Prince Harry loses and wins

Why do some see criticism as hate ?

It's quite simple criticism is a reasoned argument, hate is simply an emotional reaction.
It's to be seen on most of these threads.
It's reasonable to think if Charles cooperated with a writer and Diana cooperated with a writer, their son has every right to do so. But apparently he hasn't. That's where the hatred comes in.

Some people won't agree with the judgement as they've already made up their minds - to hell with the evidence or the high court judge's decisions. They already believe that anything P H does will be attention seeking or money grabbing.

I certainly agree , why would a payment have been made if not guilty

Unfortunately Harry's reputation over the past two years goes before him. The difference between P.H And his parents is that their co operation with authors was basically true, whereas H's is mostly proven lies.

Because Charles and Diana cooperated with writers it is acceptable for Harry to do do ?

Charles had an affair and Diana several affairs when married,
is this acceptable for Harry do so the same ?

What does royals choosing to share information which people think they should not have done have to do with the media obtaining through illegal means information which the people concerned did not want to share. Why are people persistently confusing the issues?

Who is confused .? A question was asked and I answered , certainly not confused

I wasn’t aiming that comment at you specifically Anniebach, I posted only a couple of seconds after you. It was a general point about the conversation.

Sorry Casdon

Casdon

What does royals choosing to share information which people think they should not have done have to do with the media obtaining through illegal means information which the people concerned did not want to share. Why are people persistently confusing the issues?

Nothing but some people seem to think that Harry cooperating to write a biography was wrong, just thought it worth pointing out that both his parents did the same.

But it is being used as a reason to not accept the judgement.

It should be pointed out that Harry was one of the few people willing to go to court with this. Others haven't because they hadn't the financial resources to do so. One person who had the resources, but chose not to pursue the matter was his brother William, who settled out of court.
So a landmark judgement which is important for the privacy of people and for placing restrictions on the intrusion of the press into private lives is ignored because the person who was brave enough to tackle the press isn't liked.

Phone hacking is wrong.
If Harry has the funds to bring it to court, where others don’t, then why not?

Lying is also wrong. But he can rely on his family not taking him to court over that.

Glorianny

Casdon

What does royals choosing to share information which people think they should not have done have to do with the media obtaining through illegal means information which the people concerned did not want to share. Why are people persistently confusing the issues?

Nothing but some people seem to think that Harry cooperating to write a biography was wrong, just thought it worth pointing out that both his parents did the same.

But it is being used as a reason to not accept the judgement.

It should be pointed out that Harry was one of the few people willing to go to court with this. Others haven't because they hadn't the financial resources to do so. One person who had the resources, but chose not to pursue the matter was his brother William, who settled out of court.
So a landmark judgement which is important for the privacy of people and for placing restrictions on the intrusion of the press into private lives is ignored because the person who was brave enough to tackle the press isn't liked.

Not by me it isn’t ignored, I keep trying to bring this discussion back to what it should be about, but it’s like whistling in the dark.

Casdon - any discussion on Harry goes one way.

Why not stop criticising fellow posters and stop whistling in the dark

Because it’s like Groundhog Day *Anniebach, this thread was a rare opportunity to discuss something meaningful about press invasion of privacy, instead of endlessly repeating personal opinions about Harry’s behaviour. I should have known better.

Piers Morgan is a liar and a toad and the British press, especially the DM which sets out to stir up hatred and division, is a disgrace.

I also think we have every right to know if the royal family are racist and how they conduct themselves generally. We are paying for them and they have a contract with their employers (us!). They are not an ordinary family even though that concept is shoved down our throats on a regular basis.

the criminal court dealt with the phone hacking back in 2011-2014....................

harry's case is 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.

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 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

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.

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.

Piers Morgan is guilty as charged

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.