Harry v. NGN

[Atlasvue]

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

The Diana line is less about her and more about him being able to use her name for his own benefit - I did it for my mum etc.

That’s not how civil ligation works.

@Puzzledandpissedoff why are you selectively quoting? This was the full apology

“NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.
“NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology 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.
“NGN further apologises to the duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years.
“We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages.
“It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.”

Totally predictable answer which I anticipated when posting.

And yet you've not refuted any of my specific points.

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.

But nobody is surprised by any of that. Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past two decades is well aware of it. What Harry wanted was to prove a high level cover up, and by accepting this settlement, he has failed to do so.

NGN have come to countless settlements over the past 15 years, so this is nothing new. As in the other cases, they have admitted to no liability. No senior staff have been implicated. No high level collusion admitted to. So no, Harry has not proved his case.

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.

I'm not a 'royalist', whatever that really means, and it's tedious how this word gets hauled out as if it had some bearing on the matter.

As I said above, accepting a settlement is perfectly reasonable. But when just a month ago you pose as someone who's above all that, of course it's going to be mentioned when you do a U turn. Maybe it's best not to make statements that you can't or won't live up to.

Tell me what was wrong about my post?

There was no trial, so he can’t win anything.

He settled and decided to not proceed with the trial.

Its others that can’t understand why it’s not a ‘win’

And it was reported yesterday that the damages NGN were offering to Harry were much larger than before. Je will have been given a lot of money as well as this public apology.

@IcedPurple “NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology 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.

Who do we think the ‘well placed source is’?!

Yes. Instructed by them. So freelance workers. Not their own staff. Certainly not high level staff. These distinctions are very important.

Also the News Of the World was shut down 14 years ago as a result of the phone hacking scandal, so these sorts of admissions are hardly groundbreaking.

I'd already read the statement, @JoyousGreyOrca and Serenster helpfully posted the full text for anyone who hadn't, but as said I was specifically referring to posts insisting that "unlawful activities" had been carried out the the Sun when that's not what they said at all

NGN have shelled out a large amount, but not admitted anything they haven't already admitted. Illegal activities by sub-contractors of the still-in-existence Sun. Illegal activities by sub contractors of the closed NOTW and some of their junior journalists.

No-one senior held to account, in either paper.

A chunk of money by most people's standards to avoid an embarrassing trial, but not a huge amount by the standards of the Murdoch press.

And no 'holding to account' by Harry.

Basically, a typical settlement where both sides compromise. Which is what most people on these threads (and more importantly, the judge!) have been.pointing out is the purpose of the civil courts. Brinksmanship on both sides, and no great win either way.

While Harry has been grandstanding about it not being about money, but about accountability. Until today, when he took the money.

As he didn't come over for the trial I suspect the negotiations were in full swing by the time the trial opened.

Who do we think the ‘well placed source is’?!

Probably the same people who maintained they'd received $100 million from Netflix, @MummyJ12, and that was never established either

By the way, re your earlier comment about the difference in William and Harry's approach to this, maybe it shows yet again that more measured, thoughtful action can be more effective in the end ... except measured and thoughtful don't appear to be any part of Harry's thought processes

NGN admitted News of the World journalists have been involved in illegal activities.
You are all just selectively quoting.

And even now, most of the Royalist journalists are subcontractors. That is how the system works.

Interesting, from the BBC's feed:

Former Sun editor 'astonished' at NGN admissions

"Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie says we're seeing the "last days" of News UK CEO Rebekah Brooks and that he is "astonished" at scale of admissions.
MacKenzie tells Radio 4's World at One programme a public company having to give evidence on this kind of case would have been "massively damaging", adding it's difficult to know how Brooks "would survive such a cross examination".

He adds that there is now "a massive question mark" on whether she can survive this case, adding that "you're now seeing the last days of the CEO".
Asked about whether how far News Group Newspapers (NGN) went in its admission, he says "frankly I'm astonished" and that "the heat" will only increase on the firm.

As a reminder, the Sun's apology only refers to the unlawful activities of private investigators working for the newspaper from 1996 to 2011.
"There was always going to come a day like this. And you know, Harry’s pursued it and [NGN] were on the back foot. There was probably nothing else they could do," MacKenzie says, adding the admission of unlawful activity was probably a non-negotiable line for Prince Harry.

He says it's "amazing" as the group had always "held the line" against that admission, claiming unlawful activity was only ever a News of the World issue.
"I just wonder whether that will open more floodgates for them, to be honest," MacKenzie adds."

Ah, but according to our armchair experts, all this is no biggie!

Settlement in litigation is always the best option for the client to save costs. and usually come down to the wire.

A settlement is not a win, By any stretch of the imagination whatever some may like to think. I’m surprised there are litigation lawyers on here that say this. I’m a retired solicitor and the only winners here are the lawyers!

You seem determined to be nasty to Harry no matter what.
William took a settlement early on where NGN admitted no wrong doing. Harry did not and got an extensive public apology and a much larger settlement.

And freelance workers instructed by staff to do certain activities are still behaving illegally.

Actually I can't decide if you are taking the stance you are as part of your obvious ongoing hatred of Harry, or if you work for NGN and are posting in defence of the,m to muddy the waters.

No 'holding to account' by Harry

That's the core of it for me, @Baital, and especially after the endless gum flapping and grandstanding he'd done about it

Though always regretting it was Harry with his loose grasp on the truth who was bringing the case I'd have been only too glad to see Murdoch et al given a pasting if he could have proved his claims, but now we'll never know

NGN admitted News of the World journalists have been involved in illegal activities.

So what?

The NOTW hasn't existed for 14 years. The Sun was the primary target of Harry's action, and no such admission has been made about them.

And what's a 'royalist journalist' when it's at home?

Technically if we are being pedantic, it is not a win, it is a settlement.
But a settlement with a wide ranging public apology and a large settlement would be seen as a win by anyone.

You do know that the some of the journalists involved were imprisoned. There is nothing new here. What was being argued was that the same was happening in the Sun and that the hierarchy knew

A Royalist journalist is one who writes favourably about the Royal family and pretty much just repeats their press releases and briefings verbatim.

We already knew that - because some of them were convicted and jailed for it more than 10 years ago! That had already been admissted, and apologised for.

I don't know any such 'journalists', capital 'R' or not!

@Vespanest Yes I do know. Proving the hierarchy knew is obviously more difficult when NGN themselves about a month ago admitted to deleting thousands of emails to do with Royal reporting in the time period involved.

I agree with you. William’s action was much more powerful because of the ramifications of the Leveson enquiry. He didn’t need the fanfare of a public apology because the enquiry made sure it wouldn’t happen again. People were held to account by the criminal justice system. The apology is just a reiteration of what has previously been known and said.