To be a bit gleeful about Harry's court case

[Viviennemary]

Serves him right. He's made millions from Netflix, book deals and accusing them of being racist. Bit odd he's now coming back.

Will the King pay his debts.I hope not. Now the long suffering public will be fleeced for his security costs which will be around £5m a yea r. And they wonder why they are unpopular.

The outpouring on SM/MSM over two people moving house is unhinged. Some people won't be happy until they've hounded this woman to her grave. See also Jason Arday. It's prurient, unpleasant and really distasteful to witness.

Nonetheless I'm pleased that the Mail won. Their methods and some of their attitudes are not at all to my taste. But a free press is essential to any supposed democratic society, and must be upheld. A monarchy most certainly isn't.

The media has a moral duty to report more responsibly than this. But that is another discussion.

Don’t be silly you know exactly what you did and yes it was an insult

There that unhinged comment again. Very childish and without merit.

I have insulted no one. You saying 'another insult' when that hasn't happened even once.

Do you think? Is there any aspect of how they live their lives that escapes your gleeful opprobrium?
Could you just consider saying nothing about them, or do you want them to really experience and feel your contempt?

We get it, there is a rump of people who see the decades long denigration as coming to them, but it has long since started to wear. It’s boring, it’s uncalled for, and it fundamentally says more about you than it does about them- and none of it good.

Calling out their entitlement is called for as are their lies. Maybe you should take your own advice and stop commenting on these threads if it upsets you that much?

You have but not surprising you deny it.

‘I haven’t counted’.

Yet 9 times seems an odd number just to pluck out of the air.

I believe.

It cost them £34 million to defend the case. I am sure they will be pleased the court has ruled they may potentially get most of that back. Hardly unexpected though and I am sure they would rather their journalists were not put under the stress and so much money did not have to be spent.

So you have called out their entitlement and their lies. Now what?

Is there any level of “calling out” that would give you pause for thought?

I’m not at all upset, and I’ll be on the thread or not as I see fit thanks, sorry if people not cheer leading the hate on “Markle” (Like a convict of yore) spoils the glee.
We’ve got the message, we’ve seen the unending laundry list of their faults, and rehashing is all that you’re doing now.

I’m sure folk will also rehash it if they see fit -thanks.

Please feel free to report my posts

Because that is what is reported and there is a transcript, I didn't pluck any figure from the top of my head. Odd you find it odd.

I think I yawned about 9 times reading that.

I haven’t counted though.

You said you believed it was said 9 times and that you hadn’t counted.

Yet now you are saying there is a transcript. So you either did count and you know. No believe/didn’t count about it.

Or you didn’t and plucked 9 out of the air.

Can’t be both.

Unless it stated that he called her Kate 9 times at the top of the article on a banner to make it easier for folk to try to make a point.

So you will stay on the thread and expect others not to. I see 😆

Tempting by I think I’ll let them stand for people to see

For goodness sake. Reporting says he called her Kate 9 times. I looked at the transcript I saw it was quite a few times, I made it 12, but don't wish to waste time on it. Will that be something else for you to argue about I wonder? 12 not 9??
P.s. it took seconds to look, control find and there you go
Why should there be a banner, how peculiar

This is a link to the official transcript: William does call her Kate.

https://abcnews.com/amp/Entertainment/prince-william-kate-middleton-interview-transcript/story?id=12163826

I stopped counting at 4 times there may be more. Tom Bradbury calls her Kate multiple times!

And another one. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8138904/Royal-Wedding-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-interview-in-full.html

You copied the wrong person in

Peculiar and odd?

You forgot bemusing.

But if you counted 12, (why waste time counting yet you did) then why type 9?

How, ahem, perplexing.

Away to watch a film I think I have watched at least 374 times. Because if I carry on yawning at the rate I’m yawning at some posts here, I’ll be asleep till Tuesday.

🦈

And pretending to not understand the concept of a rough estimate is scintillating I suppose?

To return to the op and the poster who wrote,

You don’t think being happy or gleeful enhances your life? Do you prefer misery?

Yes if that was the stark choice, most right minded people would opt for misery if the glee came at the expense of someone else.

What a strange discussion. You’re planning to call someone famous the diminutive of their name because someone who you think will be bothered by this referred your girl by her maiden name?

Rock on.

Yes if that was the stark choice, most right minded people would opt for misery if the glee came at the expense of someone else.

I don’t actually believe that.

If, for example, person one’s happiness was dependent on the misery of person two who had hurt them or a loved one, I believe that that person one would choose their own happiness every time.

I don’t find glee in H’s current predicament but nor do I have sympathy for him.

He chose to find his happiness at the expense of his family. He could have chosen to walk away and be happy without causing his family unhappiness or misery. But he didn’t.

By the reckoning above, does that mean he is not of a right mind?

I find it hard to believe the Mail didnt engage in phone hacking, all the tabloids were doing it. The litigants were simply too late, I imagine a lot of the evidence conveniently disappeared.