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.

Who made you board police? 👮

It was wasn’t it 😆

Tv show on Netflix. We want privacy. It's Groundhog day.

Have they a new Netflix thing on the go? According to other posters they've been dropped by them.

Have you ever considered not paying them any attention?

That's what I do. Yeah they crop up every few years in the media and main MNET boards, but mostly they're easy to ignore and of little consequence to your or anyone else's life.🤷‍♀️

I wonder why they aren’t cross about their friend writing about them in the DM

Are they not?
How do you know?
What does it matter to you?

No need to be so rude to me. I just thought it was strange. Chill out.

Rude? I wasn't rude. I was asking you about what you said and how you know that stuff. I just though it was strange.🤷‍♀️ Do you know them?

Chill out. Its not personal.

How puerile & pathetic.
Grow up, OP.

You need to improve your conversation skills

This a thousand times over!

@Any1ForTennisYou've summed up my thoughts on this matter beautifully

It’s exactly what Harry said about his own brother in his bestselling book. Gratuitously nasty, I agree.

The judge didn’t “side” with the daily mail

the judge wanted evidence/proof

Sorry Harry but you had it coming. Always look before you leap. I bet meg's not pleased. Still good drama

This is my only real interest in the thing as a lawyer myself; it's unlikely we'll find out but I'd love to know what the claimants were advised as to the merits of the case. Being awarded costs against you on an indemnity basis is rare but it must have been a risk that the claimants were made aware of here as any decent lawyer (and the claimants did have decent lawyers), is going to highlight the risk to cover their own arse.

I had it myself early on in my career - a client wanted to plough on with litigation 'on principle' despite us saying in no uncertain terms that the case was weak and they were playing with fire re costs. Lo and behold when they lost they didn't fancy paying our costs and tried to say we'd given them misleading advice as to the likelihood of success. Complete rubbish that we were easily able to disprove as we'd seen the risk of that happening a mile off.

😂😂😂 couldn’t have put it better.

Why be gleeful that some people had their phones tapped etc and it was okay.

Can you sue lawyers for telling you you have a case, when it turns out you don't?

I remember a case that an individual was suing for something like £100 million. He lost but went after all the lawyers in turn. He lost all of those cases too. Must have cost him millions to sue them.

Lawyers are generally very careful to cover their backs.

The evidence wasn’t there. I didn’t follow the very long case but the judge was pretty scathing in summary.

Who are you to call someone names and to attempt to diagnose someone with with a mental illness because you don’t agree with what they said. How utterly childish and pathetic,

Because you don’t get to use your wealth and privilege to demand someone pays you millions of pounds just because someone else who had nothing to do with them was nasty to you.

What is there for me to agree or disagree with in what they said? They stated their own feelings.

I fully accept that’s how they feel and, in the wider context of this being a frequent theme, suggested that their passion has tipped over into obsession in a way that may be unhealthy.

It wasn’t done in support of H+M, who are truly but a tiny speck in the Atlas of my life, but to suggest that poster make like to take a tiny step back to evaluate where her interest is rather disproportionate.

But they didn’t lie in this case as clearly outlined by the judge’s verdict.