Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

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

As you were!

If this is true - I'm not convinced his case would have been sufficiently strong and producing evidence so long after the event must have been fraught with difficulty - and this - I am not convinced either that he would have stood up well to cross-examination - why would the newspaper settle to the tune of 12 million to PH and who knows how much to Watson?

On top of that, why would they admit to criminal behavior?

And on top of that, why would they apologize to a dead woman?

For sure here must be a lot that they want buried.

But the PH team could not be sure that the judge would consider it a 12 million plus one.

however I think Harry is anti-freedom of speech and that is too far for me
Have a deeper think about this. He comes from here where we have measured freedom of speech (hate laws etc.).

We know how un measured freedom of speech goes - think Germany and Goebels for example.

The US freedom of speech rules are anything goes.

That means that homophobes can protest and scream at the families of dead gay people during their funerals, for example. They can shout at them and tell them that their dead loved ones are on their way to hell. Cruel no?

Or the protesters who stand near abortion clinics, calling the women who go in murderers. Same for the doctors and nurses. Also cruel.

There is big debate over this in the States - it is a huge philosophical question. Does my freedom to say what I want trump your freedom to bury your loved one in peace.

That is what he is on about there.

It would not have embarrassing for them @IcedPurple .

Nobody pays out as much as them over the years to hide mere embarrassment.

They are criminal.

NGN has made about a £billion in payouts. - why is this not the debate? Why have they had to Pau so much money?

This is Downtown Abbey level dissimulation - I think NGN did behave in a way that was ethically and legally wrong.
It was, in their own words, criminal.

The questions we need answered is how much damage have they done to private citizens who could not fight back and how much of our politicians behavior and policies is decided by them.

They want us to only focus on an over privileged prince so that we will not focus on what they do.

Are you seriously taking the side of Rupert Murdoch, who has caused so much harm, over all the people in this case including Prince Harry?

I am so amazed by people sometimes, I truly am.

Murdochs of all people. A poisonous, nasty, shadowy family that rains misery.

I think some financial person needs to do a dive on the Murdoch empire. they had to pay Dominion Voting Systems just under 800 million dollars for the voter fraud stuff.

According to reports here they have paid out a billion in comp over recent years.

That is massive money - where does it come from?

I agree

There has never been such a public apology and admission of guilt and criminal activities.
'Serious intrusion and incidents of unlawful activity' are the words used.

God knows, and when old Rupert kicks the bucket, his son Lachlan is poised to take over. He's a chip off the old block and no different to his father but all is not tranquil in the Murdoch family.
There's been a massive court case Lachlan versus his siblings as to who will control the empire

Probably the same, since Harry didn't get the outcome he said he wanted!

Indeed, one could argue that Harry had realised that spending 3 full days in the witness box in the coming weeks, being skilfully and persistently cross-examined by his opponent’s barrister, would have been something of a metaphorical ‘suicide mission’.

Harry sat in the witness box for days in the Mirror case and he did well, according to news media reports. He won that case.

The original will stands as of couple of months ago. Rupert lost the case and the will can’t be changed in Lachlan’s favour. As Rupert’s 4 older children have voting rights, (the two youngest have their shares but can’t vote if my memory serves), perhaps the 3 will outvote Lachlan.

I think Rupert is appealing.

I can't open the Vanity Fair article

"I have a subscription so not sure if everyone can access it. Vanity Fair

There was a cheeky ending to the article.

“No similar sentiment has been heard from Buckingham Palace. It’s as well to remember that a part of Harry’s courage was to break away from his family’s policy of not making adversaries of the tabloids. In his autobiography, Spare, Harry described a conversation that took place in April 2021, after the funeral of his grandfather, Prince Philip, as he was walking with his brother, Prince William, and his father, then Prince Charles.

They asked what was happening with the hacking case. “Still ongoing,” said Harry."

I'm not sure quoting Spare as fact is a good way for them to go.

This isn't even true. William did report his suspicion that he was being hacked to the police, over a decade ago, and received a settlement. The only difference between the brothers is that one grandstands in public and the other doesn't.

