Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Harry ordered to pay the Daily Mails legal fees.

123 replies

Pennyapple · 11/12/2023 17:46

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-ordered-to-pay-mail-on-sunday-nearly-50-000-after-losing-attempt-to-strike-out-part-of-papers-defence-in-libel-case-13028178

And so it begins 😁 I'm sure 50k is only small change to him though..

Prince Harry ordered to pay Mail on Sunday nearly £50,000 after losing attempt to strike out part of paper's defence in libel case

The Duke of Sussex, who is suing Associated Newspapers over an article written about his fight with the Home Office concerning his security arrangements, had tried to have the company's "honest opinion" defence thrown out.

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-ordered-to-pay-mail-on-sunday-nearly-50-000-after-losing-attempt-to-strike-out-part-of-papers-defence-in-libel-case-13028178

OP posts:
butterminttea · 11/12/2023 23:28

@OtherS is he not like a very annoying trouble making brother that you've known to be a pain in the ass all your life and then he gets married and you think thank fuck he has gone. You then start to have this respect towards your bitchy sil just for being married to him even after causing so much drama but day in day out, it's her that has to live him and you start feeling sorry for her actually.

caringcarer · 11/12/2023 23:32

Pennyapple · 11/12/2023 19:33

@Chouxpastryishard well he can jog on. He doesn't represent the UK & Commonwealth anymore so he can pay for it himself. If he doesn't like that then he can steer clear of the uk.

I agree with this. Sophie Wessex and Prince Edward are working royals but only have police protection when on official duty. Andrew doesn't get tax payers to pay for his security anymore. King Charles pays it for him privately. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie don't get paid for security. No need for Harry or Meghan to have security in the UK. They don't do any official royal duties so no security. Any risk attached to Harry he has brought on himself when he boasted about killing members of theTaliban.

caringcarer · 11/12/2023 23:34

LakeTiticaca · 11/12/2023 21:51

The Canadian government declined to pay their security bill, as did the US government. He pays for his security in the States.
He was informed that if he visits the UK on Royal Duty he will be entitled to Scotland Yard protection, however, he was informed that the UK taxpayer will NOT provide security while he swans around London with his Nexflix crew in tow, and quite rightly so!!

He doesn't have any royal duties left.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 11/12/2023 23:41

It is absolutely right that any protection Harry (and his family) actually need are paid for by taxpayers. Harry has done far less wrong than many others who get the protection they need (note, not deserve).

Arguably Rushdie also brought his risk on himself in writing his book. But we cannot have people so afraid of terrorists and crackpots that they are unable to live their lives. So we (taxpayers) cover the cost of the security when necessary because it is the right thing to do.

In bringing the security case it seems that Harry's main failing is that he believes himself to be at more risk than RAVEC do. I think he's must likely wrong but it is important that any private citizen has the right to challenge them.

Hillcrest2022 · 11/12/2023 23:57

I'm also really surprised the legal fees were so low at the firm he would have engaged.

Lunde · 12/12/2023 00:02

JemimaTiggywinkles · 11/12/2023 23:41

It is absolutely right that any protection Harry (and his family) actually need are paid for by taxpayers. Harry has done far less wrong than many others who get the protection they need (note, not deserve).

Arguably Rushdie also brought his risk on himself in writing his book. But we cannot have people so afraid of terrorists and crackpots that they are unable to live their lives. So we (taxpayers) cover the cost of the security when necessary because it is the right thing to do.

In bringing the security case it seems that Harry's main failing is that he believes himself to be at more risk than RAVEC do. I think he's must likely wrong but it is important that any private citizen has the right to challenge them.

Why does he get special treatment?

Traditionally only the heir and their family gets full time security and other members of the Royal Family only get protection when carrying out official engagements.

Lunde · 12/12/2023 00:04

Hillcrest2022 · 11/12/2023 23:57

I'm also really surprised the legal fees were so low at the firm he would have engaged.

I think this is just a payment on account to the Daily Mail because he lost the application to throw out their defence without trial. It doesn't cover Harry's legal fees at all.

Original poster
Pennyapple · 12/12/2023 00:43

JemimaTiggywinkles · 11/12/2023 23:41

It is absolutely right that any protection Harry (and his family) actually need are paid for by taxpayers. Harry has done far less wrong than many others who get the protection they need (note, not deserve).

