They wouldn’t have to sue – that’s the point about criminal libel. He would be prosecuted. The “mind-numbingly obvious” problems facing the Royals that you’ve highlighted are precisely why it’s been suggested.
Because if he can be sued and they don’t sue him, then the royal family has no remaining guts.
Bryan | 19.02.08 – 9:06 am | #
Yet more evidence of how out of touch Bryan is with his “public”. To sue shows an absence of class. Does Bryan think that anyone here believes a word Fayed says?
Fedup2Sep 11, 06:39 Midweek 10th September 2025 Rest in peace Charlie Kirk .atlas – il glad you put up the impressive Oxford union piece up . He…
atlas_shruggedSep 11, 06:36 Midweek 10th September 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I_YoS234TM And again Charlie Kirk at the Oxford Union
atlas_shruggedSep 11, 06:30 Midweek 10th September 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqSNEiLTeY Charlie Kirk at the Oxford Union
ScrobleneSep 11, 06:08 Midweek 10th September 2025 Scrobs has just invented a new way to read any Beeboid reporting when one of their own, i.e. far-left, writes…
FlotsamSep 11, 06:07 Midweek 10th September 2025 Re. Charlie Kirk. I was worrying if or when someone would have a go at Nigel Farage
FlotsamSep 11, 06:02 Midweek 10th September 2025 An amusing video of David Starkey denouncing Angela Rayner as a tax avoider: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ck24eJ_tChw What sort of political pygmy would…
vladSep 11, 05:44 Midweek 10th September 2025 The ‘judge’ who allowed the release of the Charlotte train stabber, despite multiple previous offences. DEI is a wonderful thing.…
JohnCSep 11, 04:53 Midweek 10th September 2025 I’me with Dan Wootton : the reaction of the BBC is to add their own comment which has no place…
vladSep 11, 03:47 Midweek 10th September 2025 The only disinformation is that emanating from the putrid swamp that is the EU.
StewGreenSep 11, 00:56 Midweek 10th September 2025 ITV have just recruited LIneker so giving him an award generates PR for his new ITV shows
The Queen and Phillip have too much class to sue a sick man, he has clearly lost it. Losing his son in unfortunate circumstances is punishment enough.
How would it reflect on the Royal Family if they did sue?
Not well. And he gets priviledge to say it all again.
I am not lawyer, but this is mind-numbingly obvious, or so I would have thought…
Well I’m sure they won’t be shopping in Harrods ever again.
They wouldn’t have to sue – that’s the point about criminal libel. He would be prosecuted. The “mind-numbingly obvious” problems facing the Royals that you’ve highlighted are precisely why it’s been suggested.
Not all it would seem Hugh:
Because if he can be sued and they don’t sue him, then the royal family has no remaining guts.
Bryan | 19.02.08 – 9:06 am | #
Yet more evidence of how out of touch Bryan is with his “public”. To sue shows an absence of class. Does Bryan think that anyone here believes a word Fayed says?
Yet more evidence of how out of touch Bryan is with his “public”.
If this is “yet more”, where is your previous evidence? Don’t have any, right?
To sue shows an absence of class.
Rather than an absence of guts? You sure about that?
Anonymous, do us a favour, get a bloody pseudonym that will make a you a bit more identifiable so we’ll know who the hell we’re talking to in future.
sorry it’s me.
I am absolutely certain that people with class do not sue. It does not take guts – guts is rising above it.
The Queen wasting time suing that tacky little oik (now clearly ill) – can you honestly imagine it?
The more you write things like that, the more obvious it becomes how little you know.
Sarah Jane:
“tacky little oik”.
For someone to use such archaic language as that and then suggest to a poster:-
“Yet more evidence of how out of touch Bryan is with his “public”
I think is just too ironic to bear Sarah Jane.
Yet more evidence of how out of touch Bryan is with his “public”.
The more you write things like that, the more obvious it becomes how little you know.
Come on, Sarah-Jane, examples and evidence please. Can’t come up with any? Thought not.