because he was only the editor. He can't have kept tabs on everything at the Mirror when he was there, and anyway, he just said that he "never hacked a phone" and "never asked anyone else to hack a phone". What other proof do you need? Neither did he ask any of his "reporters" where they got the information about the Royals from because it was none of his business. They were reporting (it was their job) not him. And why should he question their veracity? They worked for the Mirror, so their honesty was unimpeachable. He just printed what they told him because he trusted them. How could a newspaper function without trust? Ordinary people (judges etc) just don't understand how the newspaper business works and how complicated it is. A reporter brings in a story and the editor says, "Fine, print it." Hard for a lay person to understand such a complex process, but take Piers's word for it, it's damned difficult as well as requiring highly skilled professional judgement. Besides, Harry was more to blame for slagging off his own family, which is the lowest you can get, while Piers was trying to defend them and uphold the Royal tradition. Looked at that way, Piers is more of a prince than Harry is -- it should really be Prince Piers instead of Harry. But as we all know there's no justice or integrity or gratitude in the world today. Some of us try to keep up standards and fight for the truth but we're fighting a losing battle, even while we never complain or expect any reward for our commitment and sacrifice. It's a cruel world.
|