Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 3

[Samcro]

new thread hope Dave comes back

There may be a few vocal people who hate and are critical of Meghan, but the is a few people of British public does not particularly feel that way.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-named-most-inspirational-17859317

Who is Victoria Mather anyway? I've never heard of her. Mind you I tend to avoid the tabloids.

She works for the Telegraph, apparently.

to shut down the real news, which is that Harry won one of his hacking cases yesterday.

This is excellent news.

Quelle surprise that the media aren’t reporting it properly

The hoax is neither here nor there. If it was him (no idea) he didn’t say anything very controversial.

The ‘five clicks up from trailer trash’ is just disgusting and makes so clear the class bias going on.

Cerseirys, thanks. The Telegraph online at any rate has turned into the DM so I shouldn't be surprised.

Can't read Telegraph, they are awful, good job there's a paywall.

Do you mean this ruling?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8097323/Prince-Harry-Ray-Winstone-Ryan-Giggs-win-latest-round-High-Court-phone-hacking-fight.html

Prince Harry is one of a larger group. It's not one of the cases he initiated

So?

Anything that curtails the disgusting behaviour of the press is a v good result in my book.

Yes, it's a good thing that the press is held to account for its excesses.

But this is a group action, so it would not be correct to report it solely in reference to Prince Harry. I disagree with the idea that this is a Royal story that has been overlooked.

There are cases which he brought as an individual or jointly with his wife, and I think those are the ones which are 'his'

I don't know what the timelines are for those cases. Do you think progress is not being fairly reported?

this is a group action, so it would not be correct to report it solely in reference to Prince Harry

With this particular ruling it's not even about Harry directly, never mind him having "won one of his hacking cases" as yet another inaccurate post suggested.
If the reporting's correct, the rags wanted the allegation that their legal people knew what was happening struck out before trial and this has been refused - and that's all

FWIW I agree with Laurie than any halt on the media's excesses is no bad thing, but let's at least try to stick to the facts here?

No matter how much you try to downplay it, DM simply does not want to use the words that Harry won - though they had to.

Also, stop trying to sidetrack this thread.

but let's at least try to stick to the facts here?

Yes. As should all other threads. Facts matter. This thread is for a positive spin on things, not a negative.

If H wins any damages, will that help to pay for Frogmore?

It has already been reported that when they win cases they donate it to charity. When they won last time for the house photographs, they donated that to charity. If Meghan wins her court case, she is set to donate that to an anti-bullying charity.

Frankly, I if I were the judge on MM case, I would make the rags pay for their security since they painted a target on their backs with the smear campaign. I bet the £20m number would be reduced, minus a zero - that bloated security number sounds like it's been pulled out of some reporter's S. Are we really supposed to believe that reporters go around reading Scotland Yard reports.

why should they pay for Frogmore. unless I have got it wrong it doesn't belong to them. who ever it belongs to should pay.

Pay for the renovation of Frogmore. They did say that they would pay for it. How, is another matter.

As I understand it, the Queen was going to renovate Frogmore anyway, she paid for it as part of her responsibility to maintain buildings of historical significance, as apparently Frogmore has. H&M paid for all the furnishings, white goods, kitchen, garden design, decoration etc themselves.

It's just another stick to beat them with AFAIC.

I am not concerned about Frogmore. Now it has been renovated it can be used for other purposes or for someone else. I do think some clarity about how additional security costs will be met though. This should come out of the general crown expenses not be left to the Met Police to finance.

Facts matter. This thread is for a positive spin on things, not a negative

These two sentences contradict one another.

@yoloPenguinsEatfish if you don’t agree with the thread then why are you here?

It’s a public forum. Anyone can post.

@Roussette i think it shows another instance where the RF have let H&M down. the cries from people that they should pay the money back, would you if it was your land lord?

These two sentences contradict one another

Maybe. Spin was the wrong word. 'Slant' maybe. Instead of spin?

Good point roussette. View through a different optic maybe?

But if fact is 'A' and someone says oh yes but it's actually B because, and someone else says no its C because, what happens to the fact?