The royals and Dan Wootton: Byline Times part 1 of 3-year investigation into how Wootton got information about the royal family

[queentim]

Following their series about the Crisis in British Journalism and MediaToo movement, Byline Times reporters have recently released the first report of the 3 year investigation into the link between the royals and (disgraced) TV presenter Dan Wootton.

The first report reveals how Charles and William were angered that Harry refused to remove the name of an aide (William's aide in Kensington) who was paid cash to leak stories about his wife Meghan, and son Archie. This included investigations by the Met.

As a result, Charles removed the $700,000 granted to support them, which would have seen Harry and Meghan living in Canada and representing the Queen, in an effort to bring them back to the UK by exposing their location in Canada and removing their security. This was the collapse of the 'Sandringham Agreement', which resulted in the signing of the Sussexes media deals.

Some highlights, but can be bought for £3.6:

▪ It followed news that a partner of a key aide to Prince William received £4,000 from The Sun allegedly for stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when Wootton was executive editor.

▪ The Metropolitan Police looked into the alleged leaking but could not go to a judge for a warrant to search royal staff property without knowing the identity of the whistle-blowers.

▪ Two internal royal investigations followed – one involving Simon Case, who is today the embattled head of the civil service facing questions over the Government’s response to the pandemic.

▪ Byline Times has uncovered new photographic evidence of Wootton, the aide and the aide’s partner at a lavish private birthday party Wootton threw for his close friends in a £1,675-a-night hotel suite.

▪ Prince Harry sent formal ‘letters before action’ detailing the claims about Wootton and the palace to News UK.

▪ When the aide’s name was not removed from the legal letters, the Sussexes were cut adrift financially and left unable to protect themselves despite having a security threat level equal to the monarch.

▪ The royal household had thought the threat of exposure would force Harry and Meghan to return to the UK, where their profile could be controlled preventing them from eclipsing the future King

Exploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy

😁

Definition of IPP

‘any representative or official of a State, or any official or other agent of an international organisation of an intergovernmental character, who, at the time when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private accommodation or his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection from any attack on his person, freedom or dignity’.

So not Harry then at the moment.

but

Internationally protected persons" is a term created by the convention, and refers explicitly to heads of state, heads of government, foreign ministers, ambassadors, other official diplomats, and members of their families.

So maybe him BUT they said he wasn’t. And that is/was the call. And it is a call. Not all of those people from all countries have it. It’s a needs assessment.

I think it must have been considered high risk when they left because they did have protection to begin with.

Strange how when the shite hit the fan and they weren’t coming back it’s then that protection was removed.

Also, there was a statement from the Queen about Canada. It was no surprise:

”SOURCE, REUTERS

The Queen has issued a statement following talks held between senior members of the Royal Family on Monday. The so-called Sandringham summit was called to discuss a new role for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Here is her statement in full:
"Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

"My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

"It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

I pulled it off the BBC news site.

Regarding the Neal Basu interview: (Channel 4 for those interested) he said that there were several credible threats against Meghan and Harry. Indeed, people were prosecuted and gaoled. So they were serious, not ‘crackpots.’ And all in the space of 2 years or so. And he also said that he understood why Meghan would have felt constantly under threat. Add that to Meghan’s statement in the doco that the media stirred up hatred against her: she was so threatened that she feared for the lives of her children and asked why the media stirred up this hatred? did they want to see her and her children dead?

Also remember the MET - 5 ex police officers who wrote disgusting racist slurs about Meghan in texts. So bad the website would not print them.

And:
“The five men had all worked in various departments at the police but had all served in the Diplomatic Protection Group”.

How would anyone feel faced with all that? You’d be mad not to be fearful:

5 Met Ex Police Racist Texts

They had protection until they left in March 2020. That was their leave date. When it ended which coincided with the lockdowns they went to LA.

it wasn’t removed when they weren’t coming back. It already had been…for a year.

I wonder if these reports, investigations and court actions will help to unshelve Levenson 2.

I hope so

You are right then I think, about protection/leaving date.@AuroraCake . The protection was unexpectedly and suddenly withdrawn when they were both living in Canada with Archie. Then the paparazzi descended on them and having no protection, it triggered their flight to US. Oh, and borders were closing any day.

***
in relation to the byline part 1 piece , and also the Queen’s statement saying they are moving to Canada, and remembering what Harry said in his book, I think it’s probable they intended to stay in Canada - but the paps surrounding their house by land and water felt unsafe and very intrusive. There had been no OW interview or book tour or Netflix at that point - this was simply the media wanting to invade their privacy and continue with made up , quite nasty stories about them with up to date images. In this the daily mail etc..acted very very nastily. They couldn’t go anywhere. Paps were in the town - all over the place - I’d have left too. It would have felt like an escape by then, I’m confident.

Anyway, the byline investigation has printed that security was withdrawn in order to pressure them back to the UK. If this proves to be accurate, then whoa!

And it was much more than just crackpots that had targeted them.

Anyway, the byline investigation has printed that security was withdrawn in order to pressure them back to the UK. If this proves to be accurate, then whoa!

