UK Judge FURIOUS at Prince Harry in Judgement of His Lawsuit Against Daily Mail, Says Celebrity Plaintiffs ‘Reconstructed’ the Truth: THE SUNDAY TIMES * The Gateway Pundit * by Paul Serran
Did Harry ‘reconstruct’ the truth? Was he caught in lies?
When celebrity journalism and the fight for free speech collide.
We follow the incessant drama surrounding the British Royal Family – the Windsors – because of the quasi-Shakespearean quality to their constant fighting, and – in disgraced Andrew and Fergie’s case – for the severity of the crimes involved, mostly derived from the long-running association with late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the court case defeat of Prince Harry in his Daily Mail lawsuit, we bump into a relevant case regarding freedom of speech, and even if we think that the MSM is very bad, we see how the rich and famous trying to silence them are much worse.
Camilla Long wrote a very interesting article in The Sunday Times about the case brought by Harry, along with Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, and other self-appointed members of the elite.
“Here was a set of people — lawyers, activists, celebrities — who truly, madly wanted to show that the paper had attacked them, and they were prepared to say whatever to back this up. Yet on all 97 counts — after requiring Associated to comb through 40,000 documents — they failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing at all.”
Camilla Long: ‘How healthy is it, I wonder, for a society to allow a prince to drag scores of innocent journalists through the courts?’
Long describes how the judge wrote that witnesses were ‘prone to reconstruction’ (a.k.a. lying).
Even Harry, she writes, was caught embellishing his deposition several times.
“As for the rest of the ruling, it was the prince’s basic nightmare. On page after page, Nicklin praised individual Mail journalists as ‘impressive’, ‘honest’ and ‘candid’. Paul Dacre was ‘robust’ and ‘truthful’. Harry had risked millions — only to be told how brilliant Paul Dacre was? It could not be worse.
Yet there’s a more serious issue beneath the jokes at Harry’s expense. How healthy is it, I wonder, for a society to allow a prince to drag scores of innocent journalists through the courts? You may disagree with the Mail, or feel these journalists somehow deserved it, and in some other, separate cases they have. But there is a principle here, and it is freedom of speech. Just because some people abused that freedom, it does not mean you get to throw that freedom away or use it as a weapon.”
Will Elton John pick up the bill?
The judge blasted the plaintiffs’ case, saying there’s no ‘propensity’ among journalists to do illegal investigations. Journalists are NOT inherently criminal.
Long’s article strikes a personal note when she shares that Harry’s team approached and bullied her for writing that the Prince might be lying.
“To the prince, this ruling is, by contrast, more or less risk-free. He can declare it ‘a complete and obvious whitewash’ and insinuate it is part of a conspiracy to ‘exonerate the Mail’ without worrying someone will take his job away, or how he’s going to pay the massive fees. There will always be someone to swoop out of nowhere to save him as they have done many times. […] As for the legal profession, I’ve never seen a judge so livid as during the Mail trial.”
Long was right about that. Page Six reported that “Humiliated Prince Harry ‘doesn’t have the money’ to pay his legal fees”. But help is on the way.
Harry and the other plaintiffs will have 14 days to pay the court – but how?
“’The people funding the case will likely help Harry with costs’, a legal source familiar with the case said. The estate of the late Formula 1 tycoon Max Mosley, along with campaign group Hacked Off, accused of attempting to undermine press freedom, helped fund the claimants’ research.
But the legal source also feels an old friend of Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, might step up: ‘Elton John could also well help Harry out. They’re extremely close’.
[…] ‘Harry definitely doesn’t have the money for it’, revealed a well-placed insider, adding that Markle will ‘likely be very furious about the fees. She did not want him to [pursue the case]’.”
Read more:
Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can't see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.