• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

THIS JUST IN ~ CURRENT CRIME STORIES #2 (5 Viewers)

Tresir said:
This article has information that the other claimants are giving details about.


news.sky.com

Prince Harry v Mail: Publisher accused of 'wrecking lives' as string of high-profile figures mentioned in court

Prince Harry was in court, along with Liz Hurley, her son Damian, and Sadie Frost, as the court heard the publisher had spent more than £3m on private investigators. ANL strongly denies any wrongdoing.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
I read both of these links and am not sure what to think. They did wait an awfully long time to claim this what was going on or to think it. I'm hardly (am not) on the side of the newspapers but some of their claims seem believable like the party planner, that someone from the office gave up the birth certificate and maybe that Harry's gf's friends at U gave up information. One reason I can believe maybe, not for sure, that is because the Daily Mail pays for information. I'm surprised they are if not naming sources well pretty much saying who they were, do they have to do that there? That's pretty bold too IF it could be proven wrong. How would they even get bugs into homes of people this wealthy and secluded? Phones maybe but homes is a different story.

Here I can't recall how it goes but I don't think famous people have the same expectation of privacy. Maybe Harry would, not sure, as he did not choose his station in life but people like celebrities, politicians and so for by their very choice in careers can't expect such or something like that, can't remember exactly how it goes. Of course that doesn't mean the press can use illegal means, but that would be a crime not a right to damages because they said something about them.

YT for instance has many clearly false stories about almost all celebrities including the royals. The articles that have come out about the Reiners are almost ridiculous in number. Probably anyone that knew them is called a source close to the family or some such. Whether made up or said by people claiming to have info to get paid, etc. hard to say, but illegal is another story.

I'm not sure what I think. Clearly the company has the money to fight it endlessly which they are doing. Harry "settled" other claims with others so was it not about proving it so much as about the money? Doesn't he want to make it stop and show the wrongdoing? Seems to me the only reason this went all the way to court is the defendant is fighting it and saying the claims are untrue.

I don't envy Harry and the lack of privacy and the interest in his life though. I think in his position I'd have found some nonfamous wife and settled on some small island somewhere or something and led a quiet life and they'd get bored with him and having to keep a reporter or whoever there in some small out of the way place and for not much news making it worth it.

Look at the Hackmans, they left Hollywood and lived a quiet exitence but they both could go out and about around town with little fanfare or interest. Other famous couples have managed it too. Oh maybe if some reporter sees them on the street by happenstance (unlikely in such places), a photo might be snapped but highly unlikely as reporters aren't going to be there.

I'm just not sure what I think here or how they are going to prove this. People close to these people COULD bug homes and then listen to and sell the info for instance... The best of us also often share very private info with at least one or two other friends as we need those outlets.

I think most of the claims are going to be tough ones to prove. On the other hand, it's nothing for a company that big to fight it all of the way to court.

Undecided.
 
Don Lemon arrested!!!!!!!

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Don Lemon Arrested Over Anti-ICE Minnesota Church Protest

The former CNN anchor spoke to protestors, congregants and a pastor on a livestream during the protest.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com

I only managed to copy this one paragraph, so view the article in the link for the rest of it.


Lemon, who now hosts a show on YouTube and other social platforms, was on a livestream that began outside the church in St. Paul, but followed protestors a they went inside, alleging that a church official also worked at a local ICE office. The journalist proceeded to interview protestors, congregants and a pastor during the protest.
The blowback to the protest was swift, and there are laws (most notably the FACE Act) that make it a crime to obstruct someone from practicing their religion, which would almost certainly apply to a Sunday church service.
Of course, America also has robust First Amendment protections, making this case a potential landmark one as the right to free exercise of religion and the right to freedom of the press collide.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 6 (members: 2, guests: 4)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    3,215
    Messages
    287,100
    Members
    1,075
    Latest member
    Rougarou
    Back
    Top Bottom