Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
BreadInCaptivity · 22/01/2025 23:34

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:14

@BreadInCaptivity Harry has proven his word is not to be trusted because he did not go bankrupt? Seriously?

You are misrepresenting what I said.

He is the person who claimed repeatedly he was not going to settle.

That this was not about money.

Yet, when push came to shove yes it was because he chose to go back on his word by accepting a settlement that did not meet his oft spoken objectives for bringing the case in the first place.

I don't "blame" anyone for settling in this situation. The system is geared to achieve this very outcome.

What I've said is that I'm perplexed by people suggesting this is a "win" for Harry when he's achieved none of things he said he intended to do and in going about it the way he has, he's further depleted his credibility (a commodity that he and his wife are very short on right now) that has significant implications for their longer term financial stability.

Had he not set himself up as the dragon slayer and not been disparaging about "settling" there would be no criticism and, yes this would have been a win.

But as stands he might be financially better off but this settlement has still cost him.

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:34

Obviously people are not reading properly ( or are being deliberately obtuse) the so called apology was a complete cop out , they apologised for things another paper ( now closed and was already apologised for ) and then apologised for private investigators that apparently went rogue ( 🤷‍♀️) , it was a version of the non apology.... I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my bad behaviour! , while not actually apologising , his solicitor's grandstanding means they were then in the position of releasing another statement that cleared up a few things ( not mentioned much here I see!) , also posters should know there are penalties for revealing information that should be private.

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:34

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:31

@MrsFinkelstein
Posting again since you seem to be having problems reading it.

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.

It's ain't me that has comprehension issues.
Unlawful does not mean illegal.

Harry v. NGN
jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:36

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:29

And the Royal family also got a settlement. They were happy to accept the cash.
I am fine with that, but it is strange that you criticise Harry for accepting cash and not other members of the Royal family.

Why do you keep saying the Royal family instead of William? Are you trying to separate him from the narrative.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 22/01/2025 23:36

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:36

Why do you keep saying the Royal family instead of William? Are you trying to separate him from the narrative.

Because it's clear she doesn't understand any of it.

IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 23:36

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:28

I'd also just like to remind the readers that it was Harry who pushed for the settlement in the past few days.

His team approached NGN, NGN had a settlement offer on the table for months but were prepared for court.

I'm sure Harry's settlement was substantial, but the fact he approached them about it makes me wonder if it wasnt an increased settlement NGN suddenly offered, or Harry being willing to accept what was already there. Which indicates to me a settlement at the lower end of the figures claimed.

I'm curious to know what happened, though we probably never will. No doubt there will be 'leaks' of questionable provenance over the coming days and weeks.

NGN have always been open to settlements. It's how they've been managing these cases for the past 15 years. It was Harry who claimed to be against a settlement. So something happened to change that. NGN making him an offer he couldn't refuse? A realisation of just how much he stood to lose financially? Smart brinkmanship by Sherborne, a master in media litigation?

I must say I'm rather intrigued by it all.

BreadInCaptivity · 22/01/2025 23:37

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:29

And the Royal family also got a settlement. They were happy to accept the cash.
I am fine with that, but it is strange that you criticise Harry for accepting cash and not other members of the Royal family.

The crucial difference being they did not tell the world they were not going to settle.....

I don't see why this is hard to fathom?

Alarmclockstop · 22/01/2025 23:39

his solicitor's grandstanding means they were then in the position of releasing another statement that cleared up a few things up

I bet they were pleased to have the chance to clarify.

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:39

All of this argument about this , where were posters when Meghan was up against it?

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 22/01/2025 23:39

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:31

@MrsFinkelstein
Posting again since you seem to be having problems reading it.

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.

I think you're the one having problems reading it tbh!

Serenster · 22/01/2025 23:39

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:25

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.

This is admitting illegal activity.

From their statement after the hearing:

“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 by journalists, 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”

So no, they haven’t admitted that.

