Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

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

As you were!

Totally off topic, but that is a really dreadful photo of Harry. 😳

The BBC have written a more recent article

"The BBC understands the legal fees for the Sun's owner, Prince Harry and Tom Watson totals £10 million - which is expected to be paid by NGN"

NGN said it agreed to pay "substantial damages".

If I had wanted to have my day in court,with people who had hurt myself and my family, no amount of money to settle would give me peace of mind

Correct me if I am wrong, but there was an allegation from ONE woman, not multiple??!

Your relationship with facts is a bit like Meghan and Harry's!

I suspect Harry's grasp of personal finance is, to put it kindly, rather vague.

It took the tangible risk of bankruptcy to make him understand that 'accountability' could wait.

You would think when Hugh Grant, who is probably quite a bit richer than Harry, decided to settle then reality would have dawned on Harry too. But we known that just last month he was still pledging to go all the way. Oh well.

I KNOW this is from X and I KNOW it is a Blind but it is similar to what other sources are saying .

Sounds like there are a lot of rumours going around then!

I think it takes a little longer than most for things to dawn on Harry ....

There are other allegations that have never been tested in court. This si one.

https://www.todayonline.com/world/epstein-accuser-says-prince-andrew-groped-her-newly-released-documents-show-2336266

@Mylovelygreendress I do not believe that rumour. Probably started by NGN. Harry would not think for a minute that Charles would give him any money. Charles won't even meet him for half an hour, why would he give him millions of pounds?

FFGS, what about Andrew ....... ad infinitum !

It's so boring

Again, if NGN are honorable and have nothing to hide GO TO COURT.

Why would they go to court? They were defendants in this litigation, they didn't ask to be there. They weren't instigating an action to prove something. They weren't on a crusade for the truth. Why would they want their documents and conduct raked over to disprove something that the other side (ie Harry) no longer wanted to prove because he approached them to settle*?

It's not as if this was some sort of case that would particularly hold them in good stead and future proof them against future litigation. For a start, each and every case stands or falls on its own merits/facts, so successfully defending this case wouldn't particularly change anything for other potential litigants. Second, most of these cases will be timed out under the Limitation Act (and it is only Harry with his somewhat spurious arguments who was trying to get around this), so they are hardly likely to be pushing for a trial to prove their defence in order to fend off other claims, because those claims can't be brought.

And Murdoch/NGN don't really give a fuck about the court of public opinion, so they wouldn't be conducting some sort of gang-ho, crusading defense to curry favour with the public. Everyone who already thinks they are evil shit bags wouldn't change their minds about them successfully defending this case over some technical legal points of limitation and agency (ie, whether the principles knew what the contractors were up to and are therefore liable). Everyone who already hates them won't be convinced otherwise, they hate them for all manner of other things, Page 3, shitty, misogynistic and racist gossip, endorsing Thatcher smashing the miners, Hillsborough etc etc. And those who read their rags in full knowledge of everything they have pulled over the years won't have their minds changed by this case.

They paid off Harry - at his request - with what is loose pocket change to Murdoch. And why wouldn't they?

*According to the BBC's source, and we've just been told we have to believe the BBC.

Sorry that talking about an alleged rapist of a sex trafficked girl is boring you

This is amazing, you know what NGN, Harry and Charles are thinking

Do you have next weeks lotto numbers?

@JoyousGreyOrca apology accepted

Where did I apologise to you?

When you said sorry

Ah you mean when I said sorry I am boring you in talking about an alleged rapist of a sex trafficked teenager

That will be it

Exactly.

Other than being an unspecified several million poorer, which is back of the sofa money to them, NGN are not in a worse position now than they were on Tuesday.

Anyone who still 'reads' The S*n after all these years and all their evil shyte isn't going to give a toss about an apology laying all the blame on a few freelance PI's. The reference to Diana may have meant a lot to Harry but won't matter much to NGN or their 'readers'.

Only one side had any sort of emotional involvement in this case, and it's not NGN. They've seen all this before. They have always taken the option of settling. It's Harry who thought he was too important for that.

You might be interested in this recent US defamation case brought by a US veteran against CNN. I saw an interview with the Plaintiff yesterday. He refused to settle before trial because he wanted his name cleared publicly and to hold CNN to account for what they said about him. He won the trial and compensatory damages, and has settled out of court on additional punative damages. Remarkably brave move on his part, considering how difficult it is to bring a defamation claim in the US, and the relative power/money of CNN.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvv8jpy72o

Did he not give Harry millions when he first flounced off ?

Only one side had any sort of emotional involvement in this case, and it's not NGN. They've seen all this before. They have always taken the option of settling. It's Harry who thought he was too important for that.

Absolutely, @IcedPurple .

@Mylovelygreendress what happened or did not happen in the past is irrelevant. It is bloody obvious to anyone that Charles was not going to give Harry millions of pounds in 2025