Arguably Rushdie also brought his risk on himself in writing his book. But we cannot have people so afraid of terrorists and crackpots that they are unable to live their lives. So we (taxpayers) cover the cost of the security when necessary because it is the right thing to do.

In bringing the security case it seems that Harry's main failing is that he believes himself to be at more risk than RAVEC do. I think he's must likely wrong but it is important that any private citizen has the right to challenge them.

But he's no longer a working royal. That's the path he chose. He chose to walk away from the trappings of royal life. He can't pick & choose what he wants to keep. I'm a taxpayer, I'm more entitled to it than he is!

OP posts:
rosyglowcondition · 12/12/2023 11:32

JemimaTiggywinkles · 11/12/2023 23:41

It is absolutely right that any protection Harry (and his family) actually need are paid for by taxpayers. Harry has done far less wrong than many others who get the protection they need (note, not deserve).

Arguably Rushdie also brought his risk on himself in writing his book. But we cannot have people so afraid of terrorists and crackpots that they are unable to live their lives. So we (taxpayers) cover the cost of the security when necessary because it is the right thing to do.

In bringing the security case it seems that Harry's main failing is that he believes himself to be at more risk than RAVEC do. I think he's must likely wrong but it is important that any private citizen has the right to challenge them.

But he does get security in the UK as and when his risk is assessed as needing it.

He gives nothing to this country.

He doesn't pay UK taxes.

He lives abroad.

Why should my hard earned taxes go to pay for him?
And that's completely ignoring the fact he and his DW attack the very people who represent my country to the rest of the world and also my country.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 12/12/2023 15:41

Why does he get special treatment?

Because the committee responsible for deciding who gets it (RAVEC) have decided that he may need it some of the time.

He can't pick & choose what he wants to keep.

Well I wish he couldn't but it seems like in can (eg his titles)! Regardless, he cannot change who his dad is and while not a working royal he will always be part of the family. Ideally he would allow himself to disappear in to a private live and over time the need for security would get less and less. But (unfortunately) he doesn't seem to want to do this.

But he does get security in the UK as and when his risk is assessed as needing it.

Exactly. And I agree with that decision. Any security which is for peace of mind or because he wants it (rather than being independently judged as necessary) should be self-funded private security.

Elvanseshortage · 12/12/2023 15:56

I am not a great supporter of H and M but I am surprised at most of the posts on here.

Have any of you read the reasons Harry gives for asking for security? He says that it is because his family is particularly vulnerable. Even a neutral observer would have to agree this is true. Most of these threads are full of hatred towards them and the DM under article comments are truly vile. I have never seen that level of hatred directed at any other public figure. It’s really disingenuous to ask why H and M can’t just have the same level of security as Edward and Sophie. I have rarely seen anything negative written about E and S. They are almost entirely uncontroversial.

jeffgoldblum · 12/12/2023 16:01

They already get the same if not more level of security that Edward and Sophie receive, that is the point .

Maireas · 12/12/2023 16:02

@Elvanseshortage - I think you misunderstand. No-one on here is suggesting that Harry does not get security.
That's not the issue. It's about whether or not Ravec make the decision about the level and nature of the security, or whether Harry decides himself.

FloofCloud · 12/12/2023 16:07

@Elvanseshortage - I don't think you've been reading correctly, many posters are saying he shouldn't get the top level security all the time, as king and PM would get, if there's intelligence or if he's working on royal business then fair enough, but certainly not swanning around the country with Netflix / drumming up cash and effectively doing the half in half out that they'd both asked for in the first place and was told no. People are but fed up with him just demanding what he wants, pissing people off, pretending he so very special and 'at risk' with high risk car chases 🙄 ... he's trying to cause a maelstrom in a thimble for his own egocentric beliefs

JemimaTiggywinkles · 12/12/2023 16:09

Have any of you read the reasons Harry gives for asking for security? He says that it is because his family is particularly vulnerable. Even a neutral observer would have to agree this is true.

RAVEC are the neutral observer (and much better informed than almost anyone else in the world to boot). They have decided that Harry will sometimes need state security despite not qualifying through his role (ie more that E&S). RAVEC have also decided that Harry does not need to level of security he wants.

