Friday, 10 November 2023

Harry Beats The Mail - AGAIN

There are, as is the norm for a website that is more and more desperate to score clicks, several Royal “stories” that one can read at Mail Online today, and much of the content on offer is most likely conjecture. But one story that PA has circulated, and even the BBC has run, does not appear. No prizes for guessing that this one concerns the Sussexes. And lawsuits.

Evening all

But what the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker are prepared to offer readers is a routine crock of journalistic crap from their overrated, overmonied, and underwhelming creep Richard Eden, tellingRelations between Prince Harry and his father are clearly [no citation] worse than ever [you don’t know]”. The subject is Brian’s 75th birthday next week. Do go on.

The Palace has announced that close family will get together in the evening … However, it seems that neither the Duke nor the Duchess of Sussex will be among the guests [YOU STILL DON’T KNOW] … ‘The presence of Harry and Meghan at any family gathering now would make it feel like more of a funeral than a celebration,’ writes Eden”. HE STILL DOESN’T KNOW. Any more?

When King Charles turns 75 next Tuesday, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will, however, be 5,000 miles away in California, and his milestone birthday has already been the subject of a public row … This week, a spokesman for Harry and Meghan made a point of denying a line buried in a Sunday Times story that he had been invited to a party to celebrate his father’s birthday and that he had rejected the invitation”. AND STILL DOESN’T KNOW.

That’s quite enough of “Richard's expert Royal commentary”, remembering that, as the old joke goes, an Ex is a has-been and a Spurt is a drip under pressure. We have no need of this drivel when there is a far more important Sussex story out there. Which you won’t be reading in the Mail.

Why so? Ah well. Let’s mosey over to the BBC website. “Prince Harry wins latest stage in newspaper claimsis the headline. And which newspaper would that be, perchance? “The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with privacy claims against Associated Newspapers, after a judge's ruling opened the way for a trial”. Associated Newspapers. Who publish the Mail titles.

What's it f***ing got to do with me, c***?!?!?

There was more. “The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers wanted to stop the case, arguing that allegations of unlawfully obtaining information were out of time … But a judge has decided the case, involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants, can proceed … Associated Newspapers has strongly denied the allegations”. So who else is suing?

As well as Prince Harry, the newspaper group faces multiple claims of ‘gross breaches of privacy’ from Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence … This includes allegations of bugging devices in cars, listening into phone calls and dishonestly obtaining medical and financial information”. Whoops!

Do go on. “In a High Court ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Associated Newspapers had ‘not been able to deliver a “knockout blow” to the claims of any of these claimants’”. Any comment? “The decision that the case can go to a full trial was welcomed by actor Hugh Grant, the director of the Hacked Off group, which campaigns for press reforms”. That’ll annoy the Mail even more.

Nicklin J also told “Each claimant has a real prospect of demonstrating that Associated, or those for whom Associated is responsible, concealed from him/her the relevant facts upon which a worthwhile claim of unlawful information gathering could have been advanced”. So expect the Mail titles to run more smears against the Sussexes. And against Hugh Grant.

The Mail titles must hope that not mentioning this story will stop their readers finding out about it. But even the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog have run an item on it. The Guardian has reported on the case. Maybe the next Private Eye will give it an airing. From what Nicklin J has said, Associated could be in deep and very expensive shit.

Like several million notes deep and expensive shit. Just rejoice at that news.


Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

4 comments:

  1. It isn't necessary to support the "royal" family to hope said Harry has the financial trousers off racist nastzi Heil newspapers and their fellow travellers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The spokesperson of Harry didn’t deny “a line buried” that The Times had written. He denied because the media made a narrative that poor 75 year old king was denied by his son the opportunity to spend time and he’s feeling so bad they didn’t make up. They were trying to make Charles look like a victim and Harry the bad son as usual so rightfully Harry spoke to shut that narrative down

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, but the Mail does mention it. After combing the transcripts, the hacks come up with a Molehill to Mountainify.
    "Major setback for Prince Harry and Sir Elton John's privacy case against Associated Newspapers as judge rules they cannot use confidential information supplied to Leveson Inquiry". Weak, but gotta accentuate the positive !
    If that hadn't been there, they might have gone with the back-up "Diana appears in dream to tell 'arry that the forces of woke, lefty, mooslim evil are controlling the courts."
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12734583/Prince-Harry-Sir-Elton-John-Associated-Newspapers-Leveson-Inquiry.html

    ReplyDelete