Documentary Movies & Series

LONDON, June 6 (Reuters) - Prince Harry has been given permission to appeal against the rejection of his legal challenge to the British government's decision to take away his police protection when he is in Britain, his lawyer said on Thursday.Harry, King Charles' younger son, started the action after the Home Office - the ministry responsible for policing - decided in February 2020 he would not automatically receive personal police security while in Britain.

In February, the High Court in London ruled that decision was lawful and dismissed Harry's case, and in April refused him permission to challenge that ruling in a higher court.However, the Court of Appeal has now said it will hear his challenge following a direct application from Harry's lawyers, who said Harry had been granted permission to appeal.Harry, along with other senior royals, had received full publicly-funded security protection before he stepped back from his royal duties and moved to California with his American wife Meghan in March 2020.

The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC, then decided Harry would no longer receive the same level of protection.Judge Peter Lane had concluded that RAVEC was entitled to reach this conclusion and ordered that he should pay 90% of the Home Office's "reasonable costs" in defending the case, though the government's total outlay was not granting permission for an appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded, "not without hesitation", that Harry's challenge on the grounds that RAVEC had not followed its own stated policy had a real prospect of success.

The case against the government is one of several high-profile legal battles Harry has brought in the High Court, with his others involving lawsuits against major players in the British press.

Why am I so drawn to Bob Durst….

It has been reported that the following newspapers and channels will be importing British news editors.

The WaPo, Daily Beast and CNN will all have news chiefs that are British and right wing. Some are Murdoch lieutenants and others are Tory Stooges. Some come from an era where hacking/blagging/illegal surveillance was an industry practice.

The CEO of the WaPo has already been implicated in the Harry v NGN lawsuit. He then used his position to ensure that the article detailing this information to his readers and subscribers wasn't printed. It was printed by the outgoing Editor who then abruptly resigned and left the paper.

We are currently in an election year on both sides of the Atlantic where disinformation/misinformation will determine who wins these elections.

Not to mention how in the time where clickbait is king, the Sussexes are the currency and accuracy is of no concern to anybody but those of us who are media literate.

I fear for Democracy as it stands in the West with rumours of Project 2025 being implemented if IQ45 wins.

How long till hacking/blagging and access journalism becomes the norm on American shores!

Here is a excerpt of the NYT coverage of what led to the resignation of the former editor of the WaPo:

"Last month, a British court said that Harry could cite the names of many former and current NGN editors in his lawsuit. Among those names was Will Lewis, the current CEO of the Washington Post. Lewis moved from NGN’s British outlets to the Wall Street Journal, and from there, he was hired by Jeff Bezos to revamp WaPo. We heard last month, as Harry got a ruling on naming NGN editors, that Lewis attempted to bury the story and he was particularly prickly about the implication that he was up to his neck in criminal activity when he worked in the UK. Well, as it turns out, that Prince Harry story is one of several reasons why WaPo’s executive editor Sally Buzbee quit the Post on Sunday.

Weeks before the embattled executive editor of The Washington Post abruptly resigned on Sunday, her relationship with the company’s chief executive became increasingly tense. In mid-May, the two clashed over whether to publish an article about a British hacking scandal with some ties to The Post’s chief executive, Will Lewis, according to two people with knowledge of their interactions.

Sally Buzbee, the editor, informed Mr. Lewis that the newsroom planned to cover a judge’s scheduled ruling in a long-running British legal case brought by Prince Harry and others against some of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids, the people said.

As part of the ruling, the judge was expected to say whether the plaintiffs could add Mr. Lewis’s name to a list of executives who they argued were involved in a plan to conceal evidence of hacking at the newspapers. Mr. Lewis told Ms. Buzbee the case involving him did not merit coverage, the people said. When Ms. Buzbee said The Post would publish an article anyway, he said her decision represented a lapse in judgment and abruptly ended the conversation.

The interaction rattled Ms. Buzbee, who then consulted with confidants outside The Post about how she should handle the situation. When the judge ruled several days later, on May 21, that Mr. Lewis could be added to the case, The Post published an article about the decision.

Mr. Lewis did not prevent the article from publishing. But the incident continued to weigh on Ms. Buzbee just as she was considering her future at the paper, according to the two people with knowledge of her decision-making process. Her eventual decision to resign has shaken one of the country’s top news organizations.

The interaction over the court ruling was not the primary reason for her resignation. Ms. Buzbee had already been mulling her future at The Post because of a plan by Mr. Lewis to reorganize the newsroom that he laid out to her in April, the people said. Mr. Lewis had offered Ms. Buzbee a job running a new division focused on social media and service journalism, according to the people. She considered that a demotion, since her job as executive editor included overseeing all parts of the news report.

Mr. Lewis declined to comment to The Post for its article about the ruling in the phone hacking case. But in numerous previous media interviews, he has strongly denied the allegations that he was involved in covering up phone hacking while he was a senior executive for Mr. Murdoch. The Post published an article in March about the lawsuit that also named Mr. Lewis."

Hi everyone!

I know I should have done this when I first found this sub, but never got to. A couple things that has stuck with me since part one aired.

1. Why does no one ever talk about Episode 2. When Jarecki asks what he would say to Kathie’s mother, he says that he’s “complicit in her not being here.” That was my first “holy crepe!” moment of the series. I’m surprised Jarecki didn’t push with a follow up question.

2. Given what we know about Chris Lovell, is there any way he could have tampered with the Galveston jury?

Y’all, I had one or two more thoughts, but my memory is horrible. The Jinx (part one) is my vote for best all-time TC docuseries. I’ll leave with my favorite quote from Chapter 6, which always brightens my day. When Jarecki, Smerling and Stuart-Pontier are talking about if Bob is actually in Madrid. Smerling thinks he is and Jarecki says he’s been credible. Stuart Pontier asks in an incredulous voice, “Are you guys effing serious?!?” and Jarecki’s face is priceless.

Thanks for all the great conversations!

What do you think about the trailer of this new documentary about paraguay?