[jet]

NGN has released a statement: They’re saying the apology is for actions taken by News of the World back in 2006 and for unlawful acts by private investigators. They’re also stating that there were no unlawful acts by journalists at The Sun, nor were Harry’s voicemails hacked.

Statement:
Today we have come to agreements with the Duke Of Sussex and Lord Watson to pay damages and to settle their cases. It is in the interests of all the parties to come to a settlement.
This statement is to clarify questions raised after the hearing.

It has long been a matter of record that the Duke of Sussex’s phone was hacked by the News of the World. Two people served criminal sentences for this in 2006 and an apology was given. Today a full and unequivocal apology is given to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. Phone hacking at the News of the World was not due to be a part of this trial but it is a part of this settlement.

In the 1990’s and early 2000’s there was widespread use by the broadcast and news media of private investigators. In most cases, their use was for public interest journalism and to obtain information necessary for the purposes of journalism.
Today, our apology to the Duke of Sussex includes an apology for incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun, not by journalists, during the period 1996-2011.

There are strong controls and processes in place at all our titles today to ensure this cannot happen now. There was no voicemail interception on The Sun.

It must also be stressed that allegations that were being made publicly pre trial (and indeed post settlement) that News International destroyed evidence in 2010/11 would have been the subject of significant challenge at trial. These allegations were and continue to be strongly denied. Extensive evidence would have been called in trial to rebut these allegations from senior staff from technology and legal.

After we served our skeleton arguments and evidence for trial including witness statements, the Duke has not sought to pursue these allegations further despite his stated intent and no admission or apology has been made in relation to this. This is significant. This matter was also investigated fully by the police and CPS between 2012-2015, at the conclusion of which it was found that there was no case to answer.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

You said it yourself. They denied any wrongdoing.

They have now admitted it. Your post last night contradicts your post today? You said he thrives on a court case and sneered about it. He’s proved you wrong yet again and now they have accepted responsibility and owned up to it.

Win win

He does thrive on court cases, this is hardly the one and only. But he likes dollars even more.

[Beso]

Interesting statement.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

He couldn't sue because once they've admitted his accusations were correct.
That's it as far as the law is concerned.

He won.
They backed down and will now have heavy financial penalties likely including costs too.

The group admitted the accusations after denial from them all over this time.

It seems this isn't the case.

[Glenn.]

The lengths people will go to to have a pop

NGN lost. Harry won. Put your hatred aside

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

It seems this isn't the case.

It is, no matter how much others may prefer it not to be.

They've admitted the wrongdoing.
They've issued too an unequivocal apology.
After all this time of denying ALL the allegations.

Look up what unequivocal means although I'm sure you know already.
Unequivocal is a strong word I see is left out of the article you post from whenever source that is.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It is, no matter how much others may prefer it not to be.

They've admitted the wrongdoing.
They've issued too an unequivocal apology.
After all this time of denying ALL the allegations.

Look up what unequivocal means although I'm sure you know already.
Unequivocal is a strong word I see is left out of the article you post from whenever source that is.

It seems they are saying the apology is for the News of the World behaviour and not so much for the Sun's?
It's all rather confusing, maybe things will become clearer in time.
To be clear on my part, an unequivocal apology is absolutely correct if wrongdoing was carried out, no matter who it comes from. I am no fan of the Sun.

[Glenn.]

The Sun is named in the first paragraph of the apology

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The Sun is named in the first paragraph of the apology

Yep, and in the NGN statement they are backtracking quite a bit.

[Glenn.]

Going round the houses to nothing. They lost and Harry won.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Going round the houses to nothing. They lost and Harry won.

He won money, yes, but surrendered any integrity or morality. He took the hush money he insisted he never would and which he blasted William for taking. We'll never know the extend of the newspapers devious activities now that Harry has given up on 'full accountability'.
Oh well, it will keep him in polo ponies for another few years.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

It seems they are saying the apology is for the News of the World behaviour and not so much for the Sun's?
It's all rather confusing, maybe things will become clearer in time.
To be clear on my part, an unequivocal apology is absolutely correct if wrongdoing was carried out, no matter who it comes from. I am no fan of the Sun.

Oh I know you're no fan of the Sun too jet.
That's good to know, I admire you for that.

I've detested, and I don't detest very much usually, however I've detested the Sun since I could read almost.

In fact why the group had to scrap the News of the World but then be allowed to print the Sun on Sunday was mystifying to me.
The News of the World was more in my view just the Sun on a Sunday anyhow.

[Glenn.]

God you’re hilarious. You slammed him taking it to court and now you’re slamming him for having no integrity or morals, the very same thing William did but it’s good to finally see you finally admitting William is no better than Harry.

He got the apology he wanted. He won. Admit that. Put your hatred aside.

[Jordan.]

Ecstatic for Harry, fabulous victory

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

God you’re hilarious. You slammed him taking it to court and now you’re slamming him for having no integrity or morals, the very same thing William did but it’s good to finally see you finally admitting William is no better than Harry.

He got the apology he wanted. He won. Admit that. Put your hatred aside.

Why can you never see the difference in anything?
William never went on and on about not settling,he didn’t waste time and public money- he gave what he got to charity.
He didn’t whinge non stop about his privacy being invaded and then invade the privacy of his own loved ones.

