Prince Harry loses and wins

Glorianny Circumcision isn't necessarily a medical procedure and doesn't necessarily appear in medical records.

What rubbish!

Rosie51

Glorianny

If Meghan's father was to write his autobiography would you be happy with him revealing intimate private information about her as part of his life story?

Think he's already done that for various newspapers.

William is a public figure and Harry's brother. It's such an inconsequential thing. Can't think why anyone is interested or why it should be a secret. It's a bit different to interfering or hacking into personal relationships . Now if Harry had dished the dirt on his brother's alleged affair and the state of the Wales' marriage you might have a point. Although arguably the adulterous affairs of the RF and their relationship with the church is of public interest.

Think he's already done that for various newspapers. Really? He's disclosed an intimate, private medical condition or procedure? I must have missed that, perhaps you can do one of your links please?

It's such an inconsequential thing. It really isn't inconsequential, and you've yet to explain the relevance to Harry's life story. Is that because there isn't any and it was just gratuitous on Harry's part. Why should it be secret? Well because what medical records of yours do you want the doctor's receptionist to spread? At what point is someone's medical record private/available to be published? If it's so uninteresting why did Harry include it? I find your defence of the indefensible, and then bringing in nasty gossip most revealing.

You asked about intimate private information. There is the letter www.thesun.co.uk/news/8396792/meghan-markle-letter-read-dad-thomas/
Suppose it depends if you think a letter from a daughter to a father is private.

Circumcision isn't necessarily a medical procedure and doesn't necessarily appear in medical records.

Glorianny

^If Meghan's father was to write his autobiography would you be happy with him revealing intimate private information about her as part of his life story?^

Think he's already done that for various newspapers.

William is a public figure and Harry's brother. It's such an inconsequential thing. Can't think why anyone is interested or why it should be a secret. It's a bit different to interfering or hacking into personal relationships . Now if Harry had dished the dirt on his brother's alleged affair and the state of the Wales' marriage you might have a point. Although arguably the adulterous affairs of the RF and their relationship with the church is of public interest.

Think he's already done that for various newspapers. Really? He's disclosed an intimate, private medical condition or procedure? I must have missed that, perhaps you can do one of your links please?

It's such an inconsequential thing. It really isn't inconsequential, and you've yet to explain the relevance to Harry's life story. Is that because there isn't any and it was just gratuitous on Harry's part. Why should it be secret? Well because what medical records of yours do you want the doctor's receptionist to spread? At what point is someone's medical record private/available to be published? If it's so uninteresting why did Harry include it? I find your defence of the indefensible, and then bringing in nasty gossip most revealing.

If Meghan's father was to write his autobiography would you be happy with him revealing intimate private information about her as part of his life story?

Think he's already done that for various newspapers.

William is a public figure and Harry's brother. It's such an inconsequential thing. Can't think why anyone is interested or why it should be a secret. It's a bit different to interfering or hacking into personal relationships . Now if Harry had dished the dirt on his brother's alleged affair and the state of the Wales' marriage you might have a point. Although arguably the adulterous affairs of the RF and their relationship with the church is of public interest.

Fleurpepper

Ooops, unfortunate typo ;)

???? is that to me? I've reread and can't see a typo.

Ooops, unfortunate typo ;)

Glorianny

But it is Harry who is being criticised.
I don't think it is invading anyone's privacy to tell your own life story. And after all he isn't the first royal to do it.

As for the deep pockets, it depends to a certain extent on who is involved. If it is a huge media organisation then you certainly need money, if it is a single person not so much. The people involved in celebrities' lives may even be pleased they have been remembered.

How exactly is William being circumcised part of Harry's life story? I fail to see how revealing someone else's private medical information is relevant, and it is an invasion of William's right to privacy. If you are unable to understand that it explains a lot.

If Meghan's father was to write his autobiography would you be happy with him revealing intimate private information about her as part of his life story?

But it is Harry who is being criticised.
I don't think it is invading anyone's privacy to tell your own life story. And after all he isn't the first royal to do it.

As for the deep pockets, it depends to a certain extent on who is involved. If it is a huge media organisation then you certainly need money, if it is a single person not so much. The people involved in celebrities' lives may even be pleased they have been remembered.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Does that mean all autobiographies are to be banned? Surely people have the right to tell their own life story? Should someone be able to show they have been lied about there are libel laws.

