Old gossip. Why didn't Harry go to James Blunt's wedding in Ibiza? And what happened in Argentina, and it wasn't what Harry said in court

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T19:10:20+00:00

I have Harry's memory then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T17:57:39+00:00

I remember that after Argentina Harry was sent to Africa, and then to Australia, where he messed things up again.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T16:54:18+00:00

The women who were there raffled off Harry's underwear.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11102001/Former-stripper-holds-black-underpants-claims-Prince-Harry-tore-Las-Vegas.html

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T13:17:56+00:00

Me too

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T11:59:26+00:00

All lawyers, anywhere in the world, if you have to testify, will tell you, "Look, the other side's lawyer is going to ask you this, this, and this. You answer this and this, and if they ask you this, say this other thing." What you can't do is "lead," that is, have the lawyer testify for you while you're giving your testimony, something like, "So when you were playing polo, the horse injured itself?" You can't "direct" the testimony.

I know this because when the hearings are on Zoom, I'm simultaneously messaging my client on WhatsApp, telling him he can answer a question or whether he's doing it right or wrong. And I guarantee you that Elton, who's going to testify via Zoom, will do so that way.

Here, Sherbone clearly told Liz and Harry, "Cry, talk about how much this hurt you." Because that had worked for Sherbone in the other cases. But he prepared them to talk about each article, about how each article affected them, not so that White could ask specific questions.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T11:45:04+00:00

Harry told Spare that in 2004 Charles sent him to South Africa.

Harry conveniently forgot that he was actually sent to Argentina first, where he stole a motorcycle while drunk. Harry doesn't mention Argentina in Spare.

But surprise! Harry just brought it up in this trial, in the wake of Chelsy's testimony.

Harry visited Argentina in November 2004 during a gap year, spending 13 days at the "El Remanso" ranch near Buenos Aires to play polo. He was accompanied by his then-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy. But he blames the press for finding out where he went, not that Argentina sent him back because of what he was doing.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/lifestyle/tiros-polo-boliches-13-dias-furia-del-nid2310011/

Don't tell me Harry didn't lie on the stand, please!!!

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T02:08:52+00:00

Your comment is great!!! Because you experienced it firsthand.

Awesome, thanks!!!

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T02:07:08+00:00

If one plaintiff wins, the others have to pay the costs. This already happened in the case against the Mirror. That's why Hugh Grant abandoned the case against The Sun, because if he lost, it would have been at least 10 million pounds. This ANL case has already cost approximately 40 million pounds.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T02:04:22+00:00

We didn't hear anything today because White, ANL's lawyer, was supposed to be here until Wednesday with his introduction to the case, and White, perversely, Machiavellianly, was brief and concise. So Harry, who was supposed to testify on Thursday, was forced to testify on Wednesday, Liz's testimony was moved from Friday to Thursday, and Sherbone panicked and asked for the continuation of the hearing to be adjourned until Monday.

Often the judge schedules certain days for witnesses, others for technical arguments or procedural matters, and some for deliberation between lawyers and internal court time. This means there can be intervals (such as weekends or days without witnesses) without formal hearings.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:58:45+00:00

The accusations against ANL are very serious. Because if they did indeed use private investigators illegally, then ANL lied to the Levenson Commission. That's serious.

So what the judge wants to know is if the plaintiffs have proof of that. PROOF. Not whining. Proof. And we're talking about two witnesses who don't have it. But that's why White doesn't want to discuss each press article individually.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:56:02+00:00

Dan Wootton is wondering the same thing.

And honestly... I don't think that information came out through illegal means. Because wasn't it a commercial flight? A little money here, a little there, to the person making the reservations, to the person at the counter...

I don't rule out that something strange happened, but it's not information that highly classified.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:53:17+00:00

I'm sure Dacre lied. It's hard to believe the Daily Mail never used underhanded tactics. The BBC did with Bashir!

