Byline Times Audio Articles

Daily Mail Trial: 'My Every Move, Thought or Feeling Was Being Tracked and Monitored Just for the Mail to Make Money Out of It'

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Prince Harry and Elizabeth Hurley, each giving evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this week, have alleged that the Mail tore apart relationships, drove its targets to paranoia, and made life miserable for anyone caught in its crosshairs. The publisher did so, they claim, by illegally spying on them, publishing their secrets, and invading the privacy of their families, partners and closest friends. It was a bruising opening week for the Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited, is defending itself against litigation brought by Prince Harry, Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley. The claims allege widespread illegality at the publisher, arguing that the Mail's prolific use of private investigators known to use unlawful methods demonstrates that the publisher was illegally spying on its targets. The claimants argue that private information about the lives of the claimants was obtained by listening in on voicemail messages and even live phone calls, and published in the newspaper – all to sell more papers and make the publisher more money. The Mail's defence is that there is no direct evidence of illegality, arguing that journalists got hold of private information through friends and other associates of the claimants. They also argue that the claims have been brought too late, and should have been brought years ago – despite the Mail's own heated denials of wrongdoing at the Leveson Inquiry – into the culture, practices and ethics of the press following the exposure of the phone-hacking scandal in 2011-12 – and since. BREAKING Daily Mail Trial: British People Say Press Standards Haven't Improved Since Phone Hacking Scandal As the Daily Mail goes on trial for alleged lawbreaking, a new poll finds seven-in-ten voters demand independent regulation of the press Byline Times Team The Wider Picture The summary of the claimants' case, published on Monday, threatens to suck other senior figures in the press into the litigation. The current editor of The Sun, Victoria Newton, is alleged to have been a "habitual" user of unlawfully accessed information, while the editor of the Mail on Sunday, David Dillon, is alleged to have commissioned private investigators for criminal activity. The findings in the case could have implications for the online and print news media more broadly. If it is found that yet another newspaper engaged in illegal behaviour, calls for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry are likely to intensify. Hacked Off even came up once or twice during the course of evidence given by both Hurley and Prince Harry, with the Duke of Sussex generously praising the campaign for its "fantastic work". "Hacking of my voicemails, landline tapping, blagging, obtaining itemised phone bills, hardwire tapping, and obtaining private flight information for my former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, amongst other criminal methods… was deliberately undertaken with the purpose of publishing articles about me in the Mail newspapers because it made them money." Witness Statement of Prince Harry On Wednesday Prince Harry took to the witness stand and his witness statement, setting out his allegations in his own words, was published. An object of relentless fascination to the press throughout the 2000s was Harry's romantic life. In his statement, he highlights an article entitled 'Harry's Older Woman', a piece which covered his relationship with a former girlfriend. He was 18 at the time. At best, this was obsessive coverage of a teenager's relationship. But Harry alleges that it was published as a direct result of phone hacking or "blagging" – the use of impersonation to get someone's personal information. In other words, Harry's claim is that the Mail was actively and illegally spying on the private communications of a teenager and...

Daily Mail Trial: British People Say Press Standards Haven't Improved Since Phone Hacking Scandal

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY British people believe standards in the UK press have not improved since the phone hacking scandal 15 years ago, with seven-in-ten voters demanding the industry be independently regulated for the first time, according to a new poll. The survey conducted by pollsters Opinium for the Press Justice Project charity, found that 54% of those surveyed said press standards either haven't improved or have got worse over the past decade, with a further 71% saying the press should now be regulated by a body independent from the industry and politicians. Voters want publications to be more accountable for inaccurate reporting. Seventy three percent of those surveyed said they believed press corrections should be published with the same size and prominence as the original misleading reporting. Support for reforming the press could be found across supporters of all parties, according to the poll, including voters for Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Of all the potential options for reforming the press, the most popular was for newspapers and their websites to be regulated by an independent statutory regulator, like Ofcom. 'A Victim All Over Again': The Mail Trial and the Murders of Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan Peter Jukes looks at how an ongoing High Court case plunges us back over thirty years to two murders in south-east London and to a nexus of corrupt police officers and private investigators Peter Jukes According to the poll, readers of the Metro (45%) the Daily Mail (38%), the Daily Express (37%), The Sun (35%), the Daily Telegraph (33%) and The Times (31%) all backed independent statutory regulation as their favoured option. None of these papers are currently independently regulated. Stephen Kinsella OBE, chair of the Press Justice Project, said: "Newspaper publishers often say they have 'cleaned up their act' since the appalling practices revealed by the phone hacking scandal, and argue there is no need for reform of press regulation. "Every week, we at the Press Justice Project hear from people affected by wrongdoing in the press, which proves otherwise. These results show that the wider public shares our concerns. There is a clear public demand for independent press regulation that provides effective remedies when newspapers fail to uphold ethical standards. "Press wrongdoing continues to affect people from all walks of life. Almost 15 years on from the phone hacking scandal, there is still an urgent need to protect the public from press abuse. The Press Justice Project shares the public's support for legislation that encourages industry compliance with independent and effective press regulation, in the interests of the victims of press wrongdoing we were established to assist." EXCLUSIVE Daily Mail High Court Trial Casts Shadow Over Lord Rothermere's Telegraph Bid Allegations that the Mail engaged in phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records are threatening to derail its £500 million takeover of the Telegraph Dan Evans The findings come in the same week a High Court trial opened into alleged lawbreaking at the Daily Mail, including allegations of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records. More than 400 potential victims have been identified by the claimants' lawyers, after evidence was uncovered suggesting they were hacked and blagged by the Mail titles. The claimants allege phone hacking and other unlawful practices stretching back decades. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY – £44.75 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY – £4.50 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism....