Myfabby · 12/12/2023 18:35

JemimaTiggywinkles · 12/12/2023 16:09

Have any of you read the reasons Harry gives for asking for security? He says that it is because his family is particularly vulnerable. Even a neutral observer would have to agree this is true.

RAVEC are the neutral observer (and much better informed than almost anyone else in the world to boot). They have decided that Harry will sometimes need state security despite not qualifying through his role (ie more that E&S). RAVEC have also decided that Harry does not need to level of security he wants.

Neutral indeed. No bias at all.

Not like several members of the MP who exchanged vile racist messages about H&M, or various MP's asking them to be stripped.

Based on what that old decrepit fool said about Meghan alone and how it was minimized, I would not take seriously any assesments of threats against H or M.

FloofCloud · 12/12/2023 20:12

@Myfabby - ?

Original poster
Pennyapple · 13/12/2023 10:20

Elvanseshortage · 12/12/2023 15:56

I am not a great supporter of H and M but I am surprised at most of the posts on here.

Have any of you read the reasons Harry gives for asking for security? He says that it is because his family is particularly vulnerable. Even a neutral observer would have to agree this is true. Most of these threads are full of hatred towards them and the DM under article comments are truly vile. I have never seen that level of hatred directed at any other public figure. It’s really disingenuous to ask why H and M can’t just have the same level of security as Edward and Sophie. I have rarely seen anything negative written about E and S. They are almost entirely uncontroversial.

@Elvanseshortage if he was that worried about his families security why the hell did he boast about how many Taliban he killed in his book?!!!

OP posts:
Original poster
Pennyapple · 13/12/2023 10:22

Elvanseshortage · 12/12/2023 15:56

I am not a great supporter of H and M but I am surprised at most of the posts on here.

Have any of you read the reasons Harry gives for asking for security? He says that it is because his family is particularly vulnerable. Even a neutral observer would have to agree this is true. Most of these threads are full of hatred towards them and the DM under article comments are truly vile. I have never seen that level of hatred directed at any other public figure. It’s really disingenuous to ask why H and M can’t just have the same level of security as Edward and Sophie. I have rarely seen anything negative written about E and S. They are almost entirely uncontroversial.

Edward & Sophie are working royals representing our county. H&M are nothing, they chose to leave.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pennyapple · 13/12/2023 10:24

If Harry wants top level security here in the UK why doesn't he pay for it himself.
Many oligarchs have top security here in the Uk.
Why should the taxpayer fund Harry when he's capable of paying it himself

OP posts:
JemimaTiggywinkles · 13/12/2023 10:26

Neutral indeed. No bias at all.

Well hopefully the courts will be able to determine whether correct procedures were followed or if they were led by bias. I suspect the former is true.

Not like several members of the MP who exchanged vile racist messages about H&M, or various MP's asking them to be stripped.

MPs are not on ravec afaik. I haven't seen racist messages exchanged between MPs but it wouldn't surprise me. However, asking for them to be stripped would be outrageous! Do you mean "stripped of their titles" which is a completely different thing?

Based on what that old decrepit fool said about Meghan alone and how it was minimized, I would not take seriously any assessments of threats against H or M.

Clarkson is a horrible person and all decent people condemned what he said about Meghan. However, he isn't on ravec and has absolutely no influence over their decision making or the assessment of risk.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 13/12/2023 10:27

Pennyapple · 13/12/2023 10:24

If Harry wants top level security here in the UK why doesn't he pay for it himself.
Many oligarchs have top security here in the Uk.
Why should the taxpayer fund Harry when he's capable of paying it himself

You cannot pay for the security Harry wants. It is state-provided when necessary. For fairly obvious reasons we don't allow the police and security services to be hired be private citizens.

Original poster
Pennyapple · 13/12/2023 10:29

But surely the only state visits needed were his grandparents funerals & his fathers coronation. Surely he won't need to visit in that capacity for a number of years again so why is he demanding it?

OP posts:
upinaballoon · 13/12/2023 10:57

@FloofCloud, I well know the expression 'to make a mountain out of a molehill' but 'to cause a maelstrom in a thimble' is a new one to me, and I like it.

FloofCloud · 13/12/2023 12:25

upinaballoon · 13/12/2023 10:57

@FloofCloud, I well know the expression 'to make a mountain out of a molehill' but 'to cause a maelstrom in a thimble' is a new one to me, and I like it.

lol 😂

Swipe left for the next trending thread