Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Options
1509510512514515732

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    You’re right, my last sentence shouldn’t have included any reference to you. Apologies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I don’t recall him apologising for subsidising illegal activity, death and destruction by taking drugs either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I’d say it will do very well - especially as a summer reading by the beach type book



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Eh Harry is a “victim” because he took drugs?

    Think I’ve heard it all now. 🤣



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Does anyone think that the reason why so many royal 'experts' are in overdrive spinning everything to demonise H&M at the moment? They know that he isn't going to be bought off and has deep pockets to pursue all of these. Piers Morgan/Mirror defence is fairly weak (seems to be lapse of time)!

    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-associated-newspapers-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-duke-of-sussexs-latest-court-case-12839560



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    The british tabloids are going for him right now for sure, now that he's suing them. I'd thought that after the Milly Dowler debacle that the laws had changed regarding privacy.

    Obviously the laws aren't going far enough if phone tapping is still going on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    It goes back years I think. Kate was hacked as well if I recall. Think mid-00s was the timeframe. I think he absolutely should win this as it was toxic carry on by the tabloids.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Harry is in London for the case, much to the surprise of the British media! The Daily Mail is very quite about this! Seemingly, there are huge court reporting restrictions imposed by them.

    List of complaints against Associated Newspapers/Daily Mail:

    Lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of "highly distressing" evidence revealing they had been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by Associated Newspapers.


    Accusations include:

    *The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes

    • The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls while they were taking place
    • The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information
    • The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception
    • The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation

    Associated Newspapers have strongly denied the allegations, describing them as "preposterous smears", and claiming the legal action taken is "a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers".

    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-court-case-live-harry-unexpectedly-turns-up-elton-john-and-others-part-of-case-against-daily-mail-publisher-12843334



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,678 ✭✭✭Multipass


    They’re surprised because it’s just a preliminary hearing, the case proper doesn’t start till May. I guess he needed his picture taken again back on his privacy tour 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Did he really fly all that way for a brief hearing? Climate change, what climate change?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Elton John and Sadie Shaw also were at the hearing. Were they looking to get their photo taken as well?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Since he flew commercial, the plane was coming anyway. He probably has a lot of other business to deal with like seeing his lawyers in preparation for the case where he is expected to take the stand and then of course since he has been evicted from his home in Windsor, he may need to tidy that up and get his £2.4 million back from the RF. 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    You'd think he'd be getting tired, carrying this chip on his shoulder all the time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    What chip on his shoulder? That the British media are toxic and are destroying England? That chip on his shoulder?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,678 ✭✭✭Multipass


    No because unlike Harry they apparently used a side door so they didn’t have to do the Pap walk. Harry was all smiles on his, the Ayahuasca must be helping with his fear of camera clicks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    If he didn't do what he did by being there, no one would have heard about the case because this is a trial of the British media. The only media there seems to have been Sky, so if he was looking for attention, he would have told them he was going to be there. The media were all caught flat footed by his appearance and now this case is world news.

    Anyway, why do you have a problem with him seeking redress through the courts for the illegal acts committed against him (I believe including the theft of his DNA*). Do you think that is ok? Prince Harry is doing what a lot of people are not able to do because he has the guts and the deep pockets to do - hold the British media to account.

    The irony of this whole case today is that Associated Newspapers have sought protection from the courts not to name the 'journalists' involved so as to protect their human right to privacy (which they have got).



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    Nope. I mean his obsessive sense of bitterness that he's being unfairly treated which comes from his feeling of inferiority as the "reserve". He comes from an enormously privileged background. However, he doesn't want to be in the Royal Family. He wants his children to be Prince and Princess. He is such a mess of contradictions, I'm not sure he knows what he wants himself.

    Any sign of Meghan, by the way?? Still keeping a low profile?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Harry's 'obsessive sense of bitterness' is to do with how the British press treated his wife and children. His problem with his family is that they did nothing about it and in fact fed the British media stories to detract from other stuff that would not reflect well on KCIII and William & Kate i.e., Williams affair with Rose Hanbury was burried in supposedly Meghan making Kate cry and of course an injunction against the papers publishing anything about William's affair. What happened to ''never complain, never explain" in that instance.

