#hacked off

Fuck a doodle do.

In a statement, Prince Harry said the ruling was "vindicating and affirming" and took aim at senior executives and editors including Piers Morgan - who was in charge at the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004.

Judge Mr Justice Fancourt found Morgan knew about phone hacking at the paper.

He said the Duke's phone was probably only hacked to a modest extent and was "carefully controlled by certain people" from the end of 2003 to April 2009.

Jesus -- this is.... unbelievable.

When asked what he thought the way forward was, he said to scrap the current press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which he likened to a "poodle".

"You have to get independent regulation as Leveson called for, which we haven't got because, there's a self regulator poodle, not a watchdog," he said. 

"You also need to have the Leveson Inquiry restarted or completed... which the government cancelled at the request of those being investigated."

The Tory government should hang its head in shame. I mean -- it won't, but seriously -- this is appalling.

The government has failed to find the courage to hold the press accountable, a media lawyer has said.

Jonathan Coad said that despite Prince Harry's victory, only politicians can bring about real change.

However, it has never ensured the press regulated itself according to the principles set out in the Leveson Inquiry, he said.

"If you're going to be accountable, someone has got to have the courage to hold you accountable," he told Sky News. 

"Harry has fought the battle and said it needs to change, but it is only going to change if politicians have the courage to take on Fleet Street.

"At the moment, they have shown a complete lack of intention of doing so.

What was the Leveson Inquiry and why is it relevant?

In 2011, Judge Sir Brian Leveson led a public inquiry after it was revealed News Of The World journalists had hacked the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler.

Initially intended to be carried out in two sections, the first part of the inquiry looked at the culture, practices and ethics of the press. It involved celebrities including Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller, Steve Coogan and Charlotte Church.

Alright this year’s neep was a bit of a disaster because Tesco sold me the tiniest turnips (I’m sorry “British Swedes”) in the universe and because I was working with such a small space he has a rather basic expression and I also accidentally slashed through the eye into the nose. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to fit a candle in either.

Apr 1, 2021

A SUSPICIOUS SUN STORY contains three references to secret text messages between the couple

THE MURDOCH PAPER claims an anonymous ‘friend’ told reporters about the private communication

BUT THIS VERSION of events has been called into question

BECAUSE THE ARTICLE contains signs of unlawful information gathering, according to lawyers with experience of the ‘phone hacking’ cases currently running through the High Court

BASED ON SIMILAR evidence, a top British privacy judge has previously found that newspapers illegally obtained itemised phone bills to find out times and dates of messages

THE JUDGE found that using unnamed sources can be a way inserting illicit info into copy

HOWEVER, The Sun – and reporters James Beal and Emily Andrews – deny doing anything unlawful in relation to Meghan’s phone number, or her telephone records

THERE is no suggestion that any voicemails were intercepted

IN PART 1 of this special investigation, we revealed how LA-based PI Dan ‘Danno’ Hanks was commissioned by The Sun to spy on the Markle family

IN PART 2, we reported the response of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex who condemned The Sun’s predatory practices

IN PART 3 below, Byline Investigates raises questions about how The Sun got that information about text messages

By Graham Johnson

Editor, Byline Investigates

THE SUN has denied illegally obtaining the private phone records of Meghan Markle or Prince Harry – despite knowing the details about when and how often he texted her.

Byline Investigates told last week how a private detective had obtained the Duchess’ mobile number after carrying out illegal searches of US databases.

In response, the Murdoch paper has not suggested that what the PI did was legal.

However, publisher News UK denied asking him to do anything unlawful on their behalf.

But we can reveal that further questions have been raised – this time, about even more serious allegations.

The focus, of this ongoing investigation, is now on a story published in The Sun two days after Dan ‘Danno’ Hanks handed-over Meghan’s mobile number to an editor.

A double-page spread – billed as an exclusive – ran on 1st November 2016, detailing how Meghan had received text messages from Prince Harry.

The Sun story: ‘Smitten Harry bombarded Meghan with texts until he got date’, published 1st November 2016

The news copy contained three references to texting.

The journalists who wrote the story seemed to know that Harry had sent Meghan a lot of text messages, and the approximate timings of them.

One way this kind of information could be gleaned, is by examining their phones, or by seeing their itemised phone bills.

But, in this case, the source of the of the story line was an anonymous ‘friend,’ who was quoted in The Sun.

Lawyers, who are currently suing the paper for Prince Harry, regard this as suspicious – and have relied on similar references to SMS, or call ‘traffic’, to allege unlawful information gathering.

As Byline Investigates exclusively revealed, the Duke of Sussex, and scores of other claimants, are suing News UK – and the rival Mirror Group – for phone-hacking, itemised bill blagging, and other unlawful intrusions.

The first mention of texts came in the headline, inside on page 14, which stated: ‘Smitten Harry bombarded Meghan with texts until he got date.’

The official response from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex two weeks ago to Danno Hanks’ revelations

The second mention came in the opening line of the story – known as the ‘intro’ – which read, ‘PRINCE HARRY inundated a sexy actress with texts until she agreed to go out with him.’

The third mention is in the fifth paragraph, which is a quote from a so-called unnamed ‘friend,’ who claimed: ‘He definitely pursued her and besieged her with texts until she agreed to a date.’

However, James Beal – The Sun’s US Editor who initially tasked the private investigator – denies asking him to do anything illegal.

His co-author Emily Andrews also denies doing anything unlawful, and says the information came from legal sources, including insights from contacts who wanted to remain nameless.

In addition to the mentions of texts, the article contains a total of SIX references to anonymous confidantes, including:

Two mentions of ‘friends.’

One mention of a ‘friend.’

One mention of a ‘source.’

Two mentions of a ‘pal.’

Lawyers say that these are often euphemisms to mask unlawful information gathering.

Only one ‘on-the-record’, named source appears in the story – and she does not refer to the texts.

Over the last ten years, the High Court has heard that multiple references to unidentified speakers in a story, are no more than a device to disguise unlawfully gathered data, so as to cover the tracks of how it was got.

Emma Jones – an ex-Sun reporter and columnist – explained to Byline Investigates how it’s done.

Jones, who is now a board member of press reform group Hacked Off, said: ‘Most of the time, the quotes do not actually come from a real source, but are often fabricated by the journalist.

‘You can spot a spoofed-up quote, because they tend to say, “a pal said”, or “a friend said” or “a well-placed source said.”

Sometimes, it means that the paper has “blagged” a phone bill, and needs to disguise the fact that that is an illegal method, but at the same time it needs to get the “evidence” into the story, somehow.

‘So, the “contraband” facts are effectively “washed” by attributing them to an unnamed “friend” or “insider” – instead of stating that these facts were from unlawful newsgathering techniques, like obtaining an itemised bill.

‘Which would obviously ring alarm bells.

‘I worked at The Sun as a showbiz reporter, so I saw and heard what goes on – so, in that sense I’m genuine “insider” who knows the truth. And you can quote me on that.’

A photograph taken when Emma Jones was a Sun reporter and columnist. Now, she is a board member of Hacked Off

In 2015, Britain’s top privacy judge Justice Mann agreed in principle that this was the case.

News Group Newspapers and James Beal deny tasking Danno Hanks to do anything illegal

He ruled, in the ground-breaking Gulati Judgement, that the use of phrases such as ‘a friend said’ or ‘a pal said’ in stories, was done to disguise hacked information.

Though the findings in this case were against the Mirror Group – and though he was referring to voicemail interception much of the time – the general principles are regarded as being applicable to other newspapers, and other forms of illegal information gathering, such as billing data.

Justice Mann stated: ‘Information that was obtained from hacking would, if published, have its source disguised by attributing the source to a “friend” or “pal”.’

However, The Sun denies doing anything unlawful.

More follows in Part 4 of this series.

Max Mosley won damages against news of The World, and donated that to Impress, an outfit that wants to replace IPSO, called Hacked Off. According to the Telegraph, here is where much of Byline’s funding is coming from: “Companies House records show that almost all the site’s £540,000 funding in fact comes from three billionaires, including £160,000 from Eric Li, a Shanghai businessman who has said dictatorship works better than democracy and has called for more constraints on journalists in China.”(Thanks to @aka-krich​ for finding this Telegraph article about hacked off and byline. See her original thread and research, and our discussion here.) 

Still, Byline manager says, “Byline.com is liberating journalism from being a “tool” of “wealthy, tax-shy billionaires” to becoming an agent of “democracy.” He claims the site is “crowdfunded” by small donations from readers.”Now to Hacked off. Hugh Grant is a huge supporter of Hacked Off. He donated all of the settlement money from his case against against The News Of The World for hacking his phone to Hacked Off. 

Max Mosley has also donated to Hacked Off. This is how Max Mosley donated some of the money to Hacked Off. “Max Mosley, donated  £45,000 from the Mosley family trust to fund ‘historical research’ for Brian Cathcart, a professor of journalism and the founder of Hacked Off. The money went to Kingston University, where Brian Cathart works, ostensibly to fund his research into the battle of Waterloo. When pressed, the university spokesperson added more.

This is from the linked DM article. “Last night, the university admitted it had also received ‘further donations’ from the Mosley trust for a new project led by the same academic.The total amount given by the 77-year-old ex-Formula One (F1) tycoon Mosley — whose racist and thuggish past was exposed last week by the Mail — is unclear.When asked how much the ‘further donations’ from the family trust of Mr Mosley — the son of fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley — were in total, the university spokesman said: ‘We have nothing further to add.’

But a student anti-racism group at the university — whose Chancellor is leading black writer and commentator Bonnie Greer — said last night that it was ‘unacceptable’ for the institution to accept the Mosley money given his ‘vile fascist past’.”

How does Hacked Off work with Byline? Byline shares articles and info that aligns with Hacked Off’s agenda, and Hacked Off’s agenda is to hold the press accountable. On paper, holding the press accountable for hacking into people’s phones seems good. But much of it seems to be done on the behest of the same powerful billionaires that they say they wish to free the UK press from the clutches of, and they receive donations from the same rich and powerful people for doing it. So it calls into question their own cabaility to be fair in the matter, if they are receiving monetary compensation in return for pushing a particular narrative. 

This is what the front page of Hacked Off looks like now. 

Two out of three articles from Byline, one blog post by Brian Cathcart, the founder of Hacked Off who received the donation from Max Mosley. The articles about Rupert Murdoch have been published since 2015 here, on their website Byline investigates. (I had erroneously said that the articles were published from the beginning of May 2019. This is not the case. I rechecked from my laptop this time, and the articles go back to 2015.) The most recent articles are about Harry and his part in the legal case. 

Whether Harry is donating to Byline, Hacked Off, Impress or other bodies who work with them remain to be seen. They might be reporting on it anyway because it is about the case they already tracking.

What the heck is wrong with people?! 

I was leaving a comment on an amazing story and happened to see a rather nasty comment written by another reader. The author responded in a very respectful manner. (Don’t know if I would have been so nice.)

SO seriously people, if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all!  Is that so hard?!

"Gentlemen of The Press”