Harry meeting the king just now

[Justanotherdramalama]

I think he's going cap in hand to ask for money. I really hope he's not got the nerve to ask to come back!

So is Harry saying he has no real proof that he was hacked, but because Catherine and William were hacked hundreds of times, then he must have been too? and hete is the proof Catherine and William were hacked ?

And is he using evidence from incidents that have already been through the legal system albeit settled out of court?

This is getting murkier, it sounds like Harry’s team are now being accused of collaborating with Hacked Off and The Byline Times to manipulate articles so they can use them as evidence in court (I think that’s the gist of it, but not exactly sure), interesting to see the Byline again embroiled in more underhand shenanigans, if true.

www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-harry-william-princess-of-wales-privacy-wdg3nss68

He won't give up will he?

Is it to do with the Limitation Act argument that is still active in the case? I think the DM tried to get the case thrown out a couple of years ago on these grounds - they didn’t succeed, but the judge said the argument was still on the table. Didn’t Harry try to claim there were secret agreements and the like between palace and press and he didn’t know about them so he’s not “timed out”? Also the most hacked of the 3 was Catherine, who was a civilian at the time. I don’t think there’s the evidence that the princes were particularly hacked, more likely that it’s people around them who were, so he might be trying to argue he suffered damage and privacy violations via the hacking of people around them. 🤷‍♀️

Can someone please do an archive link?

https://archive.ph/Zb16Y

The Vintage Read’s latest video is interesting. She’s wondering if he’s trying to expose William and Catherine in some way via William’s 21st birthday party (themed Out of Africa) and what shenanigans may have occurred there. Evening up the score for all his (Harry’s) exposure in the press at the time as the “party prince”. What he couldn’t say for legal reasons in Spare he might be able to say on the stand, protected under legal privilege, perhaps? Is it just more petty revenge and jealousy, trying to try to drag his brother and SIL down as they prepare to become king and queen?

LA Times

I hope this works.

Edited to add. Ignore this. Another poster was faster than I.

Ah, just seen the latest article. It is about Limitaion then, just not quite what I was thinking. Very juicy if Hazza and Hairdo are planting evidence via friendly press!

Yes, not a good look for any legal team.

“The court was told that researchers working for the duke’s legal team “hatched” a scheme to avoid the claims of Frost and Hughes being dismissed because they were brought too late.

The plan allegedly involved Evan Harris, a former Liberal Democrat MP, and Graham Johnson, who was convicted in 2014 for phone hacking while a journalist at The Sunday Mirror. Harris also used his role as executive director of the Hacked Off campaign and Johnson used his position as investigations editor of the Byline Times website, where he has been a contributor since 2015, it is alleged.

The court was told that Harris wrote to Hughes in July 2019: “The Mail hacking claims are being developed and will be ready to launch soon.
“To deter the Mail from arguing ‘limitation’ (i.e. you knew about this 6 years ago) [a law firm] think it best for stories to be written in Byline, which can be referred as the basis for claims being raised.”

Sorry I am lost - is the jist of it that this has all been exposed as being reverse engineered in order to circumvent the time limit? And that W&C incidents are used because there is no evidence available to hand that it happened to PH and his case is then solely based on an inference that it must have happened to him?

The real story here is that H's legal team are being accused of trying to circumvent the statute of limitations rule that you have six years from hearing about an offense to bringing it to court. They had publications print stories about stuff that had happened historically, then presented those stories to the victims*, so that the victims could then claim that this was the first time they'd heard of them.

*or was there only one victim, Sadie Frost. Soz, got an impatient dog who's being waiting for his walk all morning, and don't have time to revisit the article to check before he kills me with his Disappointed Dog stare and poops in the corner.

Yes I see how the SF bit followed through…..but can’t see how this relates to PH with the W&C incidents - unless there were plans to print historic stories? And that PH ‘associated’ with W&C being hacked is enough to claim he was hacked - but didn’t know about these incidents at the time?

Also PW agreeing a private settlement with DM being revealed by PH - when did this happen and do we think PW agreed to this? Or would this disclosure impact any NDA PW had with DM?

Thanks for the archived link. I really don't see why Harry is dragging William into it. Surely he needs William's permission?

Catherine is visiting RAF Conningsby today. Wearing a grey suit. I’d like to think it’s a subtle trolling of Harold.

Somehow I don't imagine that asking William's permission for anything would be quite to Harry's taste, MrsLF

Very true.

It's probably a "nod" (copyright Daily Mail) to the RAF. If it were me though I'd definitely do it to be petty (good job Catherine isn't me!)

How about a machiavellian theory:

Harry says X story about me could only have been obtained by a friend/associate/the palace leaking the story or by hacking.

DM says it's not us hacking, and we have the proof.

Conclusion: it must then have been the friend/associate/palace - and fingers are pointed in those directions courtesy of cross examination. Harry's dirty work done for him by opposing counsel.

I think Harry is so deep into wanting to be right that he has lost all reason. Does he want to be right or happy, as the saying goes.

William allegedly received a large settlement which he donated to Invictus .

That doesn’t make logical sense, you have said.

harry says it was leaked by friend/associate/the palace
and conclusion is it is friend/associate/the palace.

how does the dm denying it’s them, when Harry hasn’t accused them in your sendtwnfe, move him forward it’s still either friend/associate/palace.

sendtwnfe

Not sure what that was supposed to be.

I said either hacking or by leaking. And the operative claim for the purposes of the legal claim is hacking/unlawful information gathering, and the operative defense is that stories were obtained lawfully through sources. If the DM can show it's not hacking or unlawful information gathering, then the conclusion will be leaking, because the story got out there somehow. The DM may well have to reveal that they had an inside source who was readily giving them information. And in very private situations, the sources may well be narrowed down to a small number of friends/family/men in grey. What if Harry knows full well that there was no hacking involved, but wants to use the court as a forum to show the palace was leaky.

Both Sadie Frost and David Furnish were in court for the hearing while other claimants tuned in via video link.
^^
At one stage, Prince Harry sent a message via the remote system to Baroness Lawrence asking her to mute her microphone as those logged in could hear her discussing her shopping. “Doreen, please mute your phone,” he said.