Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

Here we are discussing historic cases, old convictions, old acquittals, a long dead newspaper. Who are the new names held to account by Harry v NGN?

plus he's not very bright

How so? Seems pretty smart to me.

He may not have been book or exam smart in school, when mourning the sudden, violent death of his mother. I had a comparable experience and failed almost every exam I sat.

I do not think that qualifies me as not smart? I have been very successful career wise.

In fact, thinking about it, I would still fail an exam in my opinion. But my prepared papers are excellent. Different abilities and all that. 😁

I think it would only be economic if what is made public would shine some light for other litigants.

They must have had so much to hide.

Yet again those wankers suppressed the truth.

Oh stop being silly - 'what are the names then" malarkey.

We are indeed discussing old cases, in the context of this case, always with the scent of Murdoch as the base notes. But - we are thinking and talking about corrupt journalism.

This is a good thing for us as a society.

It is good for you personally, as a citizen, that someone puts a challenge to the Murdoch media empire.

And if the vessel is PH, so be it.

Well Harry has settled now so in this case that is an end to it. Surely ?

Harry was absolutely right not to go to trial, he was right to take a payout and get an apology. Nothing wrong with that, it was the right decision, in my mind its irrelevant if it was at the eleventh hour..

He was an utter twat to mouth off, for years and as recently as 4 weeks ago, about being the only one who could go the distance to get accountability,, who could do it for the others who had to take a payout.

Harry again proves that his mouth is bigger than the principles he would love to have, and far bigger than his intellect..

I think William sat his GCSEs within 6-7 months of his mother's death, didn't he?

What are you basing Harry's intelligence on?

You may be so ill informed to not have been questioning Murdoch's corrupt media empire until Harry's case. Some of us have been questioning it for many, many years. In my case, since the 1980s.

And he's not going anywhere, and nobody new is being held to account for anything new.

I'm not just talking qualifications.

So what challenge has there been? He's bought his way out of it, again. You might argue, he's actually increased his power base.

about being the only one who could go the distance to get accountability,,

Would he have been the only one in this particular suit?

As in, was he in a better position than Dame Lawrence for example?

I don't know who the others were but if they were "ordinary citizens" he may well have been the only one with the resources to go as far as he did.

We had a huge issue with a corporate entity five years ago and when all was said and done we could not afford the risk of going to court. It would have bankrupted us, devastated our lives and that of the children.

It was horrible to have to concede the principal because of costs.

I see lots of personal insults directed at Prince Harry.
I wish there was a space on MN to have a serious discussion about this issue.

That is just mean spirited.

There was a difference in age.

William was well ensconced in school by that point, with a network of friends etc.

And clearly, William had an ability to function in a way that his younger brother did not.

I am glad for Prince William, but I cannot chastise or evaluate Prince Harry using him as a comparison.

How would you have a "serious discussion" when you persist with the delusion that a settlement is a win?!

As for the "personal insults", I assume that Harry is not here, and they're not insults anyway but assessments based on observations.

What are you basing Harry's intelligence on?

You may be so ill informed

This is seems to be a bit of a sweet spot for you, evaluating intelligence for lack there of.

And he's not going anywhere, and nobody new is being held to account for anything new.

And he's not going anywhere, and nobody new is being held to account for anything new.

As Murdoch is in his 90s he will be going somewhere within the next decade or so.

He may not be held to account, but I repeat, it is good to have people talk, debate and reflect on media, corruption and what we want.

If this case has only achieved that I say "well done."

See you see it that way.

I see it as Murdoch NOT wanting a trial.

And I wonder why that would be?

It is a golden opportunity for NGN to expose Prince Harry for the charlatan they say he is.

Why did they refuse it?

when you persist with the delusion that a settlement is a win?!

Why did NGN and Murdoch not want to go to trial?

What did they pay to hide?

By refusing to settle they could have exposed everything they want to expose in Prince harry and bankrupted him to boot - why did they refuse this opportunity of a lifetime?

It was you who attributed his lack of qualifications on the death of his mother, not me. There's no reason for you to have brought it up, but don't expect to not be questioned about it if you do. Many people suffer awful childhood trauma and don't flunk out of school. It's not a given. As usual, you Sussex fans attribute William's different reaction to Diana's death to anything but the man's own character and intelligence, and give Harry a pass for everything based on her death. It's not a healthy attitude for this man to be still dwelling on his mother as fiercely as he does all these years later, and to fail in life because of it. It is not a good advert for his therapy advocacy.

Again, on what are you basing your assessment that Harry is particularly smart?

Apart from the fact it was Harry who was suing NGN....??!😂

Do you know what a 'defendant' is?

It was interesting that when David Sherborne and Tom Watson walked out from court to their photo/media opp, and Sherborne read out the prepared statement on Harry's behalf, one of the TV reporters said to him,

'Mr Sherborne, Prince Harry said he wanted accountability. There's been no admitted evidence [?about] senior managers. Is this what he wanted?'

Sherborne declined to answer, and instead waved toward Tom Watson who did a 'who? me now?' gesture and stepped forward to deliver his own prepared statement.

(NGN - as per posts and direct quotes above on the thread - have challenged what Sherborne said on behalf of his client, Harry.)

but assessments based on observations gleaned for NGN which is our major source of information about him.

I finished that for you.

Have you noticed how they are already locked and loaded for the next generation by the way?

Young Prince George - thoughtful you chap - will have the burden of leadership.

Young Princess Charlotte - the female support.

Young Prince Louis - hilarious, Cheeky Chappy.

Sound at all familiar?

Well he presented himself as being the only one who could take it all the way, which turned out to be another misstep on his behalf.

If Hugh Grant, worth far more than Harry, decided it wasn't financially viable to take it all the way through the civil courts, then Harry, or at least his legal counsel must have realised that they too couldn't take it all the way.

Yet Harry, publicly only 4 weeks ago, said he was going full steam ahead and was doing it 'for others and accountability', at that point there were strong indicators this was getting very close to a massive financial outlay, win or lose, but he still spoke as if the financial aspect was not his interest or concern and that he was in a financial position to cover it.

He spoke out of turn and he should never have tried to present himself as taking a stance on what already appeared to be a huge financial risk, which ultimately he conceded he couldn't support.

Well at least I can follow a discussion. Another poster posited Harry is smart. I asked them how they are coming to that conclusion.

You are implying that media corruption is being discussed to some especial degree because of Harry's case. It isn't. Many of us have discussed it for years.

For the slow ones at the back.

NGN folded. There was nothing for Harry to take to trial. Criminal liability was admitted by the Defendant before the trial commenced.

You really think posters calling Harry thick adds to this discussion? It is just childish.

And yes it was a win. I accept your pedantic point that legally a court case is only a win if a judge in court says it is a win. But to anyone else a massive settlement with all costs paid - estimated to be 10 million, plus a massive eight figure settlement, plus an extensive public apology that includes for the first time an admittance that freelance journalists working directly for The Sun acted unlawfully - is in most peoples books a massive win.