PH lost bid to challenge for right to pay Home Office for his security

[Mumsnut]

I've probably garbled that, but that's the gist of it.

Those of us discerning and literate find your posts quite spiteful

And if ever there needed to be an example of pots and kettles then this is the victor.

Literate and discerning?

I have colleagues who, through really prestigious societies, (academic and clinical in my world but there are others) have receive lifetime achievement awards amongst other things. They actually work their fucking arses off, make massive sacrifices and actually support their teams too in their awards and publications: It is so awful that these idiots throw out awards Like pet treats that make it to the glossy mags, when extremely educated, and/or hard workers, like to the nth degree, win awards ... those MEAN something ... shoulder rubbing / financial gain awards are abysmal

its the perfect definition of irony

If Meghan has achieved anything, then it’s lifting the veil on these awards.

I knew that the Oscars were dodgy in that a lot of bribery (not money) goes on, and that “quite coincidentally” people all vote for the same (often crap) films, but it seems that the whole awards system is not only rotten, but gobbling up charitable donations.

Eg I posted (can’t remember which thread) that Archewell’s lifetime award from the NAACP was $100k. Immediately Archewell announced their own NAACP award for - you guessed it - $100k… Is it the same $100k going round and round like the re-gifted Christmas present?! But each time heralded with fanfare and pricey shindigs.

I’m guessing their PR works on the theory that any publicity is good publicity.

it’s the only thing that would account for the frankly hilarious statement issued about the “near catastrophe”, where nothing catastrophic ever happened.

Did I dream the Meghan 2.0 PR a week before the NYC incident? She was supposed to have taken a long break because she was starting afresh?

Aaah Yes! same old same old!

If so, it shows even they are ashamed of their words.

Shoulder rubbing / financial gain awards are abysmal

While I agree, at least most people with sense see them for exactly what they are and aren't likely to be too bothered beyond an occasional eye roll
It's all just part of the noise and fanfare of this kind of world annd matters for nothing beyond a few clickbait headlines

The posting style hasn't changed 😄

Apropos of nothing Royal, it really wasn’t that long ago that the Lena Dunham’s of the world appropriated “woke” from African Americans. Did they abandon it so casually already?

Meanwhile, back in Court, Hugh Grant has been refused permission to sue The Sun because he is ‘out of time’- which can’t be filling Harry with confidence in relation to his attempted claim against the Mail. His KC was refused permission to put in three new witness statements on Wednesday , too.

The BBC says Hugh Grant’s case against the Sun can proceed to trial.

I read that some bits of his claim can proceed (phone hacking) but other bits of his claim can not.

FOI request showed Harry's request to have his security reinstated cost the taxpayer £300,000 and he only has to repay £8000 which he is appealing against paying. Fact is when he is in the country, like at the coronation, he had full met cover as his fathers son, so he gets security. My bet it was part of an attempt to have his IPP status returned, as that would cover his security at his home in California.

Hugh Grant has had the part of his case that relates to phone hacking specifically struck out for being brought too late. He had enough knowledge about potential phone hacking at The Sun to have brought a case in 2016 and didn't.

Claims for the publication of articles based on private information are also statute-barred if published more than 6 year before the claim was issued (the publication of the articles is a separate claim to the underlying unlawful gathering of information).

So the only part of Hugh Grant's case that is left and is now going to trial is for unlawful gathering of private information that does not include phone hacking (so things like blagging medical information and getting private investigators to compile reports). And that might still get struck out at trial stage for being out of time, the judge just wants the evidence about when Hugh knew about it to be fully tested at trial.

It's a major win for NGN. All they care about is protecting The Sun from phone hacking claims. They will shrug off any finding that their use of private investigators was unlawful as just technicalities of investigative journalism.

... the judge just wants the evidence about when Hugh knew about it to be fully tested at trial

Interesting - I'd been wondering if Harry would stick to his "didn't know/nobody told me" to overcome being out of time, but somehow I doubt that would survive close examination, especially with William's known settlement

@polkadotdalmation is this thing about Harry appealing the costs official (you mentioned FoI)? I don't want to comment if it's only speculation, but if true that's going to make him look - if this is possible - even worse

Also just found this (though it concerns an earlier case): https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-02/prince-harry-demanded-costs-that-were-too-high-after-winning-case-against-daily-mail-sister-paper-judge-rules

Whatever the outcome this time it would be deeply ironic if Harry objected to the bill when the costs his own team tried to claim were deemed “manifestly disproportionate”

I think this actually bodes well for Harry. Surely if the judge was going to rule against Harry for being out of time, he'd have done it at the same time as he ruled against Hugh Grant.

@Puzzledandpissedoff Yes it was a FOI request made by the sun to see what the total cost was. It's been in this thread previously that Harry has been asked to pay just £8000 but is appealing that payment. I can't find the latter online, but I think it was a solicitor who posted it?

There's been no court ruling on costs yet, its just newspapers speculating. And I think the speculated £8,000 is for part of the case not the whole case of £300,000.

Thanks, polkadotdalmation; I'll try to find it, except I see it's now been said there's nothing definite yet ...

He’s tighter than cramp, Harry

Ah thanks for the explanation @Dolma

When the BBC headline is “Hugh Grant gets court go ahead to sue publishers of Sun” and The Times headline is “Hugh Grant phone-hacking case thrown out”, it’s no wonder I’m confused.

Both technically correct, but very different spin.