Prince Harry turns up to High Court in Associated Newspapers hearing

[onthedarkside]

 

The Duke of Sussex has unexpectedly appeared at the High Court as legal proceedings begin in a privacy case.

 

Prince Harry and other individuals are suing Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

 

The duke, singer Sir Elton John and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are among the individuals who allege unlawful information gathering.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65087072

 

[Credo]

The way the press has misused its power to harm people needs to stop.  They are not investigating crime.  They are simply spying on the innocent actions of people and using it in a manner that is salacious.  This is nothing but greed on the part of the media.   

 

[herfiehandbag]

And wasn't it a classic demonstration of how he feels he should be "protected". A couple of "heavies" biffing a path through a crowd on the public pavement. I hope they they were "privately hired security " rather than the Metropolitan Police.

[scottiejohn]

23 hours ago, Credo said:

The way the press has misused its power to harm people needs to stop.  They are not investigating crime.  They are simply spying on the innocent actions of people and using it in a manner that is salacious.  This is nothing but greed on the part of the media.   

 

I did not realise the trial had ended and a guilty verdict had been handed down!

[JonnyF]

Ah, the world wide privacy tour continues. There was no need for him to turn up at this hearing (other than for publicity). He doesn't seem to concerned with security now, or with the flashing cameras.

 

Good to see him leading his eco warrior campaign by example. Saving the planet, one transatlantic flight at a time.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

And wasn't it a classic demonstration of how he feels he should be "protected". A couple of "heavies" biffing a path through a crowd on the public pavement. I hope they they were "privately hired security " rather than the Metropolitan Police.

I hope so too, for Harry’s sake.

 

The Met aren’t fit to be around other folk.

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Ah, the world wide privacy tour continues. There was no need for him to turn up at this hearing (other than for publicity). He doesn't seem to concerned with security now, or with the flashing cameras.

 

Good to see him leading his eco warrior campaign by example. Saving the planet, one transatlantic flight at a time.

 

The ‘privacy’ that matters in this case is the ruling that the names of the journalists and editors who are accused of breaking the law  shall not be published.

 

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

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Met aren’t fit to be around other folk.

Agreed. They're a laughing stock.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Agreed. They're a laughing stock.

 

Triggered?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Triggered?

Not really. I just believe police should be apolitical.

 

What would you think if they were kneeling to a right wing group as opposed to Marxists?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Not really. I just believe police should be apolitical.

 

What would you think if they were kneeling to a right wing group as opposed to Marxists?

I think you’re wanting off on another one of your fixations.

 

Back to topic.

 

Do you believe the press have the right to hack people’s phones?

 

Do you think it acceptable that ‘journalists’ accused of crimes should have their names withheld from the public?

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you’re wanting off on another one of your fixations.

 

Back to topic.

Wise move. Your refusal to answer confirms what I already knew.

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Do you believe the press have the right to hack people’s phones?

 

Do you think it acceptable that ‘journalists’ accused of crimes should have their names withheld from the public?

Where did I claim they have a right to hack phones or have names withheld? Oh that's right, I didn't ????. The point I actually made (as opposed to the one you pretended I made) was that if Harry was serious about his privacy, security and the planet then he wouldn't have taken a long haul flight to attend a hearing that did not require his presence.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Wise move. Your refusal to answer confirms what I already knew.

 

Where did I claim they have a right to hack phones or have names withheld? Oh that's right, I didn't ????. The point I actually made (as opposed to the one you pretended I made) was that if Harry was serious about his privacy, security and the planet then he wouldn't have taken a long haul flight to attend a hearing that did not require his presence.

It’s what the trial is about.

[scottiejohn]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you think it acceptable that ‘journalists’ accused of crimes should have their names withheld from the public?

All accused persons and witnesses should have their names withheld until a guilty verdict, if any, is reached!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

All accused persons and witnesses should have their names withheld until a guilty verdict, if any, is reached!

That’s not what U.K. law says.

[scottiejohn]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what U.K. law says.

I expressed my opinion, not what the law states!

I just happen to disagree with it!

[herfiehandbag]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I hope so too, for Harry’s sake.

 

The Met aren’t fit to be around other folk.

I would agree that parts of the Met are in a very dark place. Their leadership has failed to do just that, be effective leaders, and have abrogated responsibility for managing and ensuring discipline.

They have allowed themselves to be led off at a tangent by often focussing on political and social considerations - "Common Purpose" anyone?

 

But it is elements of the organisation, and my point remains, they should not allow the sort of behaviour Prince Harry's "protection team" indulged in outside the High Court on Monday. If they were policemen then they should be immediately brought under control. If they were a commercial undertaking then they should be investigated for that behaviour.

 

The undoubted travails and failures of the Met in other areas are irrelevant.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I expressed my opinion, not what the law states!

I just happen to disagree with it!

opinions differ, mine certainly does.