Today we salute Ephraim Hardcastle for hitting the nail bang on the head in referencing Prince Harry’s “troubling factual inconsistencies” in just two sentences
A throwaway couple of sentences in this morning’s Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Daily Mail was actually truly one of the most telling analyses of the truth of the court case brought by Prince Harry against the publishers News Group Newspapers.
The two sentences – featured in a column by “The Mail’s acerbic diarist, with all the most wicked gossip that the stars don’t want you to know…” – read:
“The judge in Harry’s privacy case says there are ‘troubling factual inconsistencies’ in his evidence for claims dating back decades.”
“Could this be explained by revelations in Spare that in the past he’s been on the wacky baccy and his memory might be a bit, er, foggy?”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.