Brexit Badly Weakened the UK and Now Donald Trump Is Taking Advantage

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY You did not dream the last fortnight: that really just happened. Fresh from illegally abducting a foreign head of state, the President of the United States turned his attention to seizing part of the territory of a close NATO ally while declaring economic war on those European allies who dared to object. The Greenland fiasco not only represented the lowest point in UK-US relations in 70 years, it quite literally threatened to blow apart Europe's post-war geopolitical and security architecture. Thankfully, Donald Trump has now – at last – confirmed that he will not invade Greenland. He also walked back his threats to impose fresh, punitive tariffs on the UK and other allies. But these feel like temporary reprieves. Trump's presidency has three years to run and more instability surely awaits. The old world, with its reassuring alliances and certainties, no longer exists. The new world brings fresh and urgent demands for the continent of Europe – in particular, the European country that, ten years ago, chose to leave the only trade bloc capable of rivalling the United States. Engage, for one moment, in a small thought experiment. Imagine that we had not left the EU. That in 2016, we narrowly voted to remain, and then stumbled through the following ten years with our economic and geopolitical framework essentially unchanged. Why Is the Government Really Refusing to Investigate Russian Interference in Brexit? Keir Starmer's decision to exclude Russian interference in the 2016 EU referendum from his inquiry into foreign interference in our elections should ring alarm bells, argues Sergei Cristo Sergei Cristo Imagine the last decade of geopolitical turbulence, but where we were neither obsessing about tearing ourselves from our regional bloc, nor finding our way once we had. Would Theresa May have debased herself to invite Trump on his first state visit to the UK, all for the comprehensive trade deal to mitigate Brexit's damage – a deal which never came? Would the UK's global voice and reputation have been stronger or weaker? Did our economy – pummelled by so many events out of our control – need the additional voluntary hit or not? Imagine just the last year. Would Keir Starmer have had to prostrate himself before the new American king, offering an unprecedented second state visit, if the UK were not so weakened on the global stage by Brexit? Would Trump have still been able to get everything he wanted – pomp, prestige and royalty – without offering anything except, as it subsequently transpired, political and economic threats and personal insults. Now imagine the last two weeks. When Trump issued his threats of tariffs for the crime of upholding Denmark's territorial integrity and Greenland's self-determination, all Starmer could do was protest the move and appeal to Trump's better nature. Compare that with the muscular responses of France and Germany, who resolved to respond in kind. They knew they could plausibly do so thanks to the power of the EU behind and alongside them. The UK could only act in isolation. Given the vast power imbalance against the US, that meant, in practice, failing to act at all. Never has the UK been so exposed. Even in 2016, in a more benign global environment, Brexit was a catastrophic error. Ten years later, it looks incalculably more damaging. Both Britain and the EU are weaker at a time they need collective strength more than ever. Brexit's only beneficiaries have been Russia, China and, as it turns out, an actively hostile United States. Brexit Failures Who, apart from Nigel Farage, would be advocating for Brexit right now if we were still in the EU? The verdict of voters would be overwhelming. The power of the EU was something the UK considered to be a threat instead of what it was: an opportunity. The bloc enables free nation states to pool some of their sovereignty a...

'The Malfunctioning British State Cannot be Utilised to Bring About Its Own Solution': Learning from the Mayors of the North

