Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry v. NGN

1000 replies

Atlasvue · 19/01/2025 10:02

Starting a thread for Tuesday.
This BBC article covers the basics. This is the last line ….
Tuesday really is the beginning of the end. And someone is going to lose - and lose big.

I have a feeling, that Harry won’t win but he just wants to use the public setting to air his grievances. A therapy session would have worked out much cheaper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l00xkgwnyo

Prince Harry leaves the court during his hacking case against the Daily Mirror. He wears a dark coloured suit, white shirt and tie. His barrister David Sherborne, also dressed in a dark suit is on his left.  A crowd of photographers are behind a metal...

Prince Harry versus newspapers: This is the one that matters

Prince Harry’s legal battle against British tabloids for allegedly unlawfully intruding into his life reaches its most important moment on Tuesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l00xkgwnyo

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Spectre8 · 22/01/2025 15:06

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 22/01/2025 14:54

It's worth considering that PH's financial situation could well be considered to have changed even since Jan 1st.

  1. LA fires - if they've been informed that their mansion is not or will no longer be insurable, that's a considerable blow given the cost and the fact it's their only home.
  2. The poor reception of their last known Netflix production. The delay talks could have included some chat about the poor performance of their Netflix series so far.

So not only can they no longer afford to lose 10m (if they ever could), they might need additional earnings on the books.

Hugh Grant wanted to go to trial until he was told he would have to pay both sides costs if he won and the amount awarded was less than a settlement offer he rejected. So the settlement offer must have been quite high. He said he simply couldn't afford to take that risk. And this is a man who does have a lot of money. But even his pockets aren't that deep. You need to close enough to being a billionaire to consider taking such a risk, which neither of them are.

justteanbiscuits · 22/01/2025 15:08

Partybagprick · 22/01/2025 14:04

It doesn't surprise anyone. Nobody thinks he doesn't deserve compensation for being hacked. What they object to is his borderline abuse of the court process and his self aggrandised "dragon slaying" and setting himself apart from other litigants by saying he won't settle and will go to trial for the "truth" and executive accountability. When he is just the same as all of them, and settled.

What abuse of the court system??

Weepixie · 22/01/2025 15:08

It doesn't surprise anyone. Nobody thinks he doesn't deserve compensation for being hacked. What they object to is his borderline abuse of the court process and his self aggrandised "dragon slaying" and setting himself apart from other litigants by saying he won't settle and will go to trial for the "truth" and executive accountability. When he is just the same as all of them, and settled

As if he’s the first person to have wasted the courts time.

He’s a hot head and has embarrassed himself with the slaying dragons statement (as well as many other things) but as much as Im no fan of him and Meghan Im happy he took the pressure off himself and I hope he can now move forward and find a way to heal is very obvious still broken heart.

I have children the same age as him as well as some who are older and if any of them found themselves in a position where they could lose a certain amount of face for the sake of the bigger picture I’d hope they’d take losing face on the chin and walk away with their head held high.

Choccyscofffy · 22/01/2025 15:15

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 12:42

What Harry seems happy to accept in the apology- is that it was members of staff lower down the hierarchy at the Sun that were to blame- not the big bosses, not the editors not the owner.

But then we know how Meghan treats members of their own staff low down on the ladder.

So happy to shift the blame on to others lower down in order to take the cash.

Nice one Harry

What happens to people in their lives to make them so full of hate? What are you getting out of this vendetta, OP?

This is the first time the Murdoch empire have apologised for ‘unlawful activities’.

That apology would have been signed off by Rupert. It’s a huge admission.

You have little idea of what you’re taking about.

Choccyscofffy · 22/01/2025 15:16

Spectre8 · 22/01/2025 15:06

Hugh Grant wanted to go to trial until he was told he would have to pay both sides costs if he won and the amount awarded was less than a settlement offer he rejected. So the settlement offer must have been quite high. He said he simply couldn't afford to take that risk. And this is a man who does have a lot of money. But even his pockets aren't that deep. You need to close enough to being a billionaire to consider taking such a risk, which neither of them are.

Edited

Exactly, the media is reporting that the settlement offer makes it impossible to go to trial unless you have Elon Musk level wealth.

Ohpleeeease · 22/01/2025 15:21
  1. LA fires - if they've been informed that their mansion is not or will no longer be insurable, that's a considerable blow given the cost and the fact it's their only home.

Apart from the place they are rumoured to have bought in Portugal.

Serenster · 22/01/2025 15:24

Choccyscofffy · 22/01/2025 15:15

What happens to people in their lives to make them so full of hate? What are you getting out of this vendetta, OP?

This is the first time the Murdoch empire have apologised for ‘unlawful activities’.

That apology would have been signed off by Rupert. It’s a huge admission.

You have little idea of what you’re taking about.

Neither do you, it seems, though…

The defendant in this case - News Group - is the current publisher of The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun newspapers; its former publications include the The News Of the World newspaper. It was established in February 1981 under the name News International plc.

