Mr markle child images?

I haven't RTFT so forgive me.

I suspect a private investigator or journalist did some digging pre-Royal Wedding 2017-18ish. Perhaps they heard some allegations on the grapevine, or found something and reported what they heard/found to the Met/Royal Protection team. Perhaps first trying to get a statement/scoop/etc. from Meghan and her office got the Met involved.

That'd explain why the UK police were informed/informed Meghan, rather than any American Police Force/FBI.

I assume she was told it'd be looked into, and the Met would contact the FBI, etc and then perhaps nothing came of it? Especially if boxes of images/harddrives were hidden/moved, in storage, etc. No authority had anything to pursue the allegation.

I assume she said no more about it because it was, then, an unfounded allegation and it didn't go anywhere.

I don't buy the excuse that 'anybody could have planted the material on the hard drives while they were on shipping containers'.

Or, as Mr Markle hints in his quote to the Daily Mail, that his son planted the material and withheld the boxes for months.

Does that make it ok that it would seem that Meghan has done the same thing though?

Oh yes, silly me.

@Red Personally, if I thought my father was a pedophile, and a danger to my child, and said father then moved to the Philippines, I would be down the cop shop talking to someone to ask if there is an Interpol watch list he should be put on. To warn the Philippines authorities and all that.

But, all of that may have happened? We don't know what went on behind the scenes as evidenced by this story. We think we know things and convert speculation to fact.

I wonder about the likes of Piers Morgan - he bankrolled Markel Sir for a decade, as well as the sister. Wouldn't his tabloid nose have caught a whiff? I wonder if that is why he moved away from Markel?

And if said father had a stroke and an amputation in the Philippines, given that I did not allow him to contact to my kids because I consider him a danger, I would not be publicizing me trying to get a letter to him via consular services.
Can you see how the same info can be looked at differently ? And it's important to note that it is partial info, with insinuations.

Yes, I can see how the same info can be twisted and turned. I also see how the external pressure on MM?PH can force error, as so much is twisted and turned.

Any way - good luck to you @RedTagAlan . I will see you on the Trump threads - I enjoy/look forward to your posts over there!

The letter she allegedly received was after the wedding, though

Yes, in the days following the wedding (I read somewhere, Daily Mail perhaps)

So the digging would have been done pre-wedding.

Oh stop it.

You would have absolutely annihilated her for any allusion to that.

Imagine being so outraged about having to curtsey to the Queen that you make an entire docuseries about it. Chortling and scoffing like a vacuous fool.
And all the while you are somehow not outraged that your strongly-suspected paedophile father is still roaming around third world countries known to be friendly to these proclivities.

MM was called by metro police, she had an interview with them, we have no idea what was said, there's an investigation going on, end off. I'm pretty sure (like with any investigation of a serious crime) she was advised not talk about it to the press, tell her dad he's an idiot or hire Sherlock Holmes to go to Philippines as it would interfiere with said investigation. She's kept mum about the whole thing as advised. The whole thing has jumped into the press and now all the arm chair conspiracionists are out full force so she's probably going to have to say something which I'm sure she's not happy about and rightly so.

Maybe because the internet is full of people blaming her??

I find this thread disgusting because for years Andrew was not stopped by the royal family until his involvement with Epstain become public..They new what he was up to. Hell they knew how unscrupulous he was.

Sarah had been caught on video years ago in a cash for access scandal on behalf of Andrew and their family. She was ostracised (of course being the woman and outsider to the royal family) took the blame while Andrew continued to do as he liked without scrutiny or consequences.

Unlike Meghan, the queen/king always has reports from the best intelligence services what Andrew what's up to. They did nothing until the Epstein scandal was known by the US.

The UK media fed by royal public servants controlling the House, has a problem with their royals, They blame any woman for their own sins. If the woman is mixed race, an actress and American, they've hit the jackpot Anything except being critical to their own institution.

So lets keep on hating Meghan. It's apparently very popular.

I don't think Meghan has protected or enabled her father at all. It is on this thread that posters are accusing Meghan of protecting and enabling her father when in reality there is not a huge amount she can do if there was a police investigation and no concrete evidence at the end of that investigation. What Meghan could do was protect her own children. Which is what any of us would do if we were told by police our father was a suspected child abuser. What more could she do if the police are already aware?

