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.

It may well be that "the public" is fed up of his behaviour, but that has nothing to do with his right to take legal action.

It is hard to remember, reading these threads, that it is not Harry who is on trial, it is a newspaper group that has used unethical practices and occasionally criminal methods to get stories to sell for profit, and has done that to Harry since he was a boy.

Harry is not the only litigant either, there are others whose cases are also being heard.

Harry should not have to put up with unethical and criminal behaviour simply because "the public" is fed up with him.

Even litigants that, in your view, the public are fed up with have a right to launch legal action.

I never said otherwise

and I’m free to comment on his behaviour in not turning up when he was told to.

which everyone agrees was very stupid and very rude and totally pointless.

yet another own goal.

I agree with this. I'm certainly not on the side of the tabloids - their behaviour has been inexcusable and certainly they need to be held to account.

I'm just not sure Harry's case will achieve what he hopes, or that he's doing it for the right reasons.

I do hope he is successful though, because the tabloids are awful.

Just as Meghan won her case re: her father's letter being published, despite lying to the court - because at the end of the day the issue being tried was copyright, not that she had contributed to other stories being put in the public domain and then lied about doing so

I wonder if that’s why she is staying away, having had her knuckles severely rapped by a British judge?

The Judge told him expressly to be in court yesterday, so it matters not what he expected. He was told yesterday, not today, tomorrow or wherever. Yesterday.

Facts matter.

This is not true. Harry does not have a case in the US today.

The case is between Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank that is trying to the Harry deported from the US, and the US Department of Homeland Security.

It is not Harry's case as he is not a litigant, but relates to his visa application.

Heritage has asked their freedom of information request to be "fast-tracked". citing press interest in Harry's visa.

The DHS's written opposition to the fast-track request described the press interest from British publications as “niche” and it was not persuaded that there were exceptional circumstances that made an urgent response necessary.

In other words, they argued that government processes cannot be speeded up to satisfy the hunger for tabloid headlines in another country.

As for your comment:

I wonder if that’s why she is staying away, having had her knuckles severely rapped by a British judge?

Meghan is not a litigant in these cases. I imagine that is why she is "staying away". I also imagine that winning the case more than made up for having her "knuckles rapped".

Thread here:

Harry DEPORTED from America MNHQ updating subject line with spoiler that no, he wasn't deported | Mumsnet

exactly @MrsFinkelstein - it is a cut and dried matter and it’s just silly to try to pretend otherwise.

Meghan is not a litigant in these cases

I never said she was! I merely pondered why she isn’t at court with Harry.

This is not true. Harry does not have a case in the US today

if you read the link you will see that it specifically states that Harry is the subject of a court case

I never demanded anything.

please don’t lie.

What you said was, and I quote:

as if one court case wasn’t enough, Harry has another one today, this time in USA

So no, Harry does not have another case today in the US. He is not a litigant in that action, so your statement is just wrong. He has just one case today, in the UK.

What I find puzzling is whether Harry really, truly believes these court cases are about wide social issues or if that’s just a cover.

I get the benefits of royals doing charity work and making it relatable - eg Catherine can say she relates to the people involved in her early years work because she’s had young children. But then it’s not about her because her kids are over 5 now and they are basically ok anyway because they’re wealthy! And Camilla says she can relate to her DV work because she had a friend who was a victim of DV.

There’s a difference between doing charity work that’s maybe in an area that’s related to your own life experience vs spending all your time on your own problems and justifying that by pretending it’s some higher social cause. All of Harry’s work now is about himself - his campaign against “misinformation” really means only against reports about him he doesn’t like, his campaign against the media is how they cover him, his mental health work is all about helping himself. I miss the days of Invictus Harry, etc.

I will rephrase - There is another court case involving Harry today.

in other words, there is another court case involving Harry today.

or even - he has another court case about him today.

and if you look at my post and look at the link I posted directly below, that is made more than obvious.

we are all agreed

there are two court cases concerning Harry being heard today - one in the U.K. one in the USA
Harry did not turn up at the U.K. case yesterday, deliberately ignoring specific instruction by the judge

I am struggling to understand the logic of this post.

Isn't it the case that people often get involved with social activism after they have experienced tragic or traumatic circumstances in their own lives, or a form of injustice, whether to themselves or their loved ones?

I don't see why Harry should not be involved with misinformation etc simply because he has been the subject of it.

Do you also apply this standard to people who, for instance, get involved with mental health charities because they have experienced depression, suicidal ideation?

Harry also works with bereaved children, because he has been a bereaved child. Should he not do that work either, because he has been directly affected by childhood bereavement?

Should parents who have lost a child to diseases like cancer not be involved with research into cancer, or charities for children with cancer?

That is much better "rephrasing" because it is more accurate.

"Involving" is a useful word that, like a Phoenix or a fork lift, can do some heavy lifting.

For instance, there are several headlines involving Harry at the moment. It does not mean he wrote the headlines about himself. Similarly, that there is a case involving Harry does not mean he is a party to it.

Glad we agree.

Anyway, court case starts again today.

we are all hoping Harry manages to get out of bed and actually manages turn up for this issue he cares so much about.

I’m not sure why? I re-read and I think I’ve been clear. There’s a difference between trying to make positive social change that is relatable from your own life experiences vs what Harry is doing, which is about settling scores and controlling his PR and that has only 1 potential direct beneficiary (himself) but pretending that’s about wider social change.

I thought you were perfectly clear and made very good points, @tigger2022

I agree that Harry is just trying to settle old scores with this court case. If he really wanted to change the toxic culture of the media he'd be taking on SM and the likes of Twitter, Insta etc.

Print media is on the decline whereas online discussion has exploded. How many bloody threads have been started on here asking whether or not William had an affair? You don't seem to need evidence, you just plant a little rumour and let it spread. IMO that's far more damaging because nobody can be held to account.

Harry is most certainly not 'in a different category'! He is not even a working royal and to refer to him as someone more elevated than the riffraff, will go down like a ton of bricks. The law is blind ffs, have they not looked at the bloody statue of justice.

@MrsFinkelstein I believe princess Diana is part of Harry's
@MrsMaxDeWinter Please stop lowering the tone with your unpleasant language. We wish here to discuss an important court case, not indulge in nasty language. MNHQ have already asked for moderation, please observe this.

@sheworemellowyellow This is exactly my point, Harry is wasting his time on these historic cases, they will change nothing. Much better to campaign for better press standards currently. He is making his voice heard in America as the press are also intrusive there, and his comment about the American 1st amendment has gone down like a lead balloon.
I wish the person on this thread doing their usual great job of twisting and misrepresenting what other posters are saying would just stop, or better still everyone else wouldn't engage with. It so tiresome reading the same old twisting of people's words and intentions.

Is it right that microphones will,not be used in the witness box so no journalists will not hear the responses from Harry? Didn't pick up on this properly so I may be mistaken.

I suggest we ignore any posters returning to the old style of disrupt and attack.

Re: Harry's self-appointed mission - there was a flavour of that in his comments about the RF, and still supporting the concept of the monarchy, of his father and brother being 'trapped', of blaming the 'men in grey suits' for QE2 turning down half-in/half-out idea. He seems to think he is now more enlightened, and has a unique mission to 'fix' the RF.

I mean, there are certainly questionable aspects of the RF as a family and as an institution, but I don't see any indication that Harry has any particular expertise or knowledge to address that, or much in the way of self-awareness or the ability to take a balanced view of a complex situation. He seems to have quite fixed, all-or-nothing views.

Interesting if true about the 🎤 @polkadotdalmation!

@mixedrecycling - I think you are very wise.

im guessing court starts at 10am?