As we know from a Prince Harry’s judicial review though, the royal family aren’t in charge of deciding who gets security. Ravec is. That is why Harry is judicially reviewing the Home Office (Ravec is an Executive Committee of the Home Office) because it was their decision, communicated by a letter, to withdraw his security. Not his family’s decision.

That judicial review hearing should take place sometime in the next few months. Harry’s case is that he should have been told about Ravec’s policy before its decision in February 2020; and he should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Ravec. He has not claimed that they did not make the decision, nor even that they took into account irrelevant considerations like his family’s wish to manipulate him.

So the account quoted above is inconsistent with Harry’s own court case.

A very valid and factual point Serenster (as always the voice of logic).

I am sure there are some truths in the article, but I think there are too many holes in the report which seems to be made up of conjecture and inconsistencies from a few shady characters, to make it a trustworthy report.

Serenster you are always the voice of reason and common sense.

Well @pinkmont there is one key ‘logic’ piece missing here
Who exactly is on the RAVEC executive committee which makes all the decisions about who gets security ?

Let’s see
There are 10 people .
3 are ‘senior’ members of ‘royal’ households
1 from ‘royalty’ security
1 from the MET ( you’ll remember them from the day of the conanation when peaceful protestors were arrested and then released without charge as far as I know)
1 from the home office
1 from the cabinet
1 from protocol at foreign office

2 more I can’t account for - maybe someone can help
So you can draw your own conclusions on the decision making based on the above
One other thing- we are assured that the ‘royals ‘ the home office and the police are treated as ‘equals’ - well that will be a first !
But - and this is the key fact I believe - the committee’s decisions are based on the analysis done by the ‘royals ‘ Risk Management Board . Chaired by a private secretary and described as ‘secretive’

I am sure there are some truths in the article, but I think there are too many holes in the report which seems to be made up of conjecture and inconsistencies from a few shady characters, to make it a trustworthy report.

So... the report is written off, is that what you're saying?

Good job there are posters on here who wish to discuss and dissect what has been said without rubbishing it and the two journalists.

Harry and Meghan certainly did the right thing by leaving, that much is clear.

Harry tried to challenge the makeup of RAVEC as being biased at the preliminary stage, Novella, but that was thrown out by the court because there was absolutely no basis for his allegations that the inclusion of the Royal household members meant there was any bias in the Committees decision making. Alleging something that you want to be true doesn’t make it true.

And I would have thought it’s absolutely relevant to the discussion of an investigation report that is long on allegation but short on evidence to also discuss aspects it covers where we actually do know a bit about what was going on behind the scenes?

I’m alleging nothing .
Im setting out the facts ( omitted from your post - no space maybe?)
Peiple can now draw their own conclusions with more information
Isnt Harry taking the decision to judicial review ?

And perhaps if the ‘royals’ wish to have at least the appearance of impartiality they might consider removing all the members of ‘royal’ households from the committee completely .
They can send 1 rep who can pass on their ‘secretive ‘ conclusions .
Maybe then there would be no need to stress and repeat that the commitee is impartial .

👍Seconded

Is this thread going to turn into the Serenster Fan Club like the deleted one?

I don’t know, I’m not sure what occurred on the deleted thread after I posted fairly early on yesterday. When I checked back in the afternoon it had gone🤷‍♀️

I do enjoy reading @Serenster posts, they are relevant and come from a place of knowledge/experience.

I like what she ‘brings to the party’😁.

Anyway back on track, when is Byline part 2 going to be available and do we have any snippets of what will be in it?

Part one has certainly been ‘interesting’.

I’ve just remembered that all the judiciary , MPs, police and army swear allegiance to Charles . Not to the people they supposedly serve - Charles
Yes yes twitter on about how the crown is the symbol of the people, blah blah -. If that’s the case let’s parade the actual crown around and save the country a bloody fortune !

This is just like ‘royal’ tax affairs - private when it suits them , public when it suits them .

Interesting comment when the now deleted thread was in danger of turning into a fan club of the poster who flounced off !
Also , I was ticked off on a previous thread for referring to the H and M fan club ; apparently it was childish !

I am another poster who values Serenster’s posts as they are knowledgeable and balanced.

A poster left and others said they would miss her. That's it. Slightly different to this endless seconding of how wonderful Serenster is. Nothing to do with calling posters part of an H&M fan club, I'll resist saying what the opposite of that is!

Anyway back to the thread... security arrangements are shrouded in mystery as we all know and I agree with Novella, it is hardly impartial if the Committee is stuffed with royal aides.

I, too, am looking forward to Part 2 of the BT exposé

I enjoy Serenster’s posts. I find them interesting and balanced.

I will admit I’m not completely au fait with all the detail about everything Dan Wootton/Dan Evans related. But I don’t really understand this story. Why would the removal of £700k make H&M come back to the UK? Why would Prince Charles be more worried about being overshadowed in some way if H&M were in Canada but not if they were in the UK?

I can see why, given the huge cost of the protection level Harry was (quite naturally) accustomed to, the withdrawal of publicly funded protection might motivate H&M to return to the UK, but surely this was made clear to them earlier on. Is there any evidence that they were promised protection and then had it removed?

I haven’t been on these threads for a while so forgive me if I am going over old ground.