I stopped covering the multi-plaintiff trial against the Daily Mail/ANL as soon as Prince Harry testified and left the UK. The trial is still happening, and I believe all of the plaintiffs have testified, including Elton John, David Furnish and Liz Hurley, as well as Harry (obviously). While I’ve been following some of the trial coverage, I’ll be damned if I’m going to use the Times or the Telegraph’s reporting to cover the ins and outs of the rest of the case. The British media acts as a cartel – when Harry sues one outlet, they all work together to attack him. The British press has been openly acting as the Mail’s defense team, their bias in plain view. So why am I breaking my vow to not use British coverage? Because I’m really shocked that no one in the British press blinked an eye about publishing a term some/many consider to be offensive, if not an antisemitic slur, without commentary. On Wednesday, Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne was cross-examining former Mail editor Stephen Wright. Wright threw a temper tantrum on the stand and he said the words “mob of shysters, spivs and useful idiots.”

Prince Harry’s legal team has been described as a “mob of shysters, spivs and useful idiots” by a senior journalist accused of making payments to police officers for information. Stephen Wright, a former associate editor of the Daily Mail, also told Harry’s privacy trial that the prince destroyed the relationship between Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon and the newspaper that campaigned for justice for her son.

Wright denies paying a former police officer to obtain information from detectives investigating the racist murder of Lawrence’s son, Stephen, in 1993 or for details of Harry’s misbehaviour.

Harry, 41, Lawrence, 73, Sir Elton John, 78, and other celebrities claim they are victims of unlawful information gathering including hacking, landline tapping and “blagging”. Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, denies wrongdoing.

David Sherborne, representing the celebrities, questioned Wright about cash payments. The barrister suggested the money was paid to John Ross, a private investigator and former police officer the court has been told was once arrested for offering to pay a police officer but had not been prosecuted.

Wright denied the payments were made to Ross, saying: “I invite you to go outside this courtroom and make that allegation without legal privilege.” He added later: “If you weren’t a coward you would go outside and say that without legal privilege.”

Sherborne later suggested that records of cash payments of £1,000 and £500 in 2007 was money given to Ross to pay police officers for information. Wright said the £1,000 was paid to Peter Rose, a former crime editor of the newspaper who was then working as a freelance journalist, for information about the Lawrence investigation.

“He [Rose] and I knew he was dying and preferred to be paid in cash,” he added. “I beg you Mr Sherborne, not to smear him. He was a fine, fine journalist.”

Wright continued: “Your mob of shysters, spivs and useful idiots are trying to fit me up with these despicable allegations. You have set out with your mob to try to destroy me and my reputation. It is an utter disgrace.”

Mr Justice Nicklin intervened, telling the journalist: “I understand that you feel very strongly about this, but Mr Sherborne is here to do his job.”

[From The Times]

You mean a former Mail editor threatened to physically fight Prince Harry’s lawyer, then called Harry’s legal team a “mob of shysters, spivs and useful idiots” and the Times is like “let’s offer this up as bad news for Harry!” Spiv is “a man, typically characterized by flashy dress, who makes a living by disreputable dealings.” “Useful idiot” is someone like Prince Andrew. But “shyster”? It used to be a common pejorative for lawyers, but it’s now widely accepted (in America, at least) to be antisemitic or antisemitic-adjacent, especially given the common Jewish-caraciture representations of “shysters” in pop culture/media. You want to know a weird coincidence? Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer, Anthony Julius, was/is a Jewish lawyer and the British press used antisemitic tropes against him as well.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.