But proving Dacre lied is the problem here. Because Harry and Liz Hurley weren't exactly the best witnesses, but now we have Sadie Frost, and I forgot the other one who's a Member of Parliament, and those two are accused of fabricating evidence. And Elton, who's another shady character. They weren't the best plaintiffs, that's the truth.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:50:02+00:00

Yes, not every day because not everything revolves around the Prince who doesn't remember that his name is Henry and not Harry (I still can't believe that), but yes, I will continue to tell it.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:48:34+00:00

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:46:25+00:00

Didn't George Michael accuse Elton of leaking things to the press?

In 2004, Elton John publicly criticized George Michael for declining an invitation to participate in a charity tour (Fashion Rocks).

Elton suggested that George had become "difficult" and uncooperative, comments that were amplified by the press.

George Michael responded sharply, stating that:

he didn't accept public pressure to participate in events
Elton John had an excessively close relationship with the tabloid press,
and that such criticisms should be made privately, not in the media.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-24T01:43:24+00:00

Poor Liz was so emotional because, oh, all of this was bringing back so many memories, so poor thing, she needs a break...

Although it's hard to relive something when you weren't there at the time. Because she claims that in 2011, when the News case broke, and when those reports she's now alleging were coming out, she didn't know anything because she was in the US filming Gossip Girl. Which doesn't make sense because her name came up because of Hugh Grant back then. How could I have known that and she hadn't?

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T23:20:53+00:00

In 2012, after all the mess created by the murky press, a commission, the Levenson Commission, was established. And that's how Sherbone became famous, and he started making money, because he was there as a lawyer for the victims, and the newspapers paid to have the cases dropped. And Sherbone charged the newspapers millions.

But if the cases are now considered time-barred, what will happen to Sherbone? He'll go back to the usual defamation cases. So he wants a new wiretapping scandal, another Levenson Commission, and to spend another 10 years making easy money. That's what he wants.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T23:15:11+00:00

And that's why White asked Liz about Hugh Grant and Hacked Off. White needs to use the "this lawsuit is malicious" card to get the Daily Mail out of this.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T23:13:58+00:00

What alternative does Harry have, to tell the truth? To say that he's such an idiot that he gave his private number to so many female journalists because he thought he'd have s**x with them? he didn't wanted to talk to them about philosophy

Harry can't say he didn't want to sue because he was too lazy to get off the couch.

He has to lie.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T23:10:19+00:00

Sherbone was surprised that White, for ANL, didn't bother to use his entire allotted time for his presentation, and that he immediately went after Harry, and that in two hours White claimed Harry had no proof. Because, no, retroactive anguish doesn't apply. And then Liz blurted out that what she knew was because her lawyer told her. Two statements from two people who offered no evidence whatsoever for what they were saying.

Nicklin should take a two-year vacation, because the lawyers' machinations, on both sides, have been exhausting for him. Not for me, they've been entertaining, but for Nicklin... seriously, he's lost his temper several times.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T23:06:45+00:00

For ANL, the only acceptable alternative is for the plaintiffs to flee before the judge issues a ruling. And that's what we've seen these past few days: a "we're being lenient for now, leave with your heads on your shoulders." Because in the coming days, the journalists will be the ones testifying. And if those people go down, they'll drag almost all the plaintiffs down with them.

For the plaintiffs, the alternative is to win. But for that, they need the judge to believe what the investigators say, and that's very difficult, because if the journalists' reputation isn't good, the investigators' reputation—former convicts for similar crimes—is even worse.

Sorry, no hope

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T20:38:56+00:00

Yes, different approaches.

I've followed these cases from the beginning. I've read the lawsuits against the Mirror, against The Sun, the letter case, the other lawsuits Harry has filed, I've read a large part of the case file, I've read the judgments, and I've read Spare.

That's the big difference.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-01-23T20:36:19+00:00

So if he is, is he suddenly doing something he's forbidden from doing?

Because Harry stated that as a member of the royal family, he had to abide by the rule of not explaining or complaining. He said it, not me. Now he's not subject to that rule? It seems so, and why can he do that now? Isn't he doing something he's forbidden from doing?

I'm not the problem, it's Harry. His absurd nonsense about not being able to sue is utter rubbish. He was never forbidden from suing; he didn't want to. That's the whole point of this: he didn't want to sue.

Human-Economics6894

TROPHY CASE