Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry v NGN 2

907 replies

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 23/01/2025 00:40

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
JoyousGreyOrca · 24/01/2025 16:54

And this is what big corporations do. They imply unless you are a "perfect" victim, you have no right to complain about your victimisation.

EdithWeston · 24/01/2025 16:57

Jacquette · 24/01/2025 12:58

Im off to do things but will come back tomorrow to see if posters want Harry to make a statement or to shut up.

I don't care whether he makes a statement or not.

(Though I am mildly interested to know if he will do as PW did and donate the lot to a charity - or if he will keep all of it, or 95% of it if it goes to Archewell)

If he does make a statement, it's quite possible there will be things in it that I (or others) think is worth commenting on - what the nature of those comments will be would depend on what he actually says.

It's a shame when threads become cluttered and derailed with posts about other posters.

Serenster · 24/01/2025 17:00

You are implying if you do anything wrong in your life, then anyone is able to commit any crime against you with impunity.

Gosh, isn’t that exactly the attitude many posters have in relation to Charles and Camilla? Good to know you don’t support that.

jeffgoldblum · 24/01/2025 17:31

JoyousGreyOrca · 24/01/2025 16:53

@jeffgoldblum you are implying that it does not matter that Lord Tom Watson forced NGN to admit it behaved unlawfully and published a totally false story about him. You are implying if you do anything wrong in your life, then anyone is able to commit any crime against you with impunity.

I'm implying nothing, I'm being fairly straightforward with my words , so you can stop trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say .
But for clarification I DID say that I dislike you holding up Tom Watson as some lofty paragon of moral virtue , to bolster you narrative of Harry being the big dragon slaying hero , who won his case , despite the fact he settled and neither side won or lost .
Find a different moral character to use as a shield .
My personal thoughts on the sun are neither here nor there ( I think they are scum) but facts matter in all things .

jeffgoldblum · 24/01/2025 17:33

And I will add I made no comment about his case or settlement at any time or post .

MrsFinkelstein · 24/01/2025 17:33

Jacquette · 24/01/2025 12:34

He received an extra $500,000 in US dollars (I read it in Forbes).

I think what happened was, he was awarded the first payment for the 15 claims (those selected for trial), then after the trial he received the added amount for the claims that weren’t selected for the case.

My point was it was reported he did well in the two days he testified in the Mirror case. I was responding to a pp who opined that Harry probably wanted to avoid giving testimony in the MGN case and that was the reason he settled. He didn’t avoid it the first time so I doubt that was a factor. Although it would still be gruelling, he had experience.

I really don’t think it is about the money for Harry. I think he wanted, and needed, to prove they did what he said they did.

From what I’ve read Murdoch’s lawyers are very very expensive and costs mounted to the point he had to settle or risk losing big financially even if he won the case.

Ah, I’ve found the Forbes article. Forbes - Harry - Mirror

Edited

If that's the case, he failed badly as NGN did not admit anything illegal.

And the extra money was for his legal costs. Those 18 cases were dismissed - why would they pay for them when the Judge said they didn't hack him on those specific issues?

Andtheweaselgoespop56 · 24/01/2025 17:34

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/24/prince-harry-tom-watson-phone-hacking-ngn-murdoch

is the story over indeed?

IcedPurple · 24/01/2025 17:34

MrsFinkelstein · 24/01/2025 17:33

If that's the case, he failed badly as NGN did not admit anything illegal.

And the extra money was for his legal costs. Those 18 cases were dismissed - why would they pay for them when the Judge said they didn't hack him on those specific issues?

Also, why would an English court award damages in American $?

MrsFinkelstein · 24/01/2025 17:35

Extiainoiapeial · 24/01/2025 12:54

That is something I would like to know.

Would some of the Harry detractors on here, the regulars ..answer the question..

Do you want him to make a statement on the result of the court case. Yes or No

It's a simple question and could put this aspect of it to bed once and for all

No. His lawyer made a statement, I don't need to hear anything else from him.
Happy?

pelargoniums · 24/01/2025 17:41

LifeExperience · 24/01/2025 16:00

The US media is reporting that one of the reasons Harry took a settlement is that if he leaves the US he is afraid he won't be let back in. There's a new sheriff running immigration in the US and the questions surrounding his VISA are still unresolved. We'll see if that's true when Invictus comes around since it's in Canada.

Also, the settlement is subject to the highest rates of US (37%) and Cali (13.3%) tax. Only settlements received for bodily injury/related health costs are exempt from tax in the US. He can keep the money in the UK, but the minute he spends any of it in the US it becomes subject to tax.

US media is also reporting that H's legal costs are around 7 million pounds and the settlement is believed to be 10 million pounds. Leaving 3 million to split with the other litigant. 1.5 million pounds subject to 50.3% tax, leaving him with less than 750,000 pounds. Yep--huge victory, that.

I didn’t realise he’d have to split it, I thought they’d get individual settlements?

I’d be happy with £750,000 if anyone fancies doing a quick press intrusion on me?

sleepwouldbenice · 24/01/2025 17:50

This is just going on and on

You either value the statement that went with the settlement or you don't.

I personally think it publicly added validation and credibility to Harry's claims, and impacted their reputation. This is a great success for him

Those who don't like him won't think that. All the personal comments, emojis etc, reflect that.

I am not thrilled that it dragged on so long, took up court time etc. But I blame the media for this. Again, those who dislike Harry will just blame him, pretty predictable.

I am out of here. I just wonder what some posters are going to do with their lives now though!

MrsFinkelstein · 24/01/2025 17:59

jeffgoldblum · 24/01/2025 16:18

Jeremy clarkson @IAmATorturedPoet ?
I think I've missed something here .