As News International the company has apologised for phone hacking and illegal evidence gathering before. More than once. Here’s an example.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/apr/08/news-corp-phone-hacking

Phone hacking: NI to apologise to victims including Sienna Miller

NoW publisher admits liability for hacking into phones of eight public figures and offers to set up compensation fund. By James Robinson

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/apr/08/news-corp-phone-hacking

2025willbemytime · 22/01/2025 15:26

You were wrong @Atlasvue and pretty sneery.

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 15:28

Choccyscofffy · 22/01/2025 15:15

What happens to people in their lives to make them so full of hate? What are you getting out of this vendetta, OP?

This is the first time the Murdoch empire have apologised for ‘unlawful activities’.

That apology would have been signed off by Rupert. It’s a huge admission.

You have little idea of what you’re taking about.

I have a vendetta? ……so full of hate? …..little idea what I’m talking about?

Now, that doesn’t seem like a very nice thing to say.

Just think@Choccyscofffy WWPHD? Remember, he wants people to be kind to each other online 😊

OP posts:
Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 15:29

2025willbemytime · 22/01/2025 15:26

You were wrong @Atlasvue and pretty sneery.

Nope, not wrong at all.

And sneering? Me? No…..

OP posts:
Serenster · 22/01/2025 15:32

As if he’s the first person to have wasted the courts time.

And others who do this aren’t admired either though!

Rebekah Vardy also got ridiculed for her crazy lawsuit against Colleen Rooney. I am old enough to remember Jason Donovan being absolutely slated publicly when he sued The Face for defamation because they suggested he might be gay…

Somewherebeyondtheseawall · 22/01/2025 15:34

Agree with *Spectre8"

Hugh Grant didn't want to settle either but said here that his potential costs could have been £10 million.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/hugh-grant-settles-high-court-claim-against-sun-publisher

I think Harry has made the right decision for his young family, proved his case, and made a stand for others who were not in a position to challenge these despicable press practices. And the organisations responsible have had to take a financial hit. I count that as a win all round. Bravo Harry.

Hugh Grant settles court claim against Sun publisher for ‘enormous sum’

Actor had accused publisher of unlawful information-gathering in case that was due to go to trial alongside Prince Harry next year

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/hugh-grant-settles-high-court-claim-against-sun-publisher

Vespanest · 22/01/2025 15:35

It feels like there are some creating arguments in their own head, those who admired him for risking it all despite the consequences of not settling (against many stating the well known risks) are now enlightening us on the reasoning for setting. These threads have always been pretty clear on the legality of setting.

Alarmclockstop · 22/01/2025 15:36

Weepixie · 22/01/2025 15:08

It doesn't surprise anyone. Nobody thinks he doesn't deserve compensation for being hacked. What they object to is his borderline abuse of the court process and his self aggrandised "dragon slaying" and setting himself apart from other litigants by saying he won't settle and will go to trial for the "truth" and executive accountability. When he is just the same as all of them, and settled

As if he’s the first person to have wasted the courts time.

He’s a hot head and has embarrassed himself with the slaying dragons statement (as well as many other things) but as much as Im no fan of him and Meghan Im happy he took the pressure off himself and I hope he can now move forward and find a way to heal is very obvious still broken heart.

I have children the same age as him as well as some who are older and if any of them found themselves in a position where they could lose a certain amount of face for the sake of the bigger picture I’d hope they’d take losing face on the chin and walk away with their head held high.

Edited

I agree, but I would hope my children would take heed before the eleventh hour.

Serenster · 22/01/2025 15:36

proved his case

By settling before trial, this is exactly what he hasn’t done…

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 15:41

There was no trial.

He didn’t prove anything

He didn’t win anything

He settled and a declined to push forward with the trial

OP posts:
IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 15:43

Somewherebeyondtheseawall · 22/01/2025 15:34

Agree with *Spectre8"

Hugh Grant didn't want to settle either but said here that his potential costs could have been £10 million.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/hugh-grant-settles-high-court-claim-against-sun-publisher

I think Harry has made the right decision for his young family, proved his case, and made a stand for others who were not in a position to challenge these despicable press practices. And the organisations responsible have had to take a financial hit. I count that as a win all round. Bravo Harry.

Hugh Grant didn't want to settle either but said here that his potential costs could have been £10 million.

But if we all know that, and have known it at least since Grant talked about it this summer, then Harry knew it too.

So why, just last month, was he making big statements about how he was somehow different from all the other folks who took the money? His brother being one of them?

I think Harry has made the right decision for his young family, proved his case, and made a stand for others who were not in a position to challenge these despicable press practices.

He hasn't proved his case though. He accepted a financial settlement without admission of liability.

And I'm not sure how he has 'made a stand for others' unless he donates his settlement to them? Nothing practical will change as a result of this settlement.

He's done what he explicitly said he would not do, and accepted a settlement. In itself, that's a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's the failure to live up to his own grandiose statements which people are calling him out on.

Snorlaxo · 22/01/2025 15:47

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 15:41

There was no trial.

He didn’t prove anything

He didn’t win anything

He settled and a declined to push forward with the trial

The lawyers on both sides won.

