Active discussions

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

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Harrys name appears in P Diddy court docs? Why?

433 replies

GoldThumb · 26/03/2024 06:53

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?

Harrys name appears in P Diddy court docs? Why?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
Salemforcuddles · 27/03/2024 13:22

At the centre of all this it's women being abused... again

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 13:25

Has Omid ever criticized Harry or Meghan?

Don’t know - but I don’t think so. Don’t have time to look.

Has Richard Eden ever criticised William or Catherine? How about Camilla Tominey? Rebecca English? Victoria Newton?

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 13:25

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 08:37

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.

Sorry I’m replying out of order but I’m reading posts out of order. I’m responding more to you at the moment because you do often bring a level of facts and points of data that I enjoy.

I can’t imagine any attorney worth their salt would throw a detail that could be easily dismantled into a suit this large. Judges really don’t like being played like that. I also don’t think they’d reach back to 2007 when the suit involves things Mr Jones says happened last year.

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 13:28

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 13:25

Has Omid ever criticized Harry or Meghan?

Don’t know - but I don’t think so. Don’t have time to look.

Has Richard Eden ever criticised William or Catherine? How about Camilla Tominey? Rebecca English? Victoria Newton?

I’m more interested in Omid because I know of him. The other names I’ve heard but couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. His name is more strongly associated for me because of the Finding Freedom admission.

I am sure that the others all have people who fawn over them, but not necessarily with the level of direct connection that was admitted in court.

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 13:31

People have questioned it but it's very difficult to fight rich and powerful men

And this is the point - everyone (myself included) gets distracted by all sorts but there is still an overwhelming and depressing reality for all women where we are subject to violence from men. From this case - many of you here may not have known about his ex girlfriend detailing his physical abuse of her earlier this year and now this, to Epstein, to Weinstein, to that god awful man who threw acid on that woman and her children’s faces then drowned himself, to the countless cases of domestic violence, to people calling wanting a female politician to be shot. Male violence is still very much a common factor here.

But it’s heartening - little by little, step by step - women are fighting back.

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 13:33

Salemforcuddles · 27/03/2024 13:22

At the centre of all this it's women being abused... again

Men also, this time. Owen Jones’ suit is about his own horrible experience being groped and harassed and pressured constantly.

Salemforcuddles · 27/03/2024 13:34

Awful

Salemforcuddles · 27/03/2024 13:41

It's horrifying and possibly the tip of the iceberg

queenofarles · 27/03/2024 13:42

Regarding PDiddy et al, I don’t understand why their misogyny and associated behaviour is never questioned. The lyrics! And videos featuring blokes in giant puffa jackets, big trousers, boots - being writhed over by girls wearing almost zilch. Don’t get it.
I really don’t think you are familiar with the hip hop subculture of the 90s and early 2000s and the west coast vs east coast rivalry , some great music was produced by many artists, it wasn’t all puffa jackets and naked women, But that’s in itself is another topic.

But this really made me think why Use Prince Harry name when there are so many bigger names in the US associated with Sean Combs ? It just appears out of nowhere , imagine reading a list of French pastries and you see Flapjack ! It just sticks out in a very odd way .

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 13:42

What’s the TD Jake’s rumor? Anyone know?

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 13:45

@queenofarles Agreed, some brilliant artistry out there.

Nono22972 · 27/03/2024 13:59

Regarding P Diddy, I'm not surprised at all. I was born in 2000 but my oldest brother was a teenager in the 90s, living in NYC, there has been rumours about Diddy for years. So many people knew he was abusive to most of the women he's been with. He apparently got with the mother of his first son hen she was a minor, he was very abusive to the mother of his 3 children (4 if you count the stepson he raised): he even allegedly broke her nose when she broke up with him and started dating another man (that man was also beat up).

When he was dating Jennifer Lopez, there were at a nightclub one day, there was a drive-by shooting and the guns were found in the car Jlo and Diddy were in. Both of them were arrested.

After the release, Jlo left and never looked back

Diddy got custody of Usher when he was 13 for a year (where was his mother?) and Diddy would take him to these sex parties with a lot of grown women.

He also scammed and exploited a lot of his artists. Most ended up being completely broke.

He was accused of abuse and sordid behaviour by a few members of the group Danity Kane.

A lot of people have known but chose to ignore what was going on.

Serenster · 27/03/2024 14:27

areyoutheregod · 27/03/2024 13:03

I think theres a difference between 'named' and name-dropped' and you know that theres no suggestion in those documents that Harry was ever at any of the parties or friends with him. William also spent time with him and could have been name-dropped too.

Show quote history

I completely agree that based on what’s publicly known, Harry has been name-dropped into the pleading. There may ahve been more going on behind the scenes, or there may not.

”Spending time with” PD is doing some heavy lifting there in William’s case, though! Based on two photos that were published on the Concert for Diana afterparty, they spoke at that event. We have no idea for how long for (the same goes for Harry too, of course), or what happened after this meeting for either of the Princes.

There was a lot of coverage of William at the concert and afterparty because it was his and Kate’s first public appearance at the same event after they had got back together. Hence the fact that they spent most of the party together was reported on. So it seems unlikely that William spent any time partying afterwards with he performers.