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:40

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:28

I'd also just like to remind the readers that it was Harry who pushed for the settlement in the past few days.

His team approached NGN, NGN had a settlement offer on the table for months but were prepared for court.

I'm sure Harry's settlement was substantial, but the fact he approached them about it makes me wonder if it wasnt an increased settlement NGN suddenly offered, or Harry being willing to accept what was already there. Which indicates to me a settlement at the lower end of the figures claimed.

That should say more Harry being willing to accept what was already there.

Too late to edit

Reetpetitenot · 22/01/2025 23:40

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 23:29

And the Royal family also got a settlement. They were happy to accept the cash.
I am fine with that, but it is strange that you criticise Harry for accepting cash and not other members of the Royal family.

No-one's criticising Harry for accepting the cash. It's what civil cases are all about. Posters are criticising Harry for making a song a dance about not accepting cash, wanting to be the 'dragon slayer', being braver and more courageous because he was going to take it all the way, have his day in court, force NGN to have to stand up in court, had a thinly veiled poke at his brother for settling etc etc.

And what has he done? Settled out of court. Just like everyone else. So much for the posturing, so much for the delay tactics. He could have settled months, no, years ago. But no, Harry's specialera than all the other claimants, many of whom (including the Princess of Wales), had far more reason to take action against NGN than Harry.

IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 23:40

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:36

Why do you keep saying the Royal family instead of William? Are you trying to separate him from the narrative.

Yes, 'families' don't accept settlements. Individuals do.

Harry is as much a part of the 'royal family' as William is.

Partybagprick · 22/01/2025 23:42

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 22:08

@Partybagprick do you know what happened with Millie Dowler? She was a child who had gone missing. The family and the police feared the worst. It was all over the news. And then the police found the voicemail in Millies phone had been accessed AFTER she had gone missing. The papers and the parents said it gave them hope as she must have been alive to access her voicemail.

Then Millies body was found and she had died before her voicemail was accessed. The police urgently investigated who had accessed her voicemail as it could have been the murderer. Instead they found it was a journalist phone hacking.

You really think it takes a genius to work that out? When the police realised her phone had been hacked it was all over the press for weeks.

Yes of course I do. And, once again, you are wrong, particularly in this statement: "You really think it takes a genius to work that out? When the police realised her phone had been hacked it was all over the press for weeks."

Whatever Surrey police suspected or knew in 2002 (when Milly disappeared) about the NOTW accessing her phone (and theirs for that matter), they did nothing about it, no investigation, no follow up, no prosecution and no public statements about hacking. In fact, senior officers met up wit the NOTW to discuss he case with them. A report into Surrey police's failure to report hacking was submitted to Leveson. As was reported in 2012 in the Telegraph:

Surrey Police knew in April 2002 that the tabloid had illegally accessed the schoolgirl’s mobile phone messages, but instead of pressing charges a senior officer from the force invited two News of the World staff to a private meeting at the force’s headquarters to discuss the case.

Up to three other police forces were also aware of the hacking by the News of the World, but they did nothing until newspapers reported it last July [ie July 2011].

MPs said the Surrey force now had “serious questions” to answer about its response, and suggested the force could have prevented phone-hacking “becoming endemic” at the News of the World if it had acted sooner.

The police report, which has been submitted to the Leveson Inquiry, does not name the News of the World journalists who discussed voicemails with its officers, nor does it name the officers and press officers who knew about it.

But officers from Sussex Police, who reviewed the case in 2002, also failed to do anything about the hacking. The report implies that West Mercia police would also have been told about it, but it does not say whether the Metropolitan Police, which worked closely with Surrey on the case, was told.

So, no, the police involved with Milly Dowler's disappearance in 2002 were not going to be the party to reveal or investigate phone hacking.

So, one again, what got the ball rolling was William in 2005 reporting his security concern to the MET police. The Met consulted with the phone companies who had no idea hacking was possible, but established that it could be done. They traced calls made to staff voicemails to Clive Goodman's phone and to private investigator, Glenn Mulcair, who were prosecuted and were jailed in 2007. Phone hacking was officially identified as something that could be done and that was done. At that stage, the only publicly known victim was the royals.

