observer90210 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, sanemax said: Forget about money , the reason why they are suing the media is to stop any future invasion of privacy . Nothing to do with money We could bat and ball for the whole day, Guess you stick to your point and I'll stick to mine. And I'll be a gentleman, I'll let you have the last word should you wish. Goodday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 4:35 PM, richard_smith237 said: Freedom of speech comes with a level of responsibility all too frequently ignored in the UK Tabloids. The tabloids have lost any sense of morality in their 'Anything for a headline' approach to news gossip, the behavior and actions of the tabloid press are generally despicable, they destroy lives. I would like to see new laws where Freedom of Speech comes with a degree of accountability. And a whole load of responsibility from the staff all the way up to the owner of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 5:28 PM, oldhippy said: If it wasn't for the tabloids, nobody would even know their names, and they would probably be on the dole. So they better not bite the hand that feeds them. But the tabloids don't feed them at all. All the tabloids do is print rubbish in the hope that more people will buy their paper and increase their circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, observer90210 said: Suing the press ? right...they need more pocket money ?? or is the money allotted in court, donated to charity or back to the UK taxpayers who finance their lavish lifestyle ? The UK tax payers don't actually pay his salary. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-harry-job-income.html/ The Duchy of Cornwall A large portion of Prince Harry’s money comes from his royal allowance. Every year, Prince Charles pays the Duke of Sussex earns an amount of money through his income from The Duchy of Cornwall. Established in 1337 by Edward II, The Duchy of Cornwall is a family business consisting of rental properties, real estate, land, and other money-making entities that contribute to the Prince of Wales’ financial gain. Some royal family members make their money through the queen’s Duchy of Lancaster or the annual government grant. But, since Prince Charles has his own income, he is the one responsible for paying his sons (and their family members) for their royal duties. The money typically covers travel expenses for royal tours, engagements, and ceremonies, too. Salaried positions Believe it or not, Prince Harry once made money through a salaried position with the Armed Forces. The Duke of Sussex allegedly made between $50,000 and $53,000 during his time as a captain in the Air Force. Prince Harry held the position for about 10 years before retiring and becoming a full-time member of the royal family. Inheritance After his mother died, Prince Harry became a trust fund kid (though he was likely already considered one, given his family’s finances). And while he did earn some money from the trust beforehand, he did not have full access until his 30th birthday. At that point, Prince Harry came into around $14 million ($10 million after taxes), though not all of that was cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraday Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Harry's complaints about the media, are an attempt to deflect the heat from Uncle Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer90210 Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 On 10/3/2019 at 1:46 PM, billd766 said: The UK tax payers don't actually pay his salary. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-harry-job-income.html/ The Duchy of Cornwall A large portion of Prince Harry’s money comes from his royal allowance. Every year, Prince Charles pays the Duke of Sussex earns an amount of money through his income from The Duchy of Cornwall. Established in 1337 by Edward II, The Duchy of Cornwall is a family business consisting of rental properties, real estate, land, and other money-making entities that contribute to the Prince of Wales’ financial gain. Some royal family members make their money through the queen’s Duchy of Lancaster or the annual government grant. But, since Prince Charles has his own income, he is the one responsible for paying his sons (and their family members) for their royal duties. The money typically covers travel expenses for royal tours, engagements, and ceremonies, too. Salaried positions Believe it or not, Prince Harry once made money through a salaried position with the Armed Forces. The Duke of Sussex allegedly made between $50,000 and $53,000 during his time as a captain in the Air Force. Prince Harry held the position for about 10 years before retiring and becoming a full-time member of the royal family. Inheritance After his mother died, Prince Harry became a trust fund kid (though he was likely already considered one, given his family’s finances). And while he did earn some money from the trust beforehand, he did not have full access until his 30th birthday. At that point, Prince Harry came into around $14 million ($10 million after taxes), though not all of that was cash. Thank you for the very through post. So, for my nimble brain to understand, who pays the rent an the salaries of Buckingham Palace, the staff, security, transport and all the other related Royal Logistics ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 Apparently there is more to this than just the edited letter, there appear to be by the news paper hacked phonecalls as well. Source is foreign language unfortunately, but seems reliable. "The British prince Harry (35) has sued the publishers of the British tabloids The Sun and Daily Mirror because the companies allegedly hacked his smartphone. In this way, personal voicemails from the Duke of Sussex were intercepted illegally. Passages from it were then used in publications." Google translate from https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/prins-harry-sleept-britse-kranten-voor-rechter-na-hacken-voicemails~a77d5be2/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSec Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 7:16 AM, colinneil said: So silly Harry said...I have been a silent witness to her suffering for too long. Harry ole lad, you married that lime light seeking gold digger, so sod off and suffer with her, she will do nothing but drag you down. It's not going to last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 14 hours ago, observer90210 said: Thank you for the very through post. So, for my nimble brain to understand, who pays the rent an the salaries of Buckingham Palace, the staff, security, transport and all the other related Royal Logistics ? You could do as I usually do when I need to post on a subject that I am interested in and know little about, which is do some online research on Google. I enjoy stuff like that at it stops my 75 year old brain from calcifying and I gain all sorts of weird knowledge that I never had before. As for your question it seem as though the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are paid by state. The Queen in turn pays the salaries of most of her children and grand children. The staff salaries are paid from the Privy Purse