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Head North by two Scousers, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram, is the most original, interesting and important book by serving Labour politicians that I've read. It was published in 2024 to a pitiful number of mainly patronising reviews in the London media – all of which missed the larger point of its call for a new constitution that enshrines a Basic Law, includes PR, and empowers Members of Parliament. A failure that perhaps confirms the authors' assertion that London has lost the plot and does not grasp how intolerable our system of government has become for the country as a whole. Of the two, Burnham is well-known as a high-flying Labour politician, who entered Parliament in 2001, and rose swiftly to become a senior Cabinet member under Gordon Brown. When he tried to become Labour leader in 2015, he lost out to Jeremy Corbyn. A year later, he left Westminster altogether to become the first Mayor of Greater Manchester. Rotheram is less well-known nationally, but his rise from being a bricklayer to becoming a Labour MP and then Mayor of Liverpool is also impressive. The book opens with the two of them shaking hands in 2016 and pledging their joint determination to leave the House of Commons and seek election to the twin cities of England's north-west – where the novelty of elected mayors was about to become a reality for the first time. The first half of the book is a dialogue between the two of them as they share the experience of their personal journeys close to the heart of power. Again and again, they are shocked to the point of being traumatised by the cold indifference of the centre to the legitimate needs of their communities. From Hillsborough to COVID, they draw two personal conclusions from 20 years. First, in a crisis "you have to speak to the soul of the place you are in". Second, that the UK has "an unaccountable state that tries to divide and rule and foist decisions taken by a small cabal on millions". It prioritises private vested interests over the public interest while "Whitehall does not regard all people and places as equal". Andy Burnham: These Dangerous, Alienating Times Call for Radical Change of Our Politics From imposter syndrome and proportional representation, to fixing the fundamentals and the 'incestuous' Westminster media-political class – Labour's Greater Manchester Mayor believes the right can be defeated at the ballot box if bold changes to connect with the public and their day-to-day lives are made now Hardeep Matharu The way they share their account of experiencing the built-in failures of the British state is comparable to Rory Stewart's Politics on The Edge. Stewart's is a more sustained blow-by-blow account of his journey, in his case through the ruins of the Conservative tradition. It culminates in his attempt to become Prime Minister and his humiliation. Whereas Burnham's takes off after his Westminster ambitions are crushed. The second half of Head North sets out the way in which Burnham and Rotheram believe the country has to change. They conclude by demanding a written constitution. They spell out the need for a proportional voting system; empowering Members of Parliament by the removal of the whipping system; a senate of the nations and regions to replace the House of Lords; full devolution; two equal paths in education; a Grenfell law for those in public housing; a Hillsborough law to impose a duty of candour on all public servants; and ecological sustainability. Missing from their list of constitutional demands is the need for a justice system that works for regular people – something, however, that emerges vividly in their account. Many others have proclaimed the need for systematic constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, going back to Charter 88 and beyond. Burnham's and Rotheram's call is unique in that it emerges from, and is rooted in, their ...

Daily Mail High Court Trial Casts Shadow Over Lord Rothermere's Telegraph Bid

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Britain's biggest middle-market newspaper stands accused of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records in a nine-week High Court trial which began on Monday. But in a week that on Wednesday saw Prince Harry become emotional in the witness box as he talked about the impact of media intrusion on his wife Meghan, tensions are rising not just between the Mail and its critics, but between the publisher and its own bankers. NatWest, the Mail's long-standing lender and the principal funder of the Telegraph bid, has the power to pull the plug if internal auditors conclude the legal risks are too great. And City scrutiny has intensified as allegations of industrial-scale criminality inside the Mail's newsrooms are tested in court. Against this backdrop, the Mail on January 8 publicly attacked its financial backer with a story headlined "NatWest Dirty Money Farce". The two-page article recycled a five-year-old case in which Britain's fourth-largest bank paid a record £264.8 million fine for accepting criminal proceeds. EXCLUSIVE 'Trump Has Already Rigged the 2028 Presidential Election': US Defence Insider Regardless of how people vote, the chances of a Democrat Government coming to power in 2029 is now virtually nil, argues Brynn Tannehill Brynn Tannehill NatWest, however, is not the only party to the Telegraph deal facing allegations of serious wrongdoing. In the ongoing litigation brought by Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence—whose son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack—more than £3 million in payments from the Mail to private investigators have been disclosed over the past three years. Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin's verdict now hangs over Lord Rothermere's biggest ever newspaper acquisition. His company, Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), has agreed to assume the debts of Telegraph Media Group's current investor, RedBird IMI, paying £400 million up front and a further £100 million within two years. The deal must still pass detailed due diligence by City lawyers and accountants who are acutely sensitive to allegations of criminal activity while the impact of the proposed takeover on competition and the public interest will be investigated. City public relations expert Brian Basham said: 'The timing of this deal, which comes in the middle of a nine-week trial for phone hacking, couldn't be worse. 'NatWest will not like this. The reputational damage to their client, of being on the news every night for months, about unlawful intrusion, is a risk.' Mr Basham, who previously gave evidence in a phone hacking trial against the Mirror after warning its then chief executive of a cover-up, added: 'But it will the liability of future claims which the bank will be very worried about.' City insiders say NatWest is weighing whether the Mail could survive a "contingent liability" running to as much as £1 billion if hundreds of additional claims are launched. The estimate is based on the scale of payouts made by Rupert Murdoch's companies following the News of the World hacking scandal. Shares analyst Paul Scott has reviewed DMGT's accounts and concluded that a £1 billion hit 'would probably either bankrupt DMGT, or at least stretch it to the limit.' DMGT has secured a funding package with NatWest, its preferred lender, and has finalised the terms of the transaction. But the City remains wary as the litigation approaches, set to begin in just over a week. The case has already cost the Mail around £30 million, despite involving only seven "test" claims at the Royal Courts of Justice. Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), DMGT's main newspaper subsidiary, is defending actions brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Simon Hughes, and Sadie Frost. EXCLUSIVE 'That Phone Could Hold the Truth': Levi Davis Family Say...