Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

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

As you were!

I also did wonder though - from memory from Leveson it was mostly celebrities targeted for hacking? If you focus on politics as David did as editor, while obviously politicians were hacked too, there are far more people in those circles who are keen and happy to talk to the press about what goes on. So I guess it may have been more peripheral to stories he was running?

I couldn't agree more.

You only have to look at what happened with the Brexit referendum, and the number of people who still buy into the lies from Farage, Johnson and the like (despite countless examples where they've been caught out in bare faced lies) to see what would happen.

Whether or not you support the monarchy, our Head of State in the Queen and now King Charles have not embarrassed the U.K. on the world stage, which can't be said for Johnson or Farage, for example. I still cringe when I think about the way Farage behaved as an MEP, totally despicable and disrespectful.

I would have side eyed except I'm sure I read recently that when phone hacking was first suspected people didn't realise it was possible.

Thank you for the podcast recommendations@MrsLeonFarrell and @Serenster 😊

The phone companies themselves didn't know it was possible. The people doing it obviously knew it was, and the police knew about it from around 1999. I simply don't believe that Fleet Street journalists didn't hear rumours - if not having direct knowledge - relating to where all this information was coming from.

Some of them, maybe not all of them? I doubt the whole of Fleet Street knew because it would have been hard to keep secret but I agree that some probably did.

This is interesting. A programme called The Hack (by the same people who made Me Bates v The Post Office) is to be shown later this year, highlighting how the Guardian helped to uncoverthe hacking scandal.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/jan/29/itv-drama-about-guardians-role-in-phone-hacking-scandal-to-be-aired-this-year

I wonder if the programme will mention the Guardian's own hacker, David Leigh.

https://news.sky.com/story/guardian-journalist-admits-phone-hacking-10483154

Seems like William is having more fun getting his revenge on the press sprays water at press during visit to firm www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre8xxd7xl8o See here 😆

That gave me a bit of a laugh. Not the actual phone hacking of course. But I did laugh at a Murdoch owned news media pointing the finger at someone else for phone hacking.

My guess is nearly everyone in Fleet Street would have known about it, and many would have known how to do it, and as it was rife at Murdoch’s NOTW a person can be forgiven for wondering if it was rife at Murdoch owned news media in the US and Australia. 🤔

It's not an opinion piece or "finger pointing". It's a news report on the man's own evidence before Leveson that he hacked phones.

I did not say it’s an opinion piece.

It’s a factual article about a guardian journalist doing exactly what Murdoch’s UK media was doing. It is finger pointing in my opinion .

Right, so if there's a general news story about, say, the institutional cover up of a high profile sexual offender, and the BBC cover that story in their news, would you describe that as finger pointing on the part of the BBC, because they have done exactly what that other institution is now accused of doing?

WTF does the SKY article about phone hacking have to do with a hypothetical sexual abuse offender?

I’m not on here to argue for arguments sake. Life is too fucking short. I had an opinion about an article. End of.

It's called an analogy. Don't worry, I'm sure other readers understand.

I agree completely. I think reform of the Lords is far more important than getting a different Head of State, but if there were say 2 or 3 people put forward by Parliament from people who met a certain criteria and wanted to do it, it's not as if the electorate could just tell Katie Price to be Head of State. I think its pointless arguing for a Republic for the foreseeable future as its just replacing one ribbon cutter for another, but I do think the Monarchy needs to be told to reform if they want to stay long-term. No secret deals on legislation, and any lobbying requests have to be openly discussed in Parliament with justifications from the Palace. No tax dodges, no keeping things secret for 100 years, unless they are a matter of National security, far fewer houses. If the Royals didn't want to do it, they could request that George was the last King. That would give ample time for Parliament and the Commonwealth Realms time to make alternative arrangements, but I doubt they would voluntarily give it all up.

The thing is I think constitutionally you can only abdicate for yourself - the ‘royals’ aren’t one unified block. The Mountbatten Windows aren’t even the end of the line of succession.

So Charles could abdicate and then William but I think George would have to be 18 to do so, and then we’d have to wait for Charlotte and Louis and then we’d get to Harry and you can bet your last penny that he’d grab than Crown and hold on for dear life.

I think the decision has to come from the government but they could I suppose say William or George will be the last monarch and give themselves several decades to make all the decisions and changes needed.

I like the idea of Mountbatten Windows... 😀

Post monarchy biz idea!

I thought you abdicated for yourself and your heirs? In any case, Parliament can change that. If they are asked by the Monarch, if William decides he doesn't want his family to do it any longer he could ask for Parliament to change the law. We don't have a written constitution, so the constitution is whatever the legislation at the time says it is. The Constitution said that we were subject to EU Law until 8 years ago?

I agree with your post, up until the last para.

I think that W & K might think that, if they get the requisite financial compensation* it would be worth it to get George ( and all their descendants) off the hook. Their descendants would then have a social and financial existence like that of the Duke of Westministers' family.

• I believe that the deal was, the Hanoverian Georges agreed to hand over huge tracts of land to the Government, in return for those estates being handled on their behalf and them getting an income from them. This happened at a time when the King Georges owned, and paid for, their own family but dad was always falling out with son and leaving the heir to the crown in penury.

I gave my opinion about a SKY article.

You answered that it was not an ‘opinion piece’.

I replied I didn’t say it was an opinion piece.

You then wanted me to give my opinion on a hypothetical scenario you had constructed rather than acknowledging that you had misread my post.

I said no, that I’m not going to do that, as it’s got nothing to do with my original opinion. I indicated that I’d finished with the topic.

You then posted your final answer - it’s quoted above.

Good one, ridiculing me because you choose to believe I don’t understand an analogy when in fact, it was you who had misread my original post on the article, didn’t acknowledge you’d done so, and instead, dreamed up some hypothetical scenario I wasn’t interested in addressing.

I thought you abdicated for yourself and your heirs?

No you can only abdicate for yourself.

You're thinking of what Edward VIII said - but the crucial context here is that he had no DC at that point, and said it to make it clear than any future DC born after his abdication, would not be joining the line of succession.

Everyone who has been born is in the LoS in their own right; and each can abdicate only for themselves (plus any DC born after they quit the LoS but not those already alive).

Minors cannot abdicate - you have to have reached age 18. A minor becoming monarch (because parent/s across the generations abdicated) would require a Regent until they came of age