I'm just pointing out that Charles and William are not being treated so viciously when I would argue it's a more definite case of protecting and enabling Andrew.

Yes. Because look at her statement, as I just posted replying to someone else.

'I hope it can now be understood that, despite certain media publications' distortion over the years, any distance from my father and my choice to not allow him to have contact with our children, was for one reason: to protect them."

She is insinuating that she considered him a danger to her children, From at least info she saw in 2018, and that is why no contact. Yet she has a charity, works with charities, that campaign for internet safety of children. Yet her father, that she considered so dangerous that she had to protect her kids from him, moved from Mexico to the Philippines, all while she was advocating for, and claiming to be an expert on, child online safety. And not a peep. Instead, it was stories about her using consular services for a letter to his hospital bed.

She was making online safety of children her thing. She was claiming it. It was her vehicle. That was a large part of her income. her work to protect children.

( By income, I mean charity spend on the work v admin. I looked it up a while back, and their income to spend on work is terrible. )

But Megan has done the same thing. She also kept these allegations quiet all the while attacking another family for their alleged behaviour. The thing is when you are going to go all out in they way they did you have to make sure your side of the street is clean and her side wasn’t clean at all judging by the allegations against her father,

toiletpaperthief · Today 13:49
Yep, I've always seen it as a coverted combo of racism and misoginy. Besides giving her diamond studded middle finger to a very British institution and not feeling one once bad about it I don't understand what else she's done to turn her into public enemy number one in the UK. This woman really came from nothing and has really done well for herself which is something I applaud frankly, it does seem bother the English a lot. I guess people here are pissed because she should have "known her place" and dedicate her life to being pretty and smiling (like Catherine?), become some sort of tragic figure like her deceased mother in law but instead she decided to take control of her own narrative, how dare she?!

Dumbest post on the thread up to now.

Came from nothing? Privately educated, given a leg up into her chosen work via firstly her father, then the various partners she used.

She has brought nothing but trouble to her in laws and has carried out a character assassination on the woman she had in her sights before she even met her.

Horrible person - you will never convince me that Meghan is a good person - she creates pain, embarrassement, upset and drama everywhere she goes.

Maybe she chose specifically to get involved in charities that protected children from online sexual abuse because that is something could actually do to help children having been advised not to jeopardise any police investigation about her own father by speaking out?

The Met allegedly knew, Royal Protection services knew (as likely did the Royals and or the men in suits its unlikely they only told Meghan) am sure they passed this information over the ocean to the correct authorities BUT Meghan should have acted on it and its HER fault no action was taken.

A friend of mine believed every single word that Thomas Jnr said about Meghan that she was older than she said and had a hysterectomy and today she is now questioning his honesty!

Meghan and Harry have made various fuck ups and those are fair game for criticism for some of their actions but realistically on some occasions they can't do right for doing wrong.

But she could hardly announce her father is a paedo could she! What did you expect her to do?

All her work with children makes sense and maybe that was something she felt she could do when her hands were tied on the matter.

I don’t think Charles and William have protected and enabled him. He has been stripped of his titles and kicked out of his home. Yes they have subsequently re housed him, but they need to keep him contained. However, many have said that AMW’s behaviour was covered up. From that point of view, Meghan has done the same with her father

Well she announced that the RF were racist so why not denounce her father whose behaviour is worse

Gosh poor H&M, abusers on both sides of the family…

in their Opra documentary and Netflix post 2018, they made a thing of her father’s disloyalties, misleading the public - that is wrong

This is something I find odd about the statement. It says, quote-

'In 2018, a letter was sent to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection."

When I first read that, I thought " what one got the letter. the Met or protection?"

And yes, I am being pedantic here, but this is a couple who are peak PR, or have a top PR company represent them. RaSP, the royal protection, are part of the Met. So to me the statement should say the letter was sent to one or the other, not both.

Keeping in mind this is a couple that have taken the UK government to court over protection, it just seems amazingly odd that a professional statement to the press is so ambiguous.

What has she covered up? the fact there was a letter about allegations? Is that the same as associating with a convicted sex offender?

She has said for 8 years that she cut off her father because he colluded with the press.

She is now saying she ACTUALLY cut him off 8 years ago because of the info contained in the letter

She used Story A in the press for 8 years and is now saying it’s actually story B. Story A covered for story B for 8 years.

All this done and admitted by Meg.