DAFC.net Forum

Forum List | Off Topic

Topic: Associated Newspapers Ltd legal costs
1. Author: ipswichpar Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 14:20 So Prince Harry and 6 others have got to make an initial payment to ANL of the thick end of £10m to cover legal costs. Some of the 6 others are minted (like Elton John), but others may not be.... like Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes. Does anybody know how this works? Do they insure themselves before the case is raised, or are they going to be bankrupted? Reply
2. Author: Turps Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 15:23 Bit more detail here. Including how the costs could still rise for them. Click here Lawrence’s costs are expected to be covered by the others. Quite the win for the Daily Mail. Post Edited (Fri 21 Aug 15:24) Reply
3. Author: ipswichpar Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 15:32 Thanks Turps. I hope for their sakes that any final payments is within the amount of insurance they put in place. Reply
4. Author: buffy Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 16:12 “The claimants had insurance to cover up to £16.2m of Association Newspapers` costs in the event of losing the case - but Friday`s ruling means the newspaper group could now try to recover up to the £34.5m that it said it had to spend to defend itself. This means the Duke and others could face a bill of some £18m.” They’ll just have to cough the rest up or raise appeals which could make the ceiling cost rise even more if they’re unsuccessful. ”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019” Reply
5. Author: wee eck Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 16:17 I t makes you wonder why Harry & Co are coming back to the UK. I can`t imagine ANL will give them an easy time. Reply
6. Author: jake89 Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Reply
7. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 18:05 And Piers Morgan is still Tefal!🤔 Reply
8. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 19:21 Sounds like the judge has it in for them tbh. Id imagine they are coming back to give their kids a British education rather than an American one. Megan looking to get back into acting too by the sounds of it. Reply
9. Author: Tad Allagash Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. Reply
10. Author: red-star-par Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 21:51 Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad Reply
11. Author: veteraneastender Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 22:01 Cue a Go Fund Me ? Count me out - nice to see the Royals and their sycophantic mafia getting one 😊 Reply
12. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Fri 21st Aug 2026. 22:14 Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. Wow 🤦🏻‍♂️ just wow 🤦🏻‍♂️ Reply
13. Author: Luxembourg Par Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 16:07 red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51 Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’ Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’ Reply
14. Author: red-star-par Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 16:42 Luxembourg Par, Sun 23 Aug 16:07 red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51 Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’ Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’ So Lux, you think that 17 year olds, that have been groomed and abused since childhood are fair game? Reply
15. Author: Luxembourg Par Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 17:30 red-star-par, Sun 23 Aug 16:42 Luxembourg Par, Sun 23 Aug 16:07 red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 21:51 Tad Allagash, Fri 21 Aug 20:16 jake89, Fri 21 Aug 17:58 Makes you wonder why people are more concerned with slagging off Prince Harry than his paedo uncle... Andrew may be a wrong ‘un, but he’s not a paedo i.e. he’s not into pre-pubescent children as far as I’m aware. No, it`s just 17 year olds that had been groomed since childhood into becoming a sex slave, and trafficked around the world to be abused by him, so that`s okay then. What a fxxking nonce you are Tad And 17 year olds - regardless of what has happened to them - are not pre-pubescent children - i.e. the targets of a ‘paedo’ Nobody is saying “that’s ok then” - get over yersel’ So Lux, you think that 17 year olds, that have been groomed and abused since childhood are fair game? Nope - I think that abusing that 17 year old is reprehensible, and covered under quite a few descriptions - but is not paedophilia, the definition of which has been given to you and ignored by you on multiple occasions. Reply
16. Author: Hoolie Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 20:38 So Andrew is just a old pervert taking advantage of a 17 year old young lassie.. He was part of the Royal family and his mum bailed him out with millions so don’t even state he wasn’t up to some stuff with Epstein…just remember that interview he did..oh I don’t sweat blah blah..he is a vile wee pervert peado that should be in a cell. Reply
17. Author: NMCmassive Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 20:48 He could well be a peado but the evidence isn’t out yet. He is a properly disgusting individual tho and part of a pretty disgusting family imo. Happily be a republic. COYP Reply
18. Author: jake89 Date: Sun 23rd Aug 2026. 21:24 Christ. Are we really arguing over the definition of a paedo? Okay, not pre-pubescent so will we go with sexual abuser? Groomer? Rapist? Dirty old man? Doesn`t matter what definitions or terms you choose to use, he`s a beast and got off due to money and influence. Reply
19. Author: NMCmassive Date: Mon 24th Aug 2026. 15:43 jake89, Sun 23 Aug 21:24 Christ. Are we really arguing over the definition of a paedo? Okay, not pre-pubescent so will we go with sexual abuser? Groomer? Rapist? Dirty old man? Doesn`t matter what definitions or terms you choose to use, he`s a beast and got off due to money and influence. I don’t think the argument was the definition COYP Reply

Post your Reply

Your Message:

By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone

- - -