Harry's complaint of press intrusion rejected

Will this be the first *lost case* of many?

Will it finally hit home that they are not so important?

That the world doesn't revolve around them?

The first case of the Sussex's against the media has been rejected,

Will this be the blue print of the future and a humbling experience

for 'Hollywood royalty?

UK press watchdog rejects Prince Harry's complaint over drugged wildlife article

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - Britain's press watchdog has
rejected a complaint by Prince Harry over a tabloid newspaper
article which said wild animals pictured in photos he posted on
Instagram had been drugged and tied up.

Harry, Queen Elizabeth's grandson, posted the pictures he
had taken of African wildlife on his Instagram account, which
then had 5.6 followers, to mark Earth Day and highlight
conservation efforts.
But the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported last April that
the photos had not revealed the full story. It said the animals
involved had been tranquilised and that a picture of an elephant
in Malawi had been edited so that it was not possible to see
there was a rope around its hind legs.

"Drugged and tethered ... what Harry didn’t tell you about
those awe-inspiring wildlife photos," read the headline.

The prince argued the report was inaccurate because it
indicated he had intentionally misled the public to think that
he was a superior wildlife photographer who had captured the
pictures under dangerous circumstances, the Independent Press
Standards Organisation (IPSO) watchdog said.

Harry said his caption had made clear the animals were being
relocated as part of conservation efforts and that the photo had
only been edited to meet Instagram's formatting requirements.

However, the paper said Harry had not explained the
circumstances of the photo to his followers and that he had not
needed to crop the pictures in the way he had.

IPSO's complaints committee supported the paper's argument
and rejected Harry's claim that the article was inaccurate.

www.lse.co.uk...


You can fool some of the people some of the time

But you can't fool all of the people all of the time

Next case .........

The next case is to basically give up the infatuation of other people..?

Their lives are that interesting to those without one...

Wow. I hadn't heard about this case. I'm surprised Harry would pursue something so petty. I would think better not to draw any more attention to this than possible!

I think the Mail on Sunday lawsuit is more compelling (albeit not more damning!). It's easy to have sympathy for Meghan when you first hear that she's suing because they printed excerpts from a private and personal letter she wrote to her father... that's quite the invasion of privacy. But it's not so easy to be sympathetic when you find out she opened that door by telling her friends a very inaccurate version of the letter she wrote and then gave them permission to speak to the press about the letter. Meghan used the contents of the letter to publicly defame her father. Which explains why her dad felt it necessary and appropriate to share the actual letter publicly, which is how the Mail on Sunday got the excerpts...

I think the Mail on Sunday will come out on top here and it will all come down to Meghan giving her friends permission to share Meghan's description of the letter publicly.

But I'm wondering how much crazier it can get before then. Now Meghan's dad's showing off his craycray for the whole world to see, making all kinds of crazy demands and threats... and the sympathy for Meghan comes right back again!!! It's no wonder she wants to cut that toxicity out of her life.

Oh what a tangled web!!!

originally posted by: Boadicea

It's no wonder she wants to cut that toxicity out of her life.

In my opinion she creates her own brand of toxicity ......

and thrives off it, and silly Harry gets led by the nose.

Oh what a tangled web!!!

To be sure .....and we reap what we sow?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
The next case is to basically give up the infatuation of other people..?

Their lives are that interesting to those without one...

Touche

And your reason for being here

IPSO is a toothless organisation. It's highly criticized by ethical/investigative/independent/society of editors in the UK - my professors (ex head of the legendary Times Insight Team, Guardian Mirror Group Editor, and Torygraph subeditor hated it

It's a 'replacement' for the PCC, Paul Dacre the editor of the daily Mail is the head/final decision maker. Despite the Mail having several times more compaints than other papers (552, in 2008) he rules the paper innocent in all but three or four cases per ear while other papers are found to be guilty of breaking rules in the majority of cases despite the cases being minor in comparison and the newspapers winning the majority of libel/defamation/press complaints/PUIID vs ECHR, HRA laws).

In the court case against the Mail two of Megan's charges have no basis and the Mail are innocent of them but I'd be very surprised if they were found innocent on the charge of invasion of privacy due to the extent of the breach.

ETA: Dacre was replaced by the Miror Trinity Group head editor in 2016 but was in charge of PCC and decided the ruless. was head of IPSO til 2016 after the PCC closed due to his corruption.

a reply to: eletheia

In my opinion she creates her own brand of toxicity ......

Well, I sure can't argue!

But we all do what we know. And it looks like this is what Meghan knows because of her father. I think she could have, and probably should have, thought a little more strategically -- and compassionately -- in regards to her ticking time bomb father and avoided this public nightmare. But I suspect this is how she learned to survive. And given she can't trust her own father, it's easy to see why she could not, would not and did not trust Harry's family either... even if they are royal.

I think he has a perfect right, like anyone else, to react to a newspaper article about him, especially if he believes it misrepresents him.

I wouldn't bother myself, but he has reasonable cause.

Nothing to see here.

