20% have been about Harry and Meghan (all complimentary, of course)
10% have been about himself
5% have been about other Royals

Given these figures I stand by my choice of adjective - in his own tweet output, Omid has been has been tweeting copiously about Kate and William. Nearly twice as much as any other topic.

You said he’s not a prolific poster for a person in media. He may not be - I never claimed he was, though. To repeat: in his own tweet output, Omid has been has been tweeting copiously about Kate and William.

You also said that there is nothing in what Scobie has tweeted over the past month which has not been said by other journalists and commentators. I never said this wasn’t the case. I was making the case about his bias. Other commentators you reference will mention the positive and negative stories about all the Royals you cover. Omid has completely ignored the PD story though. Not a mention. That was my point.

(Interesting to see all the posters rushing to defend the reputation of proven liar Omid Scobie though against what they feel was a mis-use of the word “copiously” in relation to his public tweeting. Who knew she had such fervent defenders here. Or could it be they had another motive…?)

To save you the trouble of checking (though feel free to do so if you wish 😀 ) I also said that Omid had tweeted quite a bit about Harry’s in relation to Africa Parks. That’s 16 tweets going back to 2018. But not a single mention of the allegations this year by Survival International in relation to the charity’s activities.

(I do wonder whether Omid would have been so silent had those allegations been made against an entity of which William was a director. Or if William had been named in the recent US allegations. Somehow, I think not).

Maybe it’s you that thinks people wouldn’t check?

He did qualify for Sandhurst under the rules that were in force at the time.

It is correct that the entrance qualifications changed since then, and that he would not have qualified if he had been a few years younger and applying under the new standard.

Definitely. People will see and remember his name and nobody else's.

Can you explain the reason please?

Thank you @Serenster for your calm, factual, fair posts.

Always informative and balanced.

Hi all,
Just to flag that as moderators we are very much tiring of the factionalism seen on the Royals board threads and so we remind you that attempts to derail/distract/goad by mention of other MNers or perceived groups of MNers will be removed and action taken. Many members report to us that this behaviour spoils their enjoyment of these discussions.
Please report anything you see of this nature and refuse to be drawn into participation.

Who the hell would want to be linked to this in any way? It's not a good look

He did qualify for Sandhurst, I think the issue was the press coverage thereafter of his drug and alcohol use - which would normally have disqualified him.

The conventional wisdom is that Prince Philip had to personally intervene in order that he still attend.

40%have been about William and Kate and the issues around her absence from public life
25%have been about other people (although I note several were defending Misan Harriman from allegations of altering photos in the way that Kate admitted she had done, so on the same themes as his Kate and William coverage. Oh and you mis-read his Penny Mordaunt tweet - it’s not about her at all, it’s about how he was right to claim this is the monarchy’s Endgame…)
20%have been about Harry and Meghan (all complimentary, of course)
10%have been about himself
5% have been about other Royals

👏👏