here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Purse In the past, the United Kingdom's civil government day-to-day costs were paid for by the sovereign under normal circumstances, the monies in this Public Purse being raised from the income of the Crown Estate lands and holdings. Under extraordinary circumstances, namely in time of war or during budget shortfalls, Parliament raised additional monies through taxation. The system was to a large degree self-funding through the Crown's large holdings, taxes being applied only when necessary, and almost always at the risk of public outcry. Taxes were normally very low, and the necessity to go to Parliament to fund wars was an effective check on the monarch's power. As the role of the government increased in the 18th century, the Public Purse was increasingly unable to raise enough to fund the development of the country. In 1760 when George III came to the throne, it was decided that the whole cost of civil government should be provided by Parliament, with the Crown surrendering most of the hereditary revenues (principally the net surplus of the Crown Estate) by the King for the duration of the reign.[citation needed] In this new system Parliament was responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the Crown the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses. In the fiscal year 2007/2008 the Crown Estate paid the Treasury £211.00 million in return for £7.9 million in Civil List payments to the Queen. In 2012 the Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/3/2019 at 10:03 PM, sanemax said: Its nothing to do with them receiving money , its about stopping their privacy getting invaded by the media LOL. They live their life in the public spotlight. I doubt they complain when it's all lovey dovey. If they don't like their privacy being invaded, the answer is simple- give up the position, and become ordinary citizens. Will they, would they- not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: LOL. They live their life in the public spotlight. I doubt they complain when it's all lovey dovey. If they don't like their privacy being invaded, the answer is simple- give up the position, and become ordinary citizens. Will they, would they- not a chance. None of the above makes it acceptable in anyway or form for any media company to intercept private letters, to tap phone lines, or, for the media to knowingly print out right lies in an attempt to soil and tarnish a persons reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgdanson Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 4:58 PM, JAG said: If, as the Daily Mail admits, they edited the letter before publishing it (and it was a private letter so they had no damned business publishing it) then inevitably they will have changed it's meaning. How does the Mail get hold of a private hand-written letter from Meghan to her Dad. Did Meghan not put it in an envelope and seal it, and post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruntoid Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 5:18 PM, transam said: Or perhaps because he married outside the perceived fold...To be honest his mrs has been putting up with some sh_t, which when you look at it is mostly racist. I recall a BBC presenter got fired for a blatant racist comment about her. Stupid bloke...???? Says the guy who on another thread called terrorism ‘Muslim stuff’ If your presenter is Danny Baker he didn’t make any racist comment about her whatsoever let alone blatant. The BBC will always pander to the hysterical ‘offended on other people’s behalf’ brigade so no surprise there. If they want to be paid to do <deleted> all by the taxpayer then they are taxpayer owned!! Suck it up or give up the free cash and the multi million pound home refurbishments and live a less pampered existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruntoid Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/3/2019 at 4:03 PM, sanemax said: Its nothing to do with them receiving money , its about stopping their privacy getting invaded by the media You know that how ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, Bruntoid said: If they want to be paid to do <deleted> all by the taxpayer then they are taxpayer owned!! Suck it up or give up the free cash and the multi million pound home refurbishments and live a less pampered existence. So you think they [Megan and Harry] are fair game to have their phones tapped, their private correspondence intercepted and printed and to be slandered in public? Your negative bias is placing your opinions so far off balance they seem spiteful or perhaps jealous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 44 minutes ago, Bruntoid said: Says the guy who on another thread called terrorism ‘Muslim stuff’ If your presenter is Danny Baker he didn’t make any racist comment about her whatsoever let alone blatant. The BBC will always pander to the hysterical ‘offended on other people’s behalf’ brigade so no surprise there. If they want to be paid to do <deleted> all by the taxpayer then they are taxpayer owned!! Suck it up or give up the free cash and the multi million pound home refurbishments and live a less pampered existence. Do try harder...Danny Baker even apologised.... What's wrong with Muslim stuff.....Are you being picky...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/3/2019 at 9:14 PM, faraday said: Harry's complaints about the media, are an attempt to deflect the heat from Uncle Andrew. I disagree completely. He is reacting to what the "tabloids or gutter press" are going to his wife and I don't blame him one single bit. Could you live with being watched by telephoto lenses 24/7, concerned that your mobile phone can be monitored, have people going through your trash looking for anything that will "sell" the tabloids and make "news"? Would you be concerned if your parents would stoop to selling your letters to the "press"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan grice Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Id be concerned only if i though there was something to find. In my case she only hides the bills for expensive Handbags.Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 On 10/5/2019 at 6:38 PM, richard_smith237 said: None of the above makes it acceptable in anyway or form for any media company to intercept private letters, to tap phone lines, or, for the media to knowingly print out right lies in an attempt to soil and tarnish a persons reputation. No argument there. There was a case years ago where one of the gutter press rags was phone hacking or something. The woman at the top was fired if I remember correctly. However, anyone that wants to be in the spotlight needs to be aware that if one wishes to sup with the devil best use a long spoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan grice Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 They aint said nuffin about Wilyums Mrs, wonder why.?Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillageIdiot Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, alan grice said: They aint said nuffin about Wilyums Mrs, wonder why.? Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect ...cuz she's always a ly-dee. That's the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.