They think it was bad before.....wait til The Enquirer starts camping on their lawns.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I think he has a perfect right, like anyone else, to react to a newspaper article about him, especially if he believes it misrepresents him.

I wouldn't bother myself, but he has reasonable cause.

Nothing to see here.

Yeah poor Harry. Boo hoo. The media was mean and misrepresented him.

Meanwhile at the Trump residence..........

a reply to: eletheia

To make a point you probably won't 'get'... And point and laugh at whatever compelled you to write about people going with their lives.

ID make a thread about you, but....

originally posted by: Boadicea
Wow. I hadn't heard about this case. I'm surprised Harry would pursue something so petty. I would think better not to draw any more attention to this than possible!

Agreed. If his account only had 5.6 followers on his Instagram account before, maybe he has more than that now, though how do you get .6 of a follower? Is 5.6 followers like 5 adults and one minor or something?

a reply to: eletheia

I guess next time Harry goes looking for a princess, he'll stay away from the American drama queens that want to rip him away from his family and have him all to herself. Dumb dude.

originally posted by: Boadicea

But we all do what we know. And it looks like this is what Meghan knows because of her father. I think she could have, and probably should have, thought a little more strategically -- and compassionately -- in regards to her ticking time bomb father and avoided this public nightmare. But I suspect this is how she learned to survive. And given she can't trust her own father, it's easy to see why she could not, would not and did not trust Harry's family either... even if they are royal.

I watched the hour long interview with her father to me it looks as if he was set

up for much of what happened. It was within the gift of the two of them to have

him guided through the protocol.

Megan lived with him from 11yrs to 18yrs, and from the time she first met Harry

she never saw him again. Looked like he wouldn't *fit in* with the in laws in her

eyes so she cut him loose.

I read a really apt discription of her, she was a civil servant with a tiara, and

that didn't fit in with her idea of a 'Hollywood Princess' so she did what she always

does ......... sheds it like dead wood!!

Having their cake and eat it. They are not royalty any longer, which means they are free fodder for the paparazzi just like any other 'celeb', politician or commoner. Live with it, like they have to.
That marriage isn't gonna be for much longer anyways. Once she is allowed to be 'out there' again and do her celeb stuff, instead of representing Britain, Harry will be much too boring for her.
She's been there, done the Royal stuff. There will be some other brainless, but big Hollywood star that will keep her narcissism afloat.
Then Harry will go back to Britain, marry his old flame Chelsea and all will be back to normal. Like with his father and Camilla, as long as they add new DNA to the family, they've done their job and can get back to their own. [HArry just doesn't know it yet!]

originally posted by: Hecate666
Having their cake and eat it. They are not royalty any longer, which means they are free fodder for the paparazzi just like any other 'celeb', politician or commoner. Live with it, like they have to.
That marriage isn't gonna be for much longer anyways. Once she is allowed to be 'out there' again and do her celeb stuff, instead of representing Britain, Harry will be much too boring for her.

Wonder how long before he cracks under all that female bonhomie around

him, they have moved to be with 'her' friends, her female manager/assistant/

dresser/aide/nanny/website manager/ publicity manager etc.

ALL her luvies ........

Then Harry will go back to Britain, marry his old flame Chelsea and all will be back to normal. Like with his father
[HArry just doesn't know it yet!]

She doesn't hang on to anyone for long once they loose their usefulness!

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: eletheia
To make a point you probably won't 'get'... And point and laugh at whatever compelled you to write about people going with their lives.
ID make a thread about you, but....

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I think he has a perfect right, like anyone else, to react to a newspaper article about him, especially if he believes it misrepresents him.

I wouldn't bother myself, but he has reasonable cause.

Nothing to see here.

Yeah poor Harry. Boo hoo. The media was mean and misrepresented him.

Meanwhile at the Trump residence..........

The UK has press standards and codes of conduct plus completely different rights between the US and UK (free speech in the US means libel, defamation, slander and accuracy standards are much lower/non-existant).

The head of IPSO is one of the worst offenders in breaking accuracy and ethics rules - it'd be the equivalent as the US having a said regulation organisation where the editor of CNN is in charge of writing the rules and making final decisions if US media coverage is balanced, fair and accurate.
it's a disaster that is killing good, acurrate, ethical journalism and most UK powers to investigate the government and all finance systems are currently being banned in the UK due to years of bad breaches for gossip mags.

For example the head of IPDO ordered a journalist to photoshop every follicle of hair out of a photo of ex Big Brother contestant, Jade Goody, as she had recently died of cervical cancer and the original photo was from years before the illness, starting chemo.

He also hacked the phone of a dead/missing kid and accessed her voicemails which caused havoc and false leads in the police's attempt to find/rescue her as it made it appear she was still alive/in a particular area of the UK at the time the phone was hacked.

All photos in the media are cropped to some degree so the rejection on the grounds Harry's PR team cropped a photo makes no sense.

The first rule of journalism and IPSO guilines is fairness, accuracy and investigation - the failure of the paper to realise the photo was edited, failure to question official claims and bread and butter fact checking is completely the fault of the journalists behind the article.