And as has been pointed out you need deep pockets to pursue a libel case, being as it is a civil action. Not everybody has those deep pockets, so that's a limp excuse for "tell all" books telling "my truth", and revealing personal, irrelevant details about anyone other than the author.

OMG how many books don't reveal people the author has interacted with. Here's a link to the 25 best celebrity memoirs in 2023. www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/g44096097/best-celebrity-memoirs-2023/
A whole area of publishing would collapse if that was enacted.

Mind I don't think William comes into the category of "can't afford" legal action. But he does settle out of court and leave those who can't afford to take action to suffer.

You posted Should someone be able to show they have been lied about there are libel laws and I responded that you need deep pockets to pursue a libel action. Presumably William has been circumcised, so that isn't a lie and the basis for a libel action, but it is a gross, unnecessary invasion of privacy, or perhaps you don't think there's a right to privacy? Quite likely Archie has been circumcised being as it's pretty popular in North America, but would Harry and Meghan like the world to be informed? Incidents that happen between two people in a 'he said, she said" situation are notoriously difficult to prove, so lies cannot be pursued.

Actually that's all beside the point. You made a comment about libel laws, totally disregarding that for great swathes of people that redress isn't available. The world doesn't just consist of Harry and William in case you hadn't noticed.

Rosie51

^Does that mean all autobiographies are to be banned? Surely people have the right to tell their own life story? Should someone be able to show they have been lied about there are libel laws.^

And as has been pointed out you need deep pockets to pursue a libel case, being as it is a civil action. Not everybody has those deep pockets, so that's a limp excuse for "tell all" books telling "my truth", and revealing personal, irrelevant details about anyone other than the author.

OMG how many books don't reveal people the author has interacted with. Here's a link to the 25 best celebrity memoirs in 2023. www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/g44096097/best-celebrity-memoirs-2023/
A whole area of publishing would collapse if that was enacted.

Mind I don't think William comes into the category of "can't afford" legal action. But he does settle out of court and leave those who can't afford to take action to suffer.

Does that mean all autobiographies are to be banned? Surely people have the right to tell their own life story? Should someone be able to show they have been lied about there are libel laws.

And as has been pointed out you need deep pockets to pursue a libel case, being as it is a civil action. Not everybody has those deep pockets, so that's a limp excuse for "tell all" books telling "my truth", and revealing personal, irrelevant details about anyone other than the author.

Does that mean all autobiographies are to be banned?
🤣🤣🤣🤣

And hot off the press, demands for a new criminal investigation.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67727174

Mollygo

eazybee
Wrong; we do not have a 'right to know 'their private lives, certainly not Harry's rows with Chelsey, supposed racists in the royal family, or Elton John's latest excesses. Now, all is 'revealed 'on social media without any verification, and is far worse.

Exactly, but that’s partly why the confusion has arisen.

Phone hacking to reveal anyone’s private life, with or without verification, whether it is true or not is unacceptable.
It doesn’t matter whose phone is hacked, or by whom. It’s wrong.

But publishing books that involve other people’s private lives, with or without verification, whether it is true or not is equally unacceptable. I would imagine that most people find it strange that Harry can see wrongs against him so clearly whilst his wrongs against other people give him no problems.

The two things are separate, but Harry’s actions have linked them in the public eye.

Does that mean all autobiographies are to be banned? Surely people have the right to tell their own life story? Should someone be able to show they have been lied about there are libel laws. What about all the stuff his parents revealed? Should Harry be able to complain about things his dad revealed?
Why is it once again Harry who is wrong?

eazybee
Wrong; we do not have a 'right to know 'their private lives, certainly not Harry's rows with Chelsey, supposed racists in the royal family, or Elton John's latest excesses. Now, all is 'revealed 'on social media without any verification, and is far worse.

Exactly, but that’s partly why the confusion has arisen.

Phone hacking to reveal anyone’s private life, with or without verification, whether it is true or not is unacceptable.
It doesn’t matter whose phone is hacked, or by whom. It’s wrong.

But publishing books that involve other people’s private lives, with or without verification, whether it is true or not is equally unacceptable. I would imagine that most people find it strange that Harry can see wrongs against him so clearly whilst his wrongs against other people give him no problems.

