@Marmaladeagain
Unless MM has a useless legal team, then they would have obtained an injunction preventing the investigation into bullying until the court case with the father and newspaper were resolved.
It would be argued that due to her high profile and public interest it is inappropriate for the bullying procedures to be acted on in parallel with her case against her father. That her mental health and wellbeing would be impacted by having two investigations running parallel, that she may have miscarried due to the ongoing stress etc.
BP would want to avoid MM's solicitors using their refusal to hold off the investigation as more ammunition for MM to claim how unfairly she was treated whilst at BP etc.
Parallel investigations can be carried out involving police matters and disciplinary issues. However, with the unusual nature of a public case being brought by MM against the newspaper and her father then it would be best to avoid any potential conflict issues involving data privacy. As I say, NDA are not enforceable under whistle blowing in workplace - which is a good thing.
Below, is saying how rare it would be to legally prevent investigations in parallel and usually where someone has a public profile:
"It is rare for an employee to obtain injunctive relief in the course of disciplinary proceedings. Such cases are usually confined to the public sector where contractual disciplinary procedures and potentially career-ending allegations are more common."
It is no doubt why MM felt she had to move on "her version" prior to the bullying investigations picking up steam.
I understand why someone swayed by MM's need to be on worldwide TV last week trumped any normal conventions of decency regarding family conversations and family illness. However, those of us that like to weigh up timings/motivations/social conventions and take a wider view on an issue will MM's timing is directly after the court case and directly before BP move on the bullying.
I'm sure you'll still say PA should be investigated - that has been discussed at length - you do not prejudice a potential witness or perpetrator of a criminal investigation with an in-house BP investigation. Time will tell on that.
I think some are so used to watching TV they think everything is done and dusted in an hour's episode - things take a very long time involving serious claims - reason for that is so people don't make mistakes and prejudice situations.
Do you have a legal background ?
The story about Meghan bullying was leaked to the press after her TV interview was announced, not before.
I believe that the reputations of more than just the royal family was at risk and worried about the Oprah interview. As it turned out the press team was at the centre of the stories about working with tabloids and throwing Megs under a bus. A lot of names and careers at stake.
It is entirely possible that upon hearing about the Oprah interview this bullying story was always in their arsenal. Either they decided to leak the email complaints about bullying after hearing about the Oprah interview or they encouraged people who had made verbal complaints to put it in writing in order to be eligible for compensation, and with a promise their names and reputations would be protected.
It's also entirely possible those complaints were tit for tat disagreements/she was simply difficult, that were labelled as 'bullying'. They're investigating internally so it's entirely possible we will get a statement that all has been resolved and all parties have come to a private agreement, whatever the outcome. Free souvenirs and lifetime invites to garden parties for everyone !
If it went to court then Meghan's lawyers would be involved in some capacity and filling in all the blanks to every accusation. That means the entire back story involving the inner workings and politics of every individual/royal/disagreement and what had roused here. We might finally find out who the institution is. Would be ten times worst than an interview.
It was an attempt to smear Meghan and he credibility and to some extent it worked in the UK and have the tabloids more ammunition to paint her as a narcissist.
If an entire institution was pedalling stories about me to protect other members of the RF including adulterers and PAndrew and women they deemed to be 'more special and protected' then I'd be a bully too ! Expecting me to trade in my right to a PR team that actually works for me, my public image and entire career to be their villain in the tabloids. If I had to stand behind PA on a balcony and had official men making me walk behind them and telling me what to do when I had traded my reputation, freedom and image to work for them....
I just imaginehow snobby, passive aggressive and political that would be and it's not like it would just be at work - your entire pregnancy and how you announce it, how you have your baby. Makes me feel sick and claustrophobic thinking about it.
I'd have told at least 3 sexist, old English men to jog on and not in those words. It would be intolerable especially being up against it on your own with hardly any support.