I can see why Charles would call it a suicide mission too. Who would want to sit on the stand defending ourselves against a top flight tabloid barrister? I certainly wouldn't. I think a lot would have come out that Harry would have preferred to keep quiet and it would probably have breached even more of the privacy of those around him. It's risky and brave to give evidence in this type of case, as Harry did last year.

Harry paints all this as him standing up for what is right and his brother and father being cowards but at the end of the day he and William both took a settlement and he didn't get NGN to admit their own staff acted illegally.

It's great he got a fulsome apology but it isn't a landmark, I suspect William got the same but privately, as did the other people who are hacked. All Harry did was play it out in public, ten years after the fact. I don't see any particular courage in that.

I don't less of more of Harry after this case concluded.

I can see why David Sherborne isn't a KC though.

I think that has more to do with being a civil lawyer, not a criminal one.

I don't know know enough about it. He comes across as extremely good at grandstanding and not necessarily helpful to his client. Good hair though.

I wonder if there was any financial inducement for Harry from the RF to settle to save him and them being dragged through court?
Remember the last minute intervention when Paul Burrel was due to go to court for theft and the Queen suddenly remembered she had gifted him some items?

I doubt it. Purely because they would know there was a good chance that Harry would go public with any offer and use it to paint them in the worst possible light.

I'm stating facts, not indulging in cheap emotionalism.

Harry and Tom Watson dropped the case in return for an apology and financial pay out with no admission of liability on the part of NGN, as has happened countless times before. None of the higher ups were 'held to account' as Harry had pledged to do.

Those are facts. Acknowledging them is not 'taking sides'.

To be factual, he was awarded damages (£146k) over 15 claims of hacking. 18 of his claims were dismissed, the Judge saying he had been hacked "to a modest extent".

He did well to win those 15 as no one deserves to have their privacy invaded, to have private conversations, telephone calls and texts published to an international audience.

I was hoping this would go to trial also, there was an awful lot for NGN to defend and I doubt they could fully do it. I'll also miss another opportunity to hear Harry reminisce about Chelsy Davey (not). At least her privacy will be protected this time.

I felt for the other defendents who ended up paying costs.

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-mirror-group-newspapers-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-duke-of-sussexs-latest-court-case-12877218

I often wonder how Meghan must feel whenever Harry mentions Chelsy Davey. I think I’d find it hard if I was her, but then if Harry and Chelsy had stayed together then he & Meghan would never have married. A difficult one for her and I feel for her, it playing out publicly.

Not the will. The family trust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ld084z8jjo

This thread is a relief - glad to see the avalanche of H&M fans seem to have lost interest, as the last one was almost unreadable.

Continuing a subject from another thread in terms of paid PR seeding of social media and forums, I wonder whether H&M have reined in the budget more recently. Times gone by there was a much more consistent and regular "core" base of supporters. Now what you seem to get more often is a wave that lasts for 24 hours or so (almost always on a specific thread or subject) and then falls away.

I could see a world where it's more cost effective to get a burst of support over a short time frame when news is fresh around key events in order to try and sway the narrative, rather than an ongoing campaign.

What's Harry's case with the Daily Mail about does anyone know? Is it the same - historical hacking? Or something different?

I'm a little shocked that people think this hurts the reputation of the Sun or NGN as in what reputation. The fact that they've paid a billion pounds to avoid court or the fact that they've spewed lies and hate over dead football fans, it somehow took this for realisation that the Sun was involved in illegal if not criminal activity. The loss to NGN would've been spending a billion to avoid cout and still end up in court. Anyone who followed the trail also knows that it wasn't just the Sun with missing emails.

The monetary settlement will be taxed in the US (federal/state)

Between the legal fees and tax…there may not be that much left over

Anyone have an opinion on why we havent seen PH out and about delighted with himself and crowing about his win for accountability and his mission for the little people?

Is part of the settlement that he doesnt talk about the case in public (except for the initial statement Sherbourne read out) - so he's agreed to be silenced?

Or does he believe he folded?