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.

They managed to make Harry really popular, which seems like no mean feat now that we know him better!

Also very true, SoTedious, though obviously we don't actually know him ... we just know the side of him he wishes to present and it doesn't look good

I'm not going to speculate about his marriage, but in general terms will say that nobody so obviously angst-ridden will be easy to live with. The other partner - whoever they happen to be - just has to decide that whatever pluses there may be are worth it

Sorry, that should have read "whether whatever pluses there may be are worth it" - the whether changes the context completely

Spin = selective exposure.

which is what Harry, the “cheeky chappie” had for years and the public adored him.

then he started his own selective exposure, which revealed the schism between the man we thought we knew rather than the picture his own words and actions painted. And people found his spin/selective exposure revealed an unlikeable and unpleasant man they could not relate to - and that’s where the rot set in.

No, spin never has meant selective exposure.

“In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to influence public opinion about some organization or public figure.”

Spin is putting a positive interpretation on something people deem as negative. Rhat’s not at all what I meant when I wrote “selective exposure.” Spin is used when one can’t or didn’t bother to cover up something they would prefer to have remained unknown.

What I mean is, not saying anything at all about things you don’t want the public to know. Harry has overshared then tried to spin, if he had been selective in his sharing the spin would not be required.

Another definition of spin is:
to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction
which does fit the definition of selective exposure, ie promoting the good and hiding the not-so-good.

All PR uses spin/selective exposure to promote their clients in a particular way.

the public was used to the very positive spin the RF PR team put on Harry and liked the picture tha5 was painted. For some reason, Harry decid3d to c9mplain about the selective exposure which had made h8m popular and embarked on his PR path. Most recently, the selective exposure that transformed the choice to driving around in circles after a publicised appearance was just PR ineptly spun to become “a near catastrophe” and the world laughed heartily,

Use whatever definition of my own words that you like then. It’s not what I meant but who cares.

we just know the side of him he wishes to present and it doesn't look good

It's astonishing that he persists in this pantomime in the face of escalating public ridicule.

He's either employing astoundingly inept PR whisperers or not listening to what he doesn't want to hear in the usual royal fashion.

My money's on the latter.

Apparently even if Harry wins all his legal cases, he will still lose money according to a lawyer and an article in Newsweek. If he loses it will be near catastrophic.

Oh no, not again? One near-catastrophic event per week is enough.

How? If taking a hacking case against a newspaper means your worse off, why do these celebrities keep taking cases? It doesn't make sense?

@Haywirecity Its an article in newsweek, but its not printed publicly on google yet. written by a lawyer Stephen somebody. Its on youtube, so pretty recent publication. It goes into millions. wasn't paying a huge amount of attention. I think people realise even when they win their cases they aren't fully reimbursed. If i see it again pop up I'll google it some more.

Thanks, @polkadotdalmation. I'll keep my eye out. I guess he might not get all costs,back if they're extreme. I've seen judges refuse to authorise costs that are disproportionate to work done. But even if slightly out of pocket, the settlement from or award against the sued party should leave you with a good pay day. That's why so many people settle, I assume.
Anyway, I'll look forward to reading what the journalist has to say. Thanks.

Isn’t that the reason that a lot of them settle?

You can ‘win’ a case, and only get nominal damages, can’t you? Like literally £1?

Different type of case but author/writer Simon Singh gave interviews and wrote about facing a huge bill despite winning libel case and I think he stood to get most of his costs paid by other side.

I think they often settled but some continue with cases because the principal behind it is somehow important to them and they have deep enough pockets.

But you still get your costs back so, other than time, you shouldn't be out of pocket. And in these cases it's doubtful you'd only get a £1 damages. The only exception could be if they inferred to settle for a certain amount and you turned it down and them you got awarded less than they offered, don't you get financially penalised for that in some way? (So people are encouraged to settle rather than go to court.)
But I'm not a legal person, so I'm looking forward to reading that Newsweek article.

Typically, you only get 70% of costs back, unless you get a special order meant to 'punish' the other side for running them up via idiotic decisions, in which case you might get more. But you will still be about 20% ?? out of pocket

20% of 10 million is ... a lot!!

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-lose-20-million-lawsuits-fail-daily-mail-police-security-sun-mirror-1802160

Is it this article?

And if he's rejected any Part 36 settlement offers which ultimately turn out to be reasonable, he might not be awarded costs at all even if he wins?

If he wins then he can expect to get about 60% of his costs back. He'll still have to pay 40% of his legal costs for all five (six?) of his cases, even in the best case scenario. That is going to be expensive, but probably not ruinous for a multi-millionaire like Harry.

Unless there are earth-shattering revelations to come, he's not going to get a settlement that comes anywhere near covering those costs. The big payouts for phone hacking have come from things like details of people attending rehab. Sadie Frost got £260k in damages for that sort of thing. A story about a broken thumb is small fry.

If he loses, he'll have to foot the bill for all his own costs, and about 60% of the defendant's (less for the judicial review that he lost at the permission stage, as the rules are different for that). But unless he is absolutely insane he will have after-the-event- legal costs insurance, which will pay the defendant's costs for him if he loses. The claimants against The Mirror had this, so no reason why Harry wouldn't.

I guess he might not get all costs back if they're extreme. I've seen judges refuse to authorise costs that are disproportionate to work done

I linked something about this on 27 May at 10:49, Haywirecity - it was an earlier case, but the judge did consider his costs disproportionate

Not ruinous for Harry at all. But I have to say, as a non-legal, relatively poor member of society, its an awful thing that someone can commit an illegal act to get information which then reveals things about me that could potentially ruin my life or cause me masses of embarrassment, and I have to pay unretrievable costs to get compensation. How could I even ever do that?
When people say the law is for the rich, they really do have it right.

Yes, I thought it was Harry but dudnt say because I wasn't sure. I think his lawyers charged £36,000 or £32,000 for as the judge said, just reading a statement out in court. Mind you the judge then award £8,000 (?) so that the judge thinking that is reasonable shows what a different echelon these people run in.

Yes, thats the article.

Also this youtube video.

I think a part 36 offer is put in before it goes to trial, so as it probably hasn't got a trial date yet (sorry I don't keep up with it enough), it will mean he has to pay all the costs of the defence in certain circumstances. I was in an inheritance case, and we put in a part 36 offer, (its also combined with a settlement figure/arrangement) so it meant if the matter went to court and the judge found in our favour, or awarded a settlement which basically meant we had won, even if the figure the judge awarded was less than our figure, they (the defence) would have had to pay our costs. I'm not sure how it works in Harrys case, but thats basically what its about. The opposite side usually put one in too.

Heavens yes, with bells on. Your only recourse is to have evidence of criminal activity, which it was. In that case for damages a no win no fee would take it on as its a slam dunk. They would settle out of court because they have no defence.