Hatred? There is a difference between hatred and utter contempt Glenn.
My tolerance for contemptible people is obviously different to yours.
You are entitled to never criticise Harry and Meghan if you feel they never deserve it, I’m entitled to my feelings and responses about them. You need to accept that. Move on.

[Cherie]

I'm more estatic for the people who settled years ago and saved themselves all the undue stress, if he wanted his day in court he should have stuck with it, but it appears he was awarded more than he would have won if he had been successful, so morals put aside, its all about the dollars

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Why can you never see the difference in anything?
William never went on and on about not settling,he didn’t waste time and public money- he gave what he got to charity.
He didn’t whinge non stop about his privacy being invaded and then invade the privacy of his own loved ones.

Hatred? There is a difference between hatred and utter contempt Glenn.
My tolerance for contemptible people is obviously different to yours.
You are entitled to never criticise Harry and Meghan if you feel they never deserve it, I’m entitled to my feelings and responses about them. You need to accept that. Move on.

Why can’t you ever see past your contempt of Harry and Meghan. It’s not a very good look.

I’m over the moon for Harry! Fantastic win for him

[arista]

[Crimson Dynamo]

more than worth it



made 100 mill

[arista]

[arista]

It is not over.


Now he is to battle the Daily Mail.
who may also settle


Ref: GMBHD itv debate

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

It is not over.


Now he is to battle the Daily Mail.
who may also settle


Ref: GMBHD itv debate

Well good luck to him there too.
I cannot stand the Daily Mail.

I honestly am amazed that people waste money on these misleading and often blatant lying publications as to what the real news is.
The lot of them are biased one way or another.

Plus as to the cost of the garbage too.
I hear and see pensioners moaning at losing winter fuel payments, then buying one or more of these publications.
Spending over £400+ every year on them.

For what.
To have them blackmailing gay people to come out or they'll do a story on them.
Or hound celebrities and public figures to death.
To try to destroy careers and put out distorted or blatantly misleading news.

I'm glad I would never spend one pence on a so called newspaper.
So again good luck to Harry or anyone against the rotten Daily Mail too.
Because I wouldn't even soil my Staffie's mess picking it up with a sheet from the Daily Mail.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well good luck to him there too.
I cannot stand the Daily Mail.

I honestly am amazed that people waste money on these misleading and often blatant lying publications as to what the real news is.
The lot of them are biased one way or another.

Plus as to the cost of the garbage too.
I hear and see pensioners moaning at losing winter fuel payments, then buying one or more of these publications.
Spending over £400+ every year on them.

For what.
To have them blackmailing gay people to come out or they'll do a story on them.
Or hound celebrities and public figures to death.
To try to destroy careers and put out distorted or blatantly misleading news.

I'm glad I would never spend one pence on a so called newspaper.
So again good luck to Harry or anyone against the rotten Daily Mail too.
Because I wouldn't even soil my Staffie's mess picking it up with a sheet from the Daily Mail.

I get your point but there is always two sides to everything

It was thanks to the sun news paper that the drill artist got put back in jail

As to forcing gay men to come out
With Phil Schofield that needed to happen

And the same way sun news paper printed the story from the lads mum who was sending pictures to Hugh Edward’s the bbc didn’t act on that but the paper got an investigation

There are wrongs and rights in every aspect of life

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well good luck to him there too.
I cannot stand the Daily Mail.

I honestly am amazed that people waste money on these misleading and often blatant lying publications as to what the real news is.
The lot of them are biased one way or another.

Plus as to the cost of the garbage too.
I hear and see pensioners moaning at losing winter fuel payments, then buying one or more of these publications.
Spending over £400+ every year on them.

For what.
To have them blackmailing gay people to come out or they'll do a story on them.
Or hound celebrities and public figures to death.
To try to destroy careers and put out distorted or blatantly misleading news.

I'm glad I would never spend one pence on a so called newspaper.
So again good luck to Harry or anyone against the rotten Daily Mail too.
Because I wouldn't even soil my Staffie's mess picking it up with a sheet from the Daily Mail.

As a matter of interest Joey, what newspapers do you trust?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I get your point but there is always two sides to everything

It was thanks to the sun news paper that the drill artist got put back in jail

As to forcing gay men to come out
With Phil Schofield that needed to happen

And the same way sun news paper printed the story from the lads mum who was sending pictures to Hugh Edward’s the bbc didn’t act on that but the paper got an investigation

There are wrongs and rights in every aspect of life

I absolutely concede on the points and cases you mentioned in your post.
So certainly would applaud that being brought about.

Plus too has ITV scrutinized more, then whatever the situation was with Schofield they should have exposed that.
I don't think Schofield being gay however is a matter that the press should be forced out the public domain.
Plus too again, the BBC who have a shocking record over the years and decades of those they've overlooked or even protected.
The BBC SHOULD be made much more accountable as to it's employees.

I can't dispute at all and wouldn't try to, as to your post on those cases.

I still feel myself however that we have a press, indeed a media, who way too often now overstep the acceptable mark way too much and have got worse.

Your last line obviously I agree totally with.