The Guardian established the hacking of Milly's phone when they went through the notes of Glenn Mulcair in their 2009 investigation of the NOTW.
The Guardian looked at his thousands of notes (something once again the police appear to have failed to do) and found his hacking logs on Milly and others. The Guardian investigation prompted a number of civil suits, which in turn prompted the Met to re-open their investigations under the Weeting Inquiry. The Weeting Inquiry publicly confirmed in July 2011 that Milly Dowler had been a victim of hacking as the Guardian had established 2 years earlier. That was when the public outcry ensued and the Leveson Inquiry ordered. 2011, and at no time before 2005.

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:42

IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 23:40

Yes, 'families' don't accept settlements. Individuals do.

Harry is as much a part of the 'royal family' as William is.

Diana also accepted an out of court settlement just as William did.

Polka83 · 22/01/2025 23:43

Prince Harry has done really well to get this apology. It can’t have been easy but he felt clearly felt strongly about this - not surprising as it particularly affected him growing up and had a clear impact on his mother.

It would take someone quite obtuse to not accept journalists editors etc did not suspect illegal activity by their PIs. That’s probably how Prince Harry was able to push them as far as he did in their apology. I hope the police take it up now.

There are some pretty sour posters on this thread.

“For Harry himself, his critics will surely attempt to pick apart the victory, claim he failed to truly hold his tabloid enemies to account, and then return to lambasting every aspect of his life in California.
But we should not lose sight of what he has achieved in this legal war: an admission of 15 years of wrongdoing at one of Britain’s most powerful newspapers.”

”Harry was the only one who had the resources to pursue a claim and the stubborn drive to keep going, no matter the consequences.
Only that combination could push NGN to the brink of a trial and into an admission of wrongdoing on their flagship British newspaper, a precious jewel that had been protected for so long.
When the dust settles, it’s worth reflecting whether the justice system itself is doing enough to get to the truth. You could argue David sometimes doesn’t stand a chance against Goliath in our courts, if it’s the full truth they are after. And there aren’t many Princes who are willing and able to fight the battles instead.”

uk.news.yahoo.com/opinion-prince-harrys-stunning-victory-145233226.html

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2025 23:46

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:39

All of this argument about this , where were posters when Meghan was up against it?

This is so much easier to argue in a "positive spin", Harry didn't "lose" his trial, he got ££ and a public apology. Easy - he "won". Boo, evil tabloids.

So much more tricky to PR spin relentless bullying of numerous staff into a positive.

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:47

I'm also surprised that poster think that the sums estimated for legal representation is the amount he's apparently been awarded, first we have 10 million ( cost of Hugh grant ) probably Harry's , then 38million , which is the estimated amount for all parties!
Are people not fact checking?

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:48

@MrsFinkelstein , indeed.

Reetpetitenot · 22/01/2025 23:52

'But we should not lose sight of what he has achieved in this legal war: an admission of 15 years of wrongdoing at one of Britain’s most powerful newspapers.”'

But this was admitted years ago. It had quite literally nothing to do with Harry's actions. NGN have issued countless apologies over the years. Harry has achieved nothing new.

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:53

I don't particularly care either way but facts are facts!
Harry settled after saying he wouldn't.
Ngn were hoping to settle but were prepared to fight.
Both sides had information that they didn't want revealed in a courtroom.
Settlement payouts are private and are not to be revealed.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 22/01/2025 23:54

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:47

I'm also surprised that poster think that the sums estimated for legal representation is the amount he's apparently been awarded, first we have 10 million ( cost of Hugh grant ) probably Harry's , then 38million , which is the estimated amount for all parties!
Are people not fact checking?

God no, why would you let facts spoil a good yarn?!

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2025 23:55

@mainecooncatonahottinroof 🤣

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread