Prince Harry v The Mirror in phone hacking case

but do they leave her alone - nope

Thanks to that master of chivalry, Prince Harry, poor Chelsy is once more going to be plunged into the spotlight.

She must rue the day she ever met him.

Whilst the press can be extremely intrusive towards the royals, unfortunately Harry has courted the press in order to make money and in order to feed his over inflated ego.

Diana had a very close relationship with the press.

The royals might support the press, and they have their :tame" journalists of course.

But when these non-royal females start a relationship with a royal, they are besieged.

It must be hard to deal with.

Mollygo

^It’s an anonymous forum so I think I can state facts on here.^

It’s an anonymous forum so posters can also claim whatever they like as facts, without having to provide evidence.

Next. . .

Why would i want to provide you with facts? Its no skin off my nose if you believe me or not. If you want to accuse someone of lying, go ahead. I don't why someone would lie about that on an anonymous forum, maybe you can enlighten me. I brought up in context of The Royal Family working really hard in getting people to donate to charity. Well i like thousands of others have worked money for charity whilst holding down paid jobs and running a house.

The defence barrister brought up Chelsey Dave’s uncle gave an interview with the press whilst she was seeing him. Harry had alleged that the press had hacked his phone.

Will he be publishing a book about how he was let down by the judiciary ?

Most probably. Hopefully no one will buy it.

vegansrock

Anyone who thinks that the press aren’t intrusive to an unimaginable degree are living in some sort of fantasy land. H had been blinded by flashbulbs from his earliest days. He couldn’t “go off and live quietly” if he wanted to. Chelsey’s life was made a misery at uni - the press and photographers were like a pack of baying hounds on the campus, fellow students reported it was absolutely terrible. Diana was made similarly miserable by relentless press intrusion. The whole treatment of the royals as celebrities whose every move must be documented in tittle tattle is appalling and made even more worse with the technology available these days. I have no love for any of the RF - the whole institution belongs in the middle ages - but the criminal behaviour of the press should be challenged and if Harry feels he has to stand up for what he perceives as criminal persecution then good for him.

criminal persecution then good for him
This is a civil, not a criminal case.

Anyone who thinks that the press aren’t intrusive to an unimaginable degree are living in some sort of fantasy land

I don't think anyone is disputing that.
What is in question is how the information about Harry and his friends and family was obtained.

It’s problematic when the witness is unable to remember accurately. For example, in his book Spare, Harry says he was informed of his great grandmother’s death whilst he was at school, but in actuality he was on a skiing trip with his father and brother. The consequence of this is that this incident and others show clearly that Harry is an unreliable witness.

Of course the press are intrusive vegansrock. But what’s the alternative? What would we know about Boris Johnson or Matt Hancock during Covid without a free press? Be careful what you wish for.

Foxygloves

But maybe Chelsey dumped him because…well, just because she dumped him?
You or rather Harry, can’t blame the press for everything.
And as for the press leaking stories about his smoking pot at Eton, underage drinking, etc - maybe he should have thought about that first?
Do we all remember the hoo ha about Prince Charles at Gordonstoun and the cherry brandy? Poor kid!

Quite possibly they'd have split up - regardless. Other high-profile figures' relationships endure, even though they're also targeted by the media. It was, also, an 'on-off' relationship allegedly... who knows?

Certainly no-one can blame the press for all the ills and traumas that affect high-profile individuals. But the media moguls and the reporters, photographers, journalists etc, are ruthless and I make no excuses for their behaviour.

Forgetting royalty and celebrities - News International paid for the services of a private investigator who'd hacked the voicemails of the murdered school-girl Milly Dowler when she first went missing - he also, allegedly provided services to the Mail on Sunday, though that's been denied, however the PI insists that he did. I really have little time for the pious press insisting that they are doing a public service by keeping us informed... if they were, they'd be 'investigating' some of the activities of those in both government, and in opposition - which, of course, they do, but only when it suits their agenda. The-public's-right-to-know, very much depends on what any particular media do or don't want us to know.

And yes, of course H should've thought about the consequences of his pot-smoking, drinking and all the other activities he was involved in at Eton because, unfortunately for him, the other fellow students indulging in the same had the benefit of anonymity, which he didn't.

I'm no fan of Harry - I think he's a privileged fool who desperately needs to learn the value of 'quiet reflection'... but he is still entitled to the same privacy we defend for others.

The media love to have a high profile bad-boy, it's meat and drink for them, something they can exploit, endlessly. And Harry, poor sop, fitted the bill, and will go on doing so. Because either no one cares enough about him to tell him to shut-up, or they have and he's not listening. Of course, even if he maintained a dignified silence, there would still be speculation - from the endless "sources close to the Household" etc... but the public do have a sneaking respect for those who refuse to 'babble' on.

There's "in the public interest" and then there's just click-bait stuff with our press. They use everything as "in the public interest".

If a politician is dodgy, lying or corrupt, then of course it's public interest.

If a royal is receiving carrier bags containing £3 million in cash, then, yes, that's public interest.

If a royal is being connected with trafficking/grooming/exploitation of young girls, then thats public interest.

Who is having a relationship with whom is not public interest. It's personal.

There are reams of stuff, online, about William having a female "side interest" in Norfolk - is that our business? No, it's not.

The press try to excuse their behaviour with their cry of "public interest", and it's often ludicrous.

Phone hacking, bugging without consent is illegal in the UK.

However, the question being asked is how the information was obtained, whether or not it was by illegal means and, if so, who knew about this, who authorised it.

Harry is only one of over 100 people bringing claims against MGN, Murdoch's NGN and the Mail Newspapers.

17Callistemon21

"vegansrock

Anyone who thinks that the press aren’t intrusive to an unimaginable degree are living in some sort of fantasy land. H had been blinded by flashbulbs from his earliest days. He couldn’t “go off and live quietly” if he wanted to. Chelsey’s life was made a misery at uni - the press and photographers were like a pack of baying hounds on the campus, fellow students reported it was absolutely terrible. Diana was made similarly miserable by relentless press intrusion. The whole treatment of the royals as celebrities whose every move must be documented in tittle tattle is appalling and made even more worse with the technology available these days. I have no love for any of the RF - the whole institution belongs in the middle ages - but the criminal behaviour of the press should be challenged and if Harry feels he has to stand up for what he perceives as criminal persecution then good for him"

[ Quote] "criminal persecution then good for him
This is a civil, not a criminal case".

While it is a civil action, I imagine that Harry hopes that if he is successful, then criminal charges against senior Mirror employees and ex-employees will result. This case is I believe a stepping stone towards that end, which is why the Mirror Group is taking it so seriously.

Whilst I agree with most of what you say DiamondLily, the royals such as Harry do rather make it our business when they insist on having over the top weddings with carriage rides round the area, waving and smiling at all the commoners. It could be argued that William should have had a high profile wedding because of his place in the line of succession, although frankly I don’t see the need myself, but others such as Eugenie and Harry certainly didn’t need to put themselves out there costing the British tax payer millions for all the security. Frankly no one can have it both ways! Harry wanted his big wedding because his brother had one and wanted all the waving and public adoration and pictures in the newspapers, but doesn’t want it when it suits him, such as when he’s wearing a Nazi costume, or taking drugs, or falling out of an expensive club late at night so full of alcohol (and drugs?) so that he can barely stand up. I’m sorry, no one can have it both ways!

I used to think of Harry as an amiable, affable if somewhat naive man. Since his string of spiteful interviews and books, coupled with recent revelations of seedy incidents in his youth , I am revising my opinion of him.

It would appear that the royal family 'business' protected him from much more exposure than he suffered at the time. Now he has left their protection he disregards advice, (whoever let him write that 55 page statement?), is ill-prepared for the case he chose to bring, lies and dissembles with ease and appears hellbent on his own destruction.

But phone hacking is still illegal. But disputed when Harry can’t get his evidence straight.

Harry seems muddled about the nub of his case. It’s purely whether the press obtained information by illegal means and, if so, who authorised or approved that. Something he has to prove on the balance of probabilities. It’s not about press intrusion using lawful, albeit annoying, means. If he or his lawyers are deliberately muddying the waters with general whinging, it won’t work.

Makes a change from Philip Schoffield headlines I suppose. The media legally sometimes do things to the death. This court case is likely to become another. Although some inaccuracies in his telling perhaps this will be cathartic for Prince Harry who has so much emotional baggage. He says he was subject to press hatred from the moment he was born, showing deep paranoia imo. He is clearly troubled. Tilting at windmills.

Anyone is out there waiting to take photos and make a fast buck. It’s the downside of being rich and famous.

Germanshepherdsmum

Harry seems muddled about the nub of his case. It’s purely whether the press obtained information by illegal means and, if so, who authorised or approved that. Something he has to prove on the balance of probabilities. It’s not about press intrusion using lawful, albeit annoying, means. If he or his lawyers are deliberately muddying the waters with general whinging, it won’t work.

Is each claim being decided individually or as a whole?

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Harry seems muddled about the nub of his case. It’s purely whether the press obtained information by illegal means and, if so, who authorised or approved that. Something he has to prove on the balance of probabilities. It’s not about press intrusion using lawful, albeit annoying, means. If he or his lawyers are deliberately muddying the waters with general whinging, it won’t work.

Is each claim being decided individually or as a whole?

I mean each person, not each newspaper group that Harry is suing.

Totally agree, GSM. And he seems a bit shocked to discover that being cross-examined in court is an entirely different kettle of fish to sitting down for an interview with a hand-picked 'tame' journalist or interviewer.

maddyone

Whilst I agree with most of what you say DiamondLily, the royals such as Harry do rather make it our business when they insist on having over the top weddings with carriage rides round the area, waving and smiling at all the commoners. It could be argued that William should have had a high profile wedding because of his place in the line of succession, although frankly I don’t see the need myself, but others such as Eugenie and Harry certainly didn’t need to put themselves out there costing the British tax payer millions for all the security. Frankly no one can have it both ways! Harry wanted his big wedding because his brother had one and wanted all the waving and public adoration and pictures in the newspapers, but doesn’t want it when it suits him, such as when he’s wearing a Nazi costume, or taking drugs, or falling out of an expensive club late at night so full of alcohol (and drugs?) so that he can barely stand up. I’m sorry, no one can have it both ways!

No, I agree with some of what you say.

I think it's ludicrous that we have to fund OTT weddings, funerals, coronations, and jubilees.

They should pay for it themselves.

It's not appropriate or necessary in a modern world, especially when do many are going without the basics.🙄

Harry seems muddled about the nub of his case yes he does GSM but how can that be when he has a legal team behind him?

What could be a deliberate muddying of waters will surely only undermine his case.

They should pay for it themselves.

Weddings, yes.

Coronation? I'm not sure, some monarchies have a type of investiture but the Coronation and the Jubilee proved to be very popular and attracted visitors, many from overseas.

I'd be reluctant to discard centuries of tradition in favour of too much modernising.