Prince Harry loses and wins

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Ooops, unfortunate typo ;)

Fleurpepper

Ooops, unfortunate typo ;)

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

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.

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.

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

What rubbish!

Doesn’t here- lots of babies still get circumcised on day 8. Not necessarily by a doctor,sometimes a rabbi.

And that should be illegal- enf of (ooops, unfortunate- but will leave it there (ooops, yes, wish they did, unless medically required).

A circumcision carried out due to religious beliefs is entirely different. William's was in all likelihood done for medical reasons but that's irrelevant. If W wanted the world to know, it should have been left to him to publicise it.

As Rosie's asked, what does his circumcision have to do with H's life and H's 'truth'?

shouldn't this be on the Health forum? circumcision.

how low has this thread stooped.? give it a rest!

Harry wrote of circumcision so the question is ‘how low can Harry stoop’

It’s obvious to anyone that the question of circumcision is a private matter and it’s got nothing to do with this thread. Anyone who thinks circumcision is not private needs to have a look at their values, because those values need adjusting.

The subject should be dropped ,