The two things are separate, but Harry’s actions have linked them in the public eye.

The phone hacking evidence is mounting.
news.sky.com/video/former-showbiz-journalist-describes-phone-hacking-culture-13033738 NB this is nothing to do with Omid Scobie or Prince Harry but it does corroborate what was said at the hearing.

This discussion is becoming more and more convoluted. One of the problems is the connection between Harry and Omid Scobie, who gave evidence supporting Harry's allegations against Piers Morgan. The judge dealing with the case commended Omid Scobie as a 'straightforward and reliable witness' ; within days Scobie admitted that he had lied about including the names revealed in his forthcoming book.
The connection between Harry and Scobie has no apparent legal bearing on the phone hacking case, but many people mistrust both of them and consequently their evidence.
Once a liar always a liar?
The press generally are aware of what is going on in celebrities lives but they need evidence to support their knowledge, which is why they resort to phone hacking.

Wrong; we do not have a 'right to know 'their private lives, certainly not Harry's rows with Chelsey, supposed racists in the royal family, or Elton John's latest excesses. Now, all is 'revealed 'on social media without any verification, and is far worse.

Good points Siope.
One thing that occurs to me is the certain knowledge amongs journalists that eg Cyril Smith and Saville were sex offenders. They didn’t print anything about the endless allegations. Police who investigated Smith twice had their files removed by secret service and were told never to discuss the case or face the sack and prosecution. The DM definitely knew of this.

I think this case also highlights the influence the media has over British politicians. The decision not to bother with the second part of Leveson, taken by the Tories and now - when they face an election they can win, and need press support - endorsed by Labour is a result of that influence. It looked shoddy before; with this case strongly suggesting there is proof that Morgan lied - under oath - to Leveson, it looks even more tacky.

It also highlights how weak press oversight and regulation is, and how much a completely independent watchdog is needed.

Piers Morgan is guilty as charged

The issue for the hacked people is how it is to prove the source of an individual piece of leaked information. It’s very difficult to prove categorically that it was a deliberately hacked piece of information rather than something overheard, seen by somebody else, written down and seen, or that you’ve told somebody you trusted who has broken your confidence. I think this case should give confidence to many of the others affected. It would be right Glorianny if there is sufficient cumulative facts for it to go to criminal court. I bet Piers Morgan and the like are sweating, and so they should be.

As I understand it there is absolutely no connection between the two cases apart from Harry being involved. The costs are for a movement to stop a defence being used, and the case is about Harry's security and the information in the press. The case hasn't been heard yet, so there will not be a judgement on that until it is heard next year.

The very important judgement is the one Harry obtained about press intrusion, which totally squashes any idea that the phone hacking scandal was just a couple of rogue reporters acting without the knowledge of anyone higher up. There should be the opportunity for some criminal proceedings to begin, but I very much doubt if they will.

I think it was purely coincidental that the two cases hit the courts at the same time, they were for completely unrelated issues.
The phone hacking case is a pathfinder. Many people who were phone hacked were unhappy with the outcome of the criminal investigation and the subsequent Leveson Inquiry because effectively apart from a rap on the knuckles and some compensation claims by some media corporations, the media (and individuals within who were personally culpable, eg allegedly Piers Morgan) were not called to account for past misdemeanours, which in some cases had destroyed careers and lives of the people who had been hacked. There was no criminal route open, which is why Harry and others have pursued their claims through the civil court route. That doesn’t mean it is less important or this victory less significant.
This account from Chris Huhne of the long term impact on his life of phone hacking gives a little insight into why we should be taking this issue so seriously.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLbcT98QWHE

flappergirl
I don’t understand why whether or not the royal family is racist has got anything to do with this case. This case was about phone hacking, and as lemsip pointed out, was a civil case.

I actually thought this thread was an opportunity to discuss why Harry lost one case and won another. I started the thread. We all agree that phone hacking is wrong, well I should think we do, but I wondered why he lost one case but won the other, or at any rate, he won on 15 counts but others were thrown out, I assume because not enough evidence was produced.
I also wondered about the use of Omid Scobie as a witness, since he isn’t a reliable person. However I believe other witnesses were called too, and so whatever Scobie said was not the only evidence considered, which is rather a good thing in retrospect.