Well done to Harry (and Tom Watson) sticking it to the Murdoch Empire. I notice that there is no mention of it in the Sun (only went on there today) and almost cleared of any articles about him. The Times interestingly, despite having no place on their webpage for a report, did have one if you search for Prince Harry, but strangely the headline says that he won the case against the publisher of the Sun. What effing creeps. I hope they get done for perjury next and the Met takes a proper look at law-breaking there
The Mirror and Mail have small mentions of his Victory lower down on their pages.
So all that opprobrium about Harry from the Murdoch press was because he dared to take them on.
On the whole, I'd rather have seen the powers that be or were at NGN held accountable in a court of law. But from what I understand from the reporting there were some not inconsiderable risks for Harry were that undertaken so a large pound of flesh it is and it can all be forgotten about until the next time.
Outside court so nothing proven in law. Harry wimped out and took the money and Brookes stays out of jail.
whatevsZ
and Brookes stays out of jail.
one suggestion I saw mooted in the media is that the dossier of wrongdoing that their lawyers are preparing to give the Met may include allegations of evidence tampering ( deleting 30m emails etc.) and perjury for her and a few others.
Outside court so nothing proven in law. Harry wimped out and took the money and Brookes stays out of jail.
A full confession of wrongdoing was read out in court on the record. The Prince had deep enough pockets that the MNG had to come clean and admit their mis-demeanours. My republican instincts are conflicted. Watch out for a thorough analysis from David Allen Green on Prospect tomorrow.
My republican instincts are conflicted
Among other things, his unwillingness to put up with the press got him kicked out of the Royal Family, I think your republican instinct is still OK.
Outside court so nothing proven in law. Harry wimped out and took the money
As I understand it if a offer is made but you decide not to take it and go to court you have to be very sure of winning more than the offered amount. If its anything less you can be held liable not only for your lawyers fees but the defence as well.
So the trick for the papers is once they figure they are going to lose is come up with a good offer as well as having some very expensive lawyers.
Anyone sane then settles.
Possibly. I don’t know and as I have no skin in the game I don’t really care.
One thing I do know though is if my mum had been hounded to a horrible death by these scumbags and they had then made my life as hard as they could…and if I was worth a goodly amount, and it looked like I had them on the ropes as they were looking to avoid a court case at all costs…well then I’d take them to the ****ing cleaners.
Possibly. I don’t know and as I have no skin in the game I don’t really care.
One thing I do know though is if my mum had been hounded to a horrible death by these scumbags and they had then made my life as hard as they could…and if I was worth a goodly amount….well then I’d take them to the * cleaners.
All of that. And not to absolve them of anything.......but there is only a market for this *ery because there are enough utter sad sacks in the population who wanted to pay to read this torbid shit. When you look at the utter dross they generated from these actions - what sort of melt would pay to have it served up to them?
Anyone sane then settles.
As did Hugh Grant when he was in exactly the same situation with NGN sometime last year.
Let's hope that the dossier jimw mentions is watertight
Anyone sane then settles.
Given NGN have spent around £1billion so far on settlements thats clearly been their strategy - they've simply made offers so high that its clearly more than a court would award - so the complainant would know they were bound to have to pay NGNs legal fees out of their court settlement without know what they are - just knowing they'd already happily spared £1 billion
well then I’d take them to the **** cleaners.
Unfortunately thats not how it works - with the settlement NGN had offered he couldn't 'win' even if he won. Thats unfortunately a flaw (or feature) of the system
I’d have liked to have seen the whole rotten edifice of the Murdoch Mafia razed to the ground, bulldozed flat and hidden under a large public park. Scumbag lizards cosplaying as humans.
Given NGN have spent around £1billion so far on settlements thats clearly been their strategy
Yup. Seems to be go through some initial court proceedings to check the claimant is serious and has a competent legal team and then offer enough whilst going "you would never guess how much we have spent on this case" and job done.
I’d have liked to have seen the whole rotten edifice of the Murdoch Mafia razed to the ground, bulldozed flat and hidden under a large public park. Scumbag lizards cosplaying as humans.
The sad thing is the social media owners will make this lot look decent looking back in a few years.
Unfortunately thats not how it works – with the settlement NGN had offered he couldn’t ‘win’ even if he won. Thats unfortunately a flaw (or feature) of the system
I would have liked him to have had his day in court so some of those higher up in NGN would of had to swear under oath but can see how that's not necessarily the best outcome. But if someone with his wealth can be forced to settle what chance does anyone else has .
Daily Mail up next which apparently is a bit different as they are just denying everything.
The Mail actually has a Royal Warrant for relentless smear stories about Meghan and Harry. I think they have a big phone shaped like a pack of Benson and Hedges that is a hotline to Camilla.
They have far more invested in the anti-Meghan hysteria, not surprised they are fighting it.
They have far more invested in the anti-Meghan hysteria, not surprised they are fighting it.
In the light of the settlement yesterday, there may be a lawyer or two on the team who will suggest that they settle. I would expect that Mr Sussex has deep enough pockets and a large injection of funds yesterday to make sensible people think twice. Mail Group were probably banking on a fighting on two fronts win which has been somewhat exposed in the cold light of this morning.
If anyone is interested in the "nuts and bolts" thinking of the settlement DAG has a blog here that shows the workings. https://emptycity.substack.com/p/solving-the-puzzle-of-why-the-case
TL:DR NGN "lost" despite having a good technical defence because they did not want things in the public domain that may well have helped the Met with its re-examination of the case for perjury and other unlawful actions.
Despite not wishing to accept the money, it appeared that Mr Grant’s decision to do so was due to the risk of the adverse costs consequences of rejecting the offer made by NGN.
This.
Despite not wishing to accept the money, it appeared that Mr Grant’s decision to do so was due to the risk of the adverse costs consequences of rejecting the offer made by NGN.
Mr Grant says that “the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides”.
What was once a concept to deter "malicious litigants" has now been turned round by bullying defendants.
Originally called "paying into court" meant a defendant could calculate what the maximum damages might be awarded against them, pay that sum into court and effectively stop any further action. Because, as above, if the plaintiff won, but was awarded £1 less than those damages they would have to pay the costs of both sides.
Now, NGN just pay a big sum in, warn that they can employ the most expensive lawyers which will bankrupt the plaintiff whatever happens. This preventing a court case that would expose all their dirty deeds.
Seemingly this seems to have backfired on them this time. They were up against a purse large enough to proceed so adopted a tactic of settling with a huge sum which is enough to persuade the liberal media to conclude what was going on, but still allows the Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Times to accuse the winners of hypocrisy.
Here is a shorter piece from DAG in Prospect magazine. Suggestion is NGN rolled over rather than go to court