Serenster · 22/01/2025 15:48

NGN have now issued a full statement (I suspect they were taken aback by David Sherbourne’s grandstanding outside court). It clarifies exactly what they consider they settled on. It also notes that Harry’s team were not pursuing the allegations about evidence being destroyed. They are also very clear that they have made no admissions about phone hacking at The Sun.

News Group Newspapers' statement in full:

Today we have come to agreements with the Duke Of Sussex and Lord Watson to pay damages and to settle their cases. It is in the interests of all the parties to come to a settlement. This statement is to clarify questions raised after the
hearing.

It has long been a matter of record that the Duke of Sussex's phone was hacked by the News of the World. Two people served criminal sentences for this in 2006 and an apology was given. Today a full and unequivocal apology is given to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. Phone hacking at the News of the World was not due to be a part of this trial but it is a part of this settlement.

In the 1990's and early 2000's there was widespread use by the broadcast and news media of private investigators. In most cases, their use was for public interest journalism and to obtain information necessary for the purposes of
journalism. Today, our apology to the Duke of Sussex includes an apology for incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun, not byjournalists, during the period 1996-2011. There are strong controls and processes in place at all our titles today to ensure this cannot happen now. There was no voicemail interception on The Sun.

It must also be stressed that allegations that were being made publicly pre trial (and indeed post settlement) that News International destroyed evidence in 2010/11 would have been the subject of significant challenge at trial. These allegations were and continue to be strongly denied. Extensive evidence would have been called in trial to rebut these allegations from senior staff from technology and legal. After we served our skeleton arguments and evidence for trial including witness statements, the Duke has not sought to pursue these allegations further despite his stated intent and no admission or apology has been made in relation to this. This is significant. This matter was also investigated fully by the police and CPS between 2012-2015, at the conclusion of which it was found that there was no case to answer.

Lord Watson's phone was not hacked in 2009-11 and had this gone to trial, NGN would have called evidence from telecoms experts to demonstrate that hacking after 2007 was nigh on impossible due to security upgrades undertaken by telecoms companies. This evidence was also provided to the Leveson Inquiry. No admission has been made on this today.

After more than a decade of litigation, and 14 years since the News of the World closed down, today's settlement draws a line under the past and brings an end to this litigation. Indeed the Judge made it clear in remarks in court at the end of the hearing that these cases are likely to be the last liable to go to trial. Any cases now brought, years after the events, will be liable to be struck out.

[There was a closing puff paragraph about how great The Sun is now, we can safely disregard that 😀 ]

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 15:53

Very clear and concise statement.

ttcat37 · 22/01/2025 15:54

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2025 13:07

You imagine?
Come back and tell me when you know.
Then we can talk.

How about, you come back and tell me when you know it’s not? Until then, I’ll be amazed at how people can spout so much venomous tripe about 2 people that have no effect on your lives whatsoever and have donated millions to charity. Better people than you could ever hope to be.

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 15:59

He did prove his case. He got a very long and detailed apology that admitted to phone hacking and the other allegations Harry was making.

Somewherebeyondtheseawall · 22/01/2025 16:00

IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 15:43

Hugh Grant didn't want to settle either but said here that his potential costs could have been £10 million.

But if we all know that, and have known it at least since Grant talked about it this summer, then Harry knew it too.

So why, just last month, was he making big statements about how he was somehow different from all the other folks who took the money? His brother being one of them?

I think Harry has made the right decision for his young family, proved his case, and made a stand for others who were not in a position to challenge these despicable press practices.

He hasn't proved his case though. He accepted a financial settlement without admission of liability.

And I'm not sure how he has 'made a stand for others' unless he donates his settlement to them? Nothing practical will change as a result of this settlement.

He's done what he explicitly said he would not do, and accepted a settlement. In itself, that's a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's the failure to live up to his own grandiose statements which people are calling him out on.

Totally predictable answer which I anticipated when posting.

No one settles and pays out significant cash, especially organisations with the pockets to buy top legal representation, unless there is a case to answer, so in that sense Harry has made his point, gained a full public apology for "phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them" and therefore gained a moral victory and won overall.

No surprise at all that royalists on here who would presumably support this outcome for anyone else but Harry, do not do do in this instance, which rather proves that their arguments are not as unbiased, objective and fact-based as they purport to be.

Hazeby · 22/01/2025 16:02

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 15:41

There was no trial.

He didn’t prove anything

He didn’t win anything

He settled and a declined to push forward with the trial

Do you really despise Harry so much that you tie yourself in knots to say that he hasn’t won against the scumbags who ran those newspapers? Why aren’t you pleased that they have taken a hit, regardless of who did the hitting? Isn’t that the important thing?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/01/2025 16:03

"Today, our apology to the Duke of Sussex includes an apology for incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun, not byjournalists, during the period 1996-2011"

Why don't people read - and more to the point why are they still insisting NGN admitted to "unlawful activities" by themselves?

I realise that some seem to feel a need to spin absolutely everything, but really it bears no more relation to the truth than many of their idol's own claims

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.