He's the new "but Prince Andrew"

Mylovelygreendress · 24/01/2025 18:00

Don’t worry @sleepwouldbenice we still have his other court cases to look forward to !

jeffgoldblum · 24/01/2025 18:04

Ahh , thanks @MrsFinkelstein .

BreadInCaptivity · 24/01/2025 18:48

GiveMeSpanakopita · 24/01/2025 11:58

I've not read all of the previous thread as it seemed to degenerate into some late night arguing, but my thoughts overall are:

  1. This wasn't a victory for Harry, it was an embarrassing climbdown
  2. Once his costs are taken out he won't have much new cash from the payout left
  3. NGN admitted nothing they didn't admit and sort before
  4. Justice Fancourt made it very clear that he looked very askance at Harry's fucking around, disrespect and grandstanding
  5. Schillings are claiming a huge victory because they make their money from wealthy famous clients who use litigation and lawsuits to silence unfavourable media coverage (hello Elton John!). Their indiscriminate use of injunctions and other muzzling practices has long been excoriated by Private Eye - because press freedom is important
  6. You shall know a man by the company he keeps. Tom Watson is a deeply unpleasant individual, well known for his bullying, who supported Paedophile fantasist Carl Leech who is now doing 18 years, having ruined the final months of life of Lords Brittain and Bramell

All in all, mucky and embarrassing and very expensive for all concerned.

And what's worse, it won't even help them get better press coverage! The US media has decisively turned against H&M and will be much more aggressive than the UK press, who still maintained an element of respect for the royal status of Harry. It's almost impossible to muzzle the US press due to first amendment - you can sue after a piece is published but you can't do an injunction.

So basically, a highly expensive pissing contest and Harry's trying to claim he's won, thinking we can't see the wee stains on his trousers.

A brilliant summary 🙌

EdithWeston · 24/01/2025 19:13

Andtheweaselgoespop56 · 24/01/2025 16:49

I didn’t say it was specifically through the Sun’s coverage. I said iI would be very interested to know about any further alleged involvement by Rebekah Brookes or not. .

I then referred to a very interesting set of circumstancial evidence backed up by journalists other than just myself.

First that close friends of Rebekah Brookes, who gave her the most support during her trial, were the very journalists who wrote and said the vilest things about H & M?

Remember the vile misogynistic words of Jeremy Clarkson about MM being paraded through the streets naked, published by the Sun in December 2022, which was criticised by the Press Standards Committee for spreading "dangerous conspiracy theories and misogyny"

That is not just making stuff up!

Also that Camilla is a known friend of Jeremy. That is not making stuff up. That is widely reported.

Also that Camilla invited Jeremy and Piers to a press lunch the day BEFORE the launch of the last three episodes of H&M Netflix doc.

And the day AFTER Jeremy wrote the vile article.

It’s all backed up here in this Independent article.

The timings are interesting!

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/camilla-jeremy-clarkson-piers-mogan-lunch-meghan-b2248431.html

That’s not made up.

After that I left it for everyone else to draw their own conclusions about why Harry felt so bull-dozed.

I didn’t accuse Calilla directly, it was you who did that, I merely laid out the evidence that is publically available to date via Google.

The host was actually Ewen Venters. Camilla was guest of honour and the guest list was scores long.

Initial coverage (before the appalling Clarkson article) was about Camilla with Judi Dench. Even after that, then the closest any article seems to place them is attending the same event and that he was "circling round her"

IAmATorturedPoet · 24/01/2025 19:15

Also that Camilla invited Jeremy and Piers to a press lunch the day BEFORE the launch of the last three episodes of H&M Netflix doc.

@Andtheweaselgoespop56 you might want to check that as I believe Camilla was invited, she wasn’t the host. The host was a chap (whose name I can’t recall) from Fortnum & Mason.

IAmATorturedPoet · 24/01/2025 19:17

Sorry @EdithWeston I didn’t refresh before posting and see you have already pointed that out 😊

IcedPurple · 24/01/2025 19:23

IAmATorturedPoet · 24/01/2025 19:15

Also that Camilla invited Jeremy and Piers to a press lunch the day BEFORE the launch of the last three episodes of H&M Netflix doc.

@Andtheweaselgoespop56 you might want to check that as I believe Camilla was invited, she wasn’t the host. The host was a chap (whose name I can’t recall) from Fortnum & Mason.

Also, the Queen's diary is booked months in advance.

Do people really think she conjured up this major event because her stepson and his missus were whining on a streaming network?

EdithWeston · 24/01/2025 19:31

IAmATorturedPoet · 24/01/2025 19:17

Sorry @EdithWeston I didn’t refresh before posting and see you have already pointed that out 😊

No worries - I often get out of step with posts!

IAmATorturedPoet · 24/01/2025 19:37

IcedPurple · 24/01/2025 19:23

Also, the Queen's diary is booked months in advance.

Do people really think she conjured up this major event because her stepson and his missus were whining on a streaming network?

I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if some people did think that 😂

DuchessOfPort · 24/01/2025 19:40

I’m happy he hasn’t said anything. His barrister said quite enough. The less he says, the better. For everyone.

MrsLeonFarrell · 24/01/2025 19:48

Beatrice and Eugenie had lunch with Piers Morgan fairly recently. Are we now going to say they are spreading rumours about Harry?

I don't think the press need members of the Royal family for stories, they have enough 'sources' for that.

CathyorClaire · 24/01/2025 21:19

BreadInCaptivity · 24/01/2025 11:16

I suspect he's got bigger issues to deal with right now post VF article.

Bigger issues have never stopped him yapping before...

Jacquette · 24/01/2025 22:00

JoyousGreyOrca · 24/01/2025 14:42

And if people posted similar comments about William or Catherine, they would be quickly banned.

This.