    Meghan was accused of bullying because she seemingly had a high turnover of staff, yet there isn't a word about Kate on her 4th Private Secretary in 5 years, the latest one lasting a month.

    The Royal Family threw the Sussex's to the lions and now they have to deal with the consequences.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Not really. They are a proper news organisation. They knew that the case was listed, they didn't expect Harry to be there (when you listen to Kay Burley anyway, she was surprised he was there).



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Report of the case today from Guardian. 72 journalists involved from Daily Mail and Mail on Line. Names being withheld for moment. Hilarious that they are using the Human Rights Act which they have advocated should be abolished.

    Harry's barrister is the same one that defended Colleen Rooney, David Sherborne.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/daily-mail-parent-company-invokes-human-rights-act-to-stop-naming-of-journalists



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    Just to pick up on a couple of the many points you make, there's no "injunction" - let alone a "super injunction" - about press coverage of William's alleged affair with Rose Hanbury. You don't need an injunction about something that didn't happen. And the volte face of suggesting Kate made Meghan cry (One tear, left eye, Go! remember) is bizarre.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    The British Press are such desperate bastards to the point of hacking peoples phones to seek out stories but they'll maintain this years long dignified silence about Williams alleged affair because they're all totally like in cahoots together. Or something. Lol.

    I love how this is confidently stated as a fact too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Well, a legal threat (according to the Daily Beast) was made to one newspaper and a journalist in the Times removed a tweet which confirmed the affair and said everyone knew about it. As well as that, apparently an 'insider' said that the rumours forced William & Kate to reasses their marriage. Now, bearing in mind that Kate was pregnant at this time and you would think everything was rosy with them, why would they be reassessing their marriage.

    My point about who was crying was that how did this become a story that Meghan made Kate cry just when there were rumours doing the rounds that William was having an affair. Where did this story come from? Why was it not denied about anyway (or put down to Kate being emotional because she just had a baby/Meghan being anxious over wedding).



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Giles Coren. He tweeted about it and then confirmed it was rumour/gossip.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Well, explain why William's PR person/CEO gave evidence on behalf of the Daily Mail v Meghan when it had nothing to do with the case. He must have been allowed do so by William because presumably he would have signed an NDA with the Firm.

    KCII PR person is also ex-Daily Mail, not to mention Camilla having her little lunches with various members of the Royal Rota.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Knauf was comms director for Harry and Meghan at the time of the letter to her father. He was presumably asked by ANL to give supporting details (i.e. their argument basically asking how exactly is a letter private if they published portions of it but that letter was demonstrably written with Kanufs assistance and done so with a reasonable expectation it would be made public). He didn't get involved for the first hearing, he did for the appeal. Maybe he did it of his own volition no?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Knauf was Kensington Palace Comms Sec since 2015. That meant he was working for William, Kate, Harry and eventually Meghan when they got married. When the Sussex's split from Kensington Palace, Knauf stayed with William & Kate, later becoming CEO of their Foundation and now is the CEO of the Moonshot thing that William is promoting.

    I think you get the gist as to who his loyalties were too. When Knauf testified, he was working (and is still working) for William & Kate.

    Knauf didn't have a copyright on the letter and I don't know what fearing that the letter would be leaked (which it was) had got to do with. His testimony that Meghan had contributed to Omid Scobie's biography had absolutely nothing got to do with the case, so why the hell was he there in the first place.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    There was a split in the comms team and Knauf ended up with the Cambridges. Harry and Meghan say in their docuseries that William provided Knauf to testify against them. Victims you see. Reps for Knauf said he wasn't, that he remained neutral. Anyway what he gave as evidence is factual and do you at least find it suspect that Meghan felt obliged to apologise to the court following that evidence? Even if William ordered him to do this then what Knauf was saying was truthful. It's almost like this is someone in William who knows he has to keep quiet and neutral having to be underhanded in order to get some semblance of the truth (or at least another side of the story) out there and not allow their truth to linger and ridiculously be accepted as fact. You can only imagine the indignation he must be feeling. That trial torpedoed any lingering benefit of the doubt or integrity Meghan ever had but even then the mental gymnastics continues and they get to tell their truth to square things like that away via their show.



Advertisement