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?

I'll apply that standard to anyone who says very explicitly they are no longer going to be working on X, but then actually carry on working on X. Especially someone who treats X with utter contempt and frequently lies about or is snide about X and wants to undermine X at every opportunity.

The salient part of my post was you comparing OS's twitter output on X with Richard Eden's twitter output on X, as if to say there is something negative about RE's because he tweets more. However, since X is RE's actual job, then it's not really a fair comparison or one from which you can draw a negative inference about RE.

And let's completely wipe out the shenanigans about the Dutch translation and the baseless claims made about those translators.

I would absolutely agree with holding everyone accountable for what goes on in their own social media feed. We do have control over the conversations generated by our own posts on platforms where we can control who can view, who can comment, which comments remain.

Thats exactly what I’m talking about.

I don’t know how fair that is to people with large followings or comments. Have you seen the social media of members of the royal family? There’s quite awful comments about the Sussexes on most posts, and even towards them, like on the Wales’ SM there’s awful comments about Kate & about Meghan. I don’t know if it’s really reasonable to expect everyone to delete or monitor every reply on their social media accounts, they’d need a lot of staff to do that.

No, I haven’t because I’m not that interested but yes, I’d police that shit up or close down the comments. It’s not kind, it’s not helpful and either should be controlled or locked completely.

That being said, I am not sure about institutions and political figures capability to do this as it would smack of policing political speech. Not legal here in US but the laws have not caught up with tech.

Whether we feel like it or not, I think BP may have issues shutting down comments about any member of the royal family. Some people here may see the Sussexes as the opposition but probably to most of the world will they are the son and DIL of the king.

Are they stopping comments about Andrew?

I agree. He's not exactly the smartest is he?

Maybe they can tweet daily reminders to be kind and respectful and that not all tweets reflect the views of the account holder. Sort of like a Mumsnet mod.

I think Meghan will be very aware of the pitfalls of the celebrity world. If she hasn’t experienced it herself then she will have most certainly heard tell of it.

I don’t know if Harry would be prepared to really listen or be that biddable though.

The lesson is clear - you get nowt for nowt and a lot of associations/friendships will most certainly not be in their best interests.

It is surprising to hear of meets with the Kardashians and the like. It wouldn’t have been the route I thought they’d take.

I’m not sure all publicity is necessarily good publicity and likewise with exposure.

Me? I think I’d dial it so far back I’d be facing the other way.

I really don’t think cheap and cheerful is the way to go forward for their business either. It is hard when folk are struggling financially and the like but if folk are visiting their site due to their link with the RF, if they wanted cheap, cheerful and/or disposable, then most would just go to poundies.

You're right, @ArcaneWireless because the cachet is the title. You're buying from a Royal Duchess so I think a premium brand is the way to make money. Be it jam or cosmetics or towels.

No talking tills then?

It is surprising to hear of meets with the Kardashians and the like. It wouldn’t have been the route I thought they’d take.

This would have been a laughable and sneery / borderline offensive suggestion when they first left. Not at all the original plan, I don't think.

I wonder if they could maybe go the route of being a showcase site for local artists, weavers, potters, jewellery makers, foodie fodder and the like. (A business here did very well with that).

Stuff that costs more but will be beautiful and last. Or be a lovely treat.

Supporting the local economy and local businesses/people too which I think is important wherever you are.

The Royal link is, as said, their selling point. And to attract the people who will do a business like that justice, it might be prudent to be canny with the company you keep.

We already have Etsy in the states.

I don’t think that they are interested in showcasing other people’s produce or craftwork though. They just want something they can stick their moniker on. If they did want to source producers of high class articles who would be willing to let them do that, it would take a fair amount of time to locate these people and cultivate the contacts. They seem to be too impatient to do that 🤷‍♀️

A fair point smilesy

Ignore me. I’m musing.

In a saturated market, popping some pretty calligraphy on a mug or jam jar just might not cut it. More so now the big reveal has been and gone with nowt revealed.

Now it is something of a PR coup for them. Phew...

In a saturated market, popping some pretty calligraphy on a mug or jam jar just might not cut it.

I really don't like the calligraphy look they go for. It's so twee and dated compared to the cleanness of most modern branding. It looks like a teenaged girl has been imagining her wedding invitations.

Meghan did do the wedding invites for Robin Thicke with her calligraphy! I'm betting there were no blurred lines

No. P Diddy stuff is separate. I was thinking more about how the media operated, why are they coming for Harry with renewed vigour at the moment? Not just for clicks, but perhaps in a renewed effort to wear him down? So he’ll settle instead of taking them to court? Because his case against Murdoch media looks like it may have grown a lot stronger with the access his lawyers now have to documents Murdoch media don’t want out there, it seems.

The media backed off stoking the flames about Kate for now, and now it’s Harry’s and Meghan’s turn again. They are back to dividing the public now as well.

This coombs/jones case was filed a month ago but the media are using the info re Harry’s name now. I have wondered if Harry’s name was a later addition (amended filing/refiling - whatever they call it) but I couldn’t find evidence of that. Another poster seemed to be saying the document was altered at a later day to include Harry’s name - that’s how I read the post (but I was tired and foggy at the time) so I ended up going around in circles on the internet trying to find out if Harry’s name was added a month later thereby prompting the mention by media at this time, but I could find no evidence of that. Anyone else?

It could have been that because they so visibly raided Coombs’ homes the media finally picked up that Harry’s name was used - for maximum impact. I don’t know. It just struck me why now?

In regard to another previous poster’s post - It wouldn’t put it past certain media orgs to wait for a denial from Harry and then post another photo of him at a party more recently as a previous poster suggested. He’s definitely a money maker for them and they’ve been trying hard to discredit him for some years now. And They aren’t just coming for him for writing about family dysfunctions etc. I thought it was interesting how they published pics of Harry at the party but cropped William out of the same photo. There’s a photo of Coombs and William really leaning into each other talking intently, but they didn’t use that either. I am not in any way inferring that William has been up to anything wrong. Harry neither. It’s just that they like to keep William well away from anything: Harry, they throw him right in - and in the filing his name was mentioned. Media could have published the mention of Harry’s name without old photos: most people aren’t going to realise William was there. And that it was somewhere where it was definitely okay for both W&H to be.

Also another pp: The gossip re Harry partying in the last year or two, are rumours started on sm. Like so much gossip about Meghan also. This sort of gossip gets picked up by less serious online media. they write pieces of about two short paragraph length (and then there is an ad after ad after ad) and then finish up by saying there is no proof for what they’ve just told us about. This seems to be were rubbish on sm jumps into the media and cultivates ‘truth’ when there is no truth at all, just gossip. If the public gossip enough, eventually they are going to be right: like some posters on here during the frenzy that guessed ‘cancer’

Another unrelated thought: Has anyone else noticed how some of the red tops stretch an article out? They give you say two short paragraphs, then ads, then another paragraph (often just a sentence), then more ads and so on and repeat: They finally end with a final sentence but you don’t know (by then) if it is final sentence until you scroll past a few more ads and see there is no more of the article. And you can usually bet you’ve learned nothing new at the end of it.

I didn’t hear or read anything about the Owen Jones vs Sean Combs case until the raid.

I don’t think Harry’s name being included in a lawsuit drives US media at all. Harry is not the big thing about the story to most people in US. Most won’t even notice it, I venture.