Here’s a Daily Mail article on this subject (as an aside, it’s eyebrow raising as just a small illustration of the level of press intrusion Kate had to live with back in the pre-Leveson era. This passage in particular stood out: ”On the eve of the show, Kate left her flat in Chelsea at 9pm and arrived at Clarence House - William's London home - around midnight. Her Audi car, which she had left at a Mayfair hotel car park, was collected by an aide and driven into Clarence House, waved through by police on guard at 1.45am. Kate did not return to her London home until 4am”)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-465530/Its-hard-life-Kate.html

It's a hard life Kate!

After watching the Diana concert from the Royal Box and dancing the night away with Prince William at the after-party Kate Middleton spent the next day recovering at Wimbledon with pals

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-465530/Its-hard-life-Kate.html

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 14:32

Wickedlywearynamechange · 27/03/2024 02:32

“Rupert Murdoch’s Dodgy Dossier: The bombshell billion pound legal document being used by Prince Harry containing allegations of systemic crime at The Sun and the News of the World” Byline Investigates 16 March 2024

By Graham Johnson | Editor, Byline Investigates

“Byline Investigates is today publishing the legal papers which threaten to bring down Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire.”

The document claims that editors and senior executives went on a 20-year crime spree in Fleet Street by hacking phones and commissioning Private Investigators on an industrial scale.

However, the most serious allegation is that the corporation’s controlling minds embarked on an epic cover-up, by concealing the wrong-doing, destroying evidence en masse to cover their tracks – and then covering-up the cover-up.

Lawyers for News Group Newspapers ‘do not admit’ most of the allegations and outright deny the rest.

The claims have never been tested at trial because Murdoch’s company has settled every case that has ever come to court.

So far, the strategy has prevented a High Court judge from making findings either way.

However, the out-of-court settlements have come at a high price. Experts estimate that the hacking litigation – at just under 20 years, one of the longest running legal disputes in history – has cost Murdoch around £1.2 billion.

Next week, on Wednesday March 20th, lawyers for victims of unlawful information gathering – including Prince Harry – will seek to add further explosive allegations into the mix.

The document is officially known by its legal title, the ‘Re-Amended Generic Particulars of Concealment and Destruction – June 2020.’
But sources have likened the allegations to a ‘crime novel in which the twists read like mafia story.’

Read the full document here:
Re-Amended-Generic-Particulars-of-Concealment-and-Destruction-June-20201Download
Read NGN’s Defence to the allegations here:
Re-Re-Re-Amended-CD-DefenceDownload

https://bylineinvestigates.com/2024/03/16/rupert-murdochs-dodgy-dossier-the-bombshell-billion-pound-legal-document-being-used-by-prince-harry-containing-allegations-of-systemic-crime-at-the-sun-and-the-news-of-the-world/

Note: I haven’t read the document or the defense to the allegations. But they’re available here. I’m just going by the summary.

There’s another article I’ll link to later that brings up Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Victoria Newton (who was I think the Sun editor when the foul Jeremy Clarkson article was published. The one about his dream of seeing the Duchess of Sussex marched naked through the streets of towns of Britain having excrement flung at her. And compared her to Rose West. Btw, when Clarkson apologized for the article he apparently apologized to Harry, not Meghan - says it all. ) I’m not 100% sure, but I think Piers Morgan also gets some attention in the article.

I’m amazed at how some people cannot see how vicious this all is.

Edited

Are you saying this is linked to Harry being named in Jones vs Combs?

musthorse · 27/03/2024 15:28

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 13:09

I set my search parameters, defined in my post them and collated the tweets. I would maintain that the percentage in the Catherine column is more 50- 60% as opposed to 40% calculated. I do not think this is copious and that was my point. I also listed the content of the tweets to show what the Catherine tweets were actually saying. Contrast this with the output of other royal reporters. Eden (pro Catherine) was posting prolifically about Catherine.

I'm sure this was already said but is it not the NATURE of the posts as opposed to the number?
I realise you are trying to counter a poster
who said prolifically but I'm not really interested in that . Again it is the NATURE of his nasty posts 🤷‍♀️

AliceOlive · 27/03/2024 15:56

Particularly the nature given that extends to the comments section of Omid’s X account.

Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 27/03/2024 16:20

Richard Eden et al are royal reporters on the royal rota working in a job where that is their job description. They don't pretend to be anything else. They need to tweet copiously about their job because that gets people clicking on to their articles. Scobie has no employer that we know of and said he would be no longer royal reporting when he published Endgame. But here he is, still royal reporting and always there to say positive things about H&M and throw some shade at W&C (eg the Jamaica film premier) or break news on them (eg the Aviation Award).

OhmygodDont · 27/03/2024 16:45

This is all relates to more recent years so would be hard pressed to say he was mentioned purely for some 2007 party many where at. It would imply they have been moving in the same circles in the last couple of years.

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 17:02

I'm sure this was already said but is it not the NATURE of the posts as opposed to the number?

I summarised the NATURE of the posts as well.

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 17:08

Particularly the nature given that extends to the comments section of Omid’s X account.

If the people commenting on people’s posts is the standard to which we hold royal commentators then we will need to hold all commentators to the same standard not just Omid.

skullbabe · 27/03/2024 17:11

Scobie has no employer that we know of and said he would be no longer royal reporting when he published Endgame.

So he should not have an interest in something he has been part of for many years of his career because he’s no longer working in it. Hmm - wonder if that standard is applied equally to all journalists and commentators who leave regular employment or just Omid Scobie?

Swipe left for the next trending thread