Surely some of these things relate to issues across more than one area? Maybe there were times that Harold was hard done by the press in the pass, but, were these issues actually illegal? Which is what the Mirror case is about?
Some of these things surely are a difference of opinion? Are any of these illegal, or just ill advised? There is the whole Freedom of Information issue, The Public interest issue, the issues that arise from individuals selling their stories, eg Paul Burrell, friends or associates of Harry, and maybe even ladies like Angela Kelly.
Then add in issue around Hazno and his active service in Afghanistan, which must have caused so so many issues on a state level, I can imagine loads of indirect pressure and publicity around this, to prevent Hazno doing any kind of active service there, from all kinds of people, the RF, secret services, the military itself. because Harold serving a war in Afghanistan was such a bad idea from a diplomatic point of view! I am no diplomat, but I studied history and have an educated awareness of the mess that is and was Afghanistan. Its a mess politically for so many different reasons, the Russians failed to sort things out, the Americans and British failed to sort anything out, its a religious fundamentalist state, whose people are in poverty, but it has a massive income from the poppies /drugs it grows, and from wealthy sympathisers like Bin Laden. so a mess. The minute Hazno arrived in Afghanistan to play at soldiers, he put a massive target over not only his head, but also over the soldiers he was serving with. If he had been seized as a hostage, what kind of disaster would this have been?
In some ways:
The price of this (money in this) shouldn't matter.
You(one) should know, that's priceless, someone took it away from you (one), by lying.
Except that we all know that in reality, money in the current world in 2023, does matter a great deal. There is a virtual recession, people are needing to use food banks, far too many people are homeless, or struggling to survive. So a multi millionaire Prince, suing the British Press virtually for hurty feelings, looks extremely tacky to me, and a huge waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Exactly what was taken away from him? How did he actually miss out?
And did anyone actually lie about him, or did they instead distort the actual truth and embroider the facts a bit to suit their story? A bit like almost everything H & M do?
Where is the line between illegal and ill advised.
1.Harry didn't start the war in Afghanistan.
2.He was planned for Iraq(if he succeeded there) he would get the same accusations.(just WMD mockery)
3. Afghanistan (retraining and many other things happened because of media interference)
4.Even in Afghanistan, media (Australian first) interfered, by outing him.
5.I have seen no evidence that something like 4. could happen to any regular service member anywhere in the world. So why?Public interest?
6.Playing soldiers, based on that Royals shouldn't serve at all, William could have crashed on a rescue mission (example) and killed someone on the ground by accident.
Why (and it would happen) should he get more ''scrutiny'' over something that could happen to any SAR pilot? Because media? Because ?
7. I f we are so opposed to war (I'm a dumb Pacifist anyway) why the glorification of the Heritage Foundation which was one of the primary instigators and''organizers by ''selling wars via media'' to everyone including Britain.Because they are after Harry and I don't like Harry?
8. Charles played soldier for about 5 years, unable to handle anyone having a microsecond of limelight, he actualy visited a crisis area:
Bob McGowan (Independent) and James Hands(ITN)war corespondents (source for above)
8. The fact that dislike (hatred) of Eugenie exists on SM doesn't give the media the right to claim that she doesn't speak with her sister, when photographic evidence exists in official capacity to the contrary.
9.The truly funny difference of opinion is however the ''journalistic'' fact that William is trimming the Rose bush.
I of course have the right to be-entertained, I mean
Rocksavage laid down his wife for his country, objective fact exists anyway-APB certainly did?
10. It's about choices, is my right to be entertained, to get a validation of my world view above the right of others to get the same right that I should expect from laws, because the only real difference is actually -fame and that's-media created.
11. Why is Alastair Campbell absolved from ''crisis of living scrutiny'' and all the others including ...journalists (they created the need for lawsuits in the first place)
But not Royals. Because selfmade?
Yeah, some equally on the backs of other people's misery.
