Daily Mail 1 Prince Harry & Others 0

[spen666]

It wasn't just Harry. One of the participants in the group action was Doreen Lawrence. I really hope she isn't being saddled with a large legal bill.

I hope she IS being saddled with a large kegal bil.

It was ger choice to pursue this hopeless case.

She deserves to face the financ financial consequences of her actions, just like each and every other of the claimants

 

[Ian H]

It wasn't just Harry. One of the participants in the group action was Doreen Lawrence. I really hope she isn't being saddled with a large legal bill.

She is probably the only person in this case I have any sympathy for.

 

[spen666]

She is probably the only person in this case I have any sympathy for.

Why do you have sympathy for her invthis xase?

She chose voluntarily to bring a hopeless case.

She could have chosen not to be greedy and not to chase a quick buck.

My sympathy is with the Daily Mail, who despite winning on every point will still end up out of pocket. They had no choice but to be involved in these proceedings, unlike. Lawrence or any of the other claimants

 

[bobzmyunkle]

My sympathy is with the Daily Mail

And I thought you were just some dickhead troll.

 

[spen666]

And I thought you were just some dickhead troll.

Nothing to do with politics

The claimants chose to bring their cade. They chose to get involved.


The Daily Mail, like all defendants/ respondents etc had no choice in that they were forced into xase by claimants.

I always sympathise with successful respondents

 

[AuroraSaab]

People usually act on what they assume to be sound legal advice. Apparently D Lawrence was informed by Harry that her landline had been tapped. With the witness statement from an investigator who allegedly did the hacking now supposedly a forgery I can't help thinking some claimants were initially under the impression that they had stronger evidence than they did. It would explain why Lawrence and others effectively tried to settle the case earlier.

Regardless, I wouldn't wish financial ruin on Doreen Lawrence.

 

[AndyRM]

Lol at defending the Daily Mail.

 

[Beebo]

Lol at defending the Daily Mail.

Won’t someone think of the billionaire Viscount Rothermere.

 

[Rusty Nails]

She chose voluntarily to bring a hopeless case.

She could have chosen not to be greedy and not to chase a quick buck.

Yes, she chose voluntarily, presumably based on 'expert' legal advice from Sherbone and others. We must always listen to legal experts.

How do you know she took the action to sue based on greed and chasing a quick buck rather than wanting what she felt was justice? She could genuinely have believed, and had it confirmed by her legal team, that she had a strong case. You are ascribing motivation on her part that you have absolutely no idea of.

I have no issue with the outcome as, clearly, no strong evidence was put forward that the Mail acted illegally, but I do wonder how much these high profile barristers are promoting their own careers rather than having the cases of their clients as their main priority, as they should know quite clearly when the evidence is not strong and advise their clients accordingly.

 

[spen666]

People usually act on what they assume to be sound legal advice. Apparently D Lawrence was informed by Harry that her landline had been tapped. With the witness statement from an investigator who allegedly did the hacking now supposedly a forgery I can't help thinking some claimants were initially under the impression that they had stronger evidence than they did. It would explain why Lawrence and others effectively tried to settle the case earlier.

Regardless, I wouldn't wish financial ruin on Doreen Lawrence.

Doreen Lawrence must be stupid to launch a multi million pound legal case on the word of Prince Harry.


Interesting how you seem to know of this private conversation & how it influenced her.


You seem determined to make Doreen Lawrence out to be some sort of saint.

She voluntarily chose to try to enrich herself financially by launching this hopeless court case.

Even if your fantasy conversation between Harry & Lawrence took place, she didn't have to choose to launch a get rich quick court case.


She was happy to try to ruin the defendant financially, so she deserves to pay the consequences of her failed hopeless get rich quick court case.

Hoisted by ger own greed

 

[spen666]

....
How do you know she took the action to sue based on greed and chasing a quick buck rather than wanting what she felt was justice? She could genuinely have believed, and had it confirmed by her legal team, that she had a strong case. You are ascribing motivation on her part that you have absolutely no idea of.

Well, given she issued vourt proceeding seeking huge amounts of compensation, not any other remedy, its not hard to work out the motive.

The only "justice" a court case could deliver was £££££s.

I have no issue with the outcome as, clearly, no strong evidence was put forward that the Mail acted illegally, but I do wonder how much these high profile barristers are promoting their own careers rather than having the cases of their clients as their main priority, as they should know quite clearly when the evidence is not strong and advise their clients accordingly.

Interesting jump to conclusions there. There is no evidence to suggest the lawyers did anything you suggest. If anything its harmed the reputation of those lawyers being associated with a hopeless case

 

[AuroraSaab]

Doreen Lawrence must be stupid to launch a multi million pound legal case on the word of Prince Harry.

Interesting how you seem to know of this private conversation & how it influenced her.

It's in the news reports. She didn't know about the alleged phone tapping until Harry told her.
I'd probably take his, and his solicitor's word, too. Especially if they said 'And we've got a signed statement from the guy who did the phone hacking too' - which the guy in court then denied ever making and said the signature was forged.

Less of a saint, more ill advised and not in a position to pay for her own independent extensive investigations. Her presence as a claimant gave the case an empathy angle that Harry, Elton John, and Liz Hurley didn't have.

Tbh I don't revel in people being financially ruined whoever they are, and certainly not when the defendant is a corporate entity not an individual.

 

[spen666]

It's in the news reports. She didn't know about the alleged phone tapping until Harry told her.

So she hadn't suffered any loss and chose to try to make a quick book


whether harry told her or not she CHOSE to issue proceedings.

Her choice to try to get money despite not even being aware of issue let alone suffering any loss.

I'd probably take his, and his solicitor's word, too. Especially if they said 'And we've got a signed statement from the guy who did the phone hacking too' - which the guy in court then denied ever making and said the signature was forged.

Less of a saint, more ill advised and not in a position to pay for her own independent extensive investigations. Her presence as a claimant gave the case an empathy angle that Harry, Elton John, and Liz Hurley didn't have.

Less of a saint and more of a greedy grafter trying to make a quick buck despite not suffering and loss and not being aware of it until someone dangled £££s in front of her

Tbh I don't revel in people being financially ruined whoever they are, and certainly not when the defendant is a corporate entity not an individual.

She tried to ruin the Daily Mail. But you seem happy with that

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Isn't this the extent of the case that ended "news of the world"? Bit strange then that a multi million company would chose to close a then popular outlet if it's all rumors smoke and not evidenced. It would suggest to me they have tried and succeeded in pulling up an wall and in this case Prince Harry takes the fall.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Less of a saint and more of a greedy grafter trying to make a quick buck despite not suffering and loss and not being aware of it until someone dangled £££s in front of her

Just because you aren't aware of a wrongdoing being committed at the time doesn't mean you shouldn't take action once you become aware.

She tried to ruin the Daily Mail. But you seem happy with that

Not particularly. I wouldn't want the Mail to go under. The Mail probably has indemnity insurance and suing a big company is very different from suing an individual though.
It's clear that this case was ill advised but that doesn't mean the complainants were automatically greedy grafters. I doubt Elton John pursued it simply to make a quick buck.