Omid Scobie Endgame PART 5

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

A continuing civilised and enjoyable discussion of all things relating to Endgame. Please keep posts on topic - I do not want to have to invoke Ross Gellar again!

Previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4957618-omid-scobie-endgame-part-4?page=1

I don't know what it's like at BP (I suspect they ensure to the strictest letter of the law), but where I worked we specifically contracted out of the Working Hours Directive (as it then was). It was a profession that demanded ridiculously long hours, and you knew it when you went into it. Think banking.

I pass no judgement on the boss or the colleagues - not my place. People competed to work under the tutelage of this man, they wanted to learn from him and be exposed to his clients. Nobody would answer back to this man, not because they'd lose their job (they absolutely wouldn't, it wasn't that sort of place) but because they knew what the situation was. If you wanted to advance in that world, you had to put in the hours. If you did, you'd advance. If you didn't, the opprobrium would come from your peers not from the top. The bosses didn't care, fundamentally.

I have no horse in the RF/ anti-RF game. I really don't care, I know it's a ridiculous institution. I don't know enough about it to care, either, and the issue is that because BP doesn't comment on anything nobody can know other than those involved.

Which is exactly how bullying get perpetuated.

It's like hazing rituals.

To access this route to wealth, power and influence you need to 'voluntarily' submit to bullying, and those who can't 'hack it' are weak failures. The pay off is that, if you survive it, you get to deal it out to the next round of initiates.

Why are those excessive hours necessary? Who determines that? Why is it all or nothing? Why can't 50% of the hours get 50% of the pay-off?

I can understand that e.g. the army, if you are in a combat situation it is 24/7. Even in your 'off duty' hours you need to be prepared for instant response, because you can't predict an enemy attack.

But banking? Why the need for that level of availability to take part?

I can understand that someone working 6 hours a day will earn half of someone working 12 hours a day (although I would question the relationship between the person's input and results - hardly anyone can work as effectively for 12 hours as for 6 hours).

But why is it that you either work long hours or not at all?

Genuinely don't understand how long hours are essential to the majority of jobs, and why people can't do them effectively part time (for a proportionate payout)

To try and defend Meghan a bit, people will spot any misstep or imperfection, so to be under that level of scrutiny so suddenly must have been a culture shock.

That said, if she deflected blame onto her staff or if she was too harsh in her criticism of them as a result and it made their working lives untenable, that’s unacceptable. It doesn’t sound like she’s open to hearing that feedback.

Also, all members of the family are under that kind of scrutiny and prove that you can maintain high standards without bullying. In fact, sometimes (like tailoring) things of the Sussexes are not done to a high standard, so maybe bullying staff doesn’t work.

One thing that has always annoyed me about H&M is how they will name & blame random former members of staff who are under NDAs and can’t defend themselves, and as if they were equals.

This is exactly how wealth and privilege are perpetuated. The 'right'people (white, male,upper-middle/upper class) are brought up to expect this, are schooled for it, and conditioned to see it as the pinnacle of achievement.

There is no need to specify in job advertisements, or the interview process, or at any point in the employment process that women, people from different backgrounds etc are unwelcome. They don't apply, or drop out quickly, and the 'right sort' make it to the top. There are a handful of the 'wrong sort' who make it, as a minority, by aligning themselves with the overwhelming culture.

I think it’s also the way high ranking or “servant” jobs seem to be designed for people with no other commitments in life. Like the staff member who was expected to answer calls early in the morning and late at night; it would be impossible for someone with chronic illness, young children, or caring responsibilities to do that job.

Yes, isn't there some sort of legal case in the USA about that? Can't remember which male star it is, I'll Google...

de Niro!

Also, all members of the family are under that kind of scrutiny and prove that you can maintain high standards without bullying.

Well Charles didn't manage not to hiss at hapless lackeys in front of the world's cameras and Andrew has well cited form for lax standards with the skivvies. Even the now sainted Eddie had a run-in with his navvies.

Anyone thinking the lessers count with these people is deluded.

The 'I think. I suspect, I imagine' brigade out in force over the last few pages when it comes to Meghan.
Tom Bower got a mention by @Maireas Maybe Bower wasn't challenged or sued by Meghan but just for some balance, others have challenged his lies or written about them.

A few samples:

Sam Kashner, who Bower claimed felt manipulated and played by Meghan challenged Bower. "I found Ms. Markle to be exceptionally warm and gracious and admired her intelligence and her remarkable courage, as I still do." Sam Kashner denies Tom Bower's negative account of his Vanity Fair interview with MeghanMarkle. Indeed he wrote a letter to The Times to challenge Bower.

Kristen Meinzer a royal commentator who Bower claimed was a friend of Meghan said he was wrong and Bower had never interviewed her. "In his new book, Tom Bower claims I'm friends with #MeghanMarkle and that I use the pronouns he/she," Meinzer wrote on Twitter. "If he can't even get these simple facts right, how are we to trust anything he says about the Sussexes?

Bower wrongly quoted Oprah Winfrey in his book stating a comment she made about her very good friend Gayle King was about Meghan.

He referred to the very popular on here at least, Omid as Omar.

He claimed that Meghan had become difficult to work with on Suits yet again provided no evidence. One of her fellow actors Patrick J Adams wrote "Meghan Markle and I spent the better part of a decade working together on Suits. From day one she was an enthusiastic, kind, cooperative, giving, joyful and supportive member of our television family. She remained that person and colleague as fame, prestige and power accrued."

He claimed that Meghan had written 'Spare' yet again offered no evidence.

Tom Bower used that bastion of truth the Daily Mail widely as a source for stories about Meghan in his book, along with borrowing from other books including one by Samantha Markle. He also allegedly interviewed more than 80 people many of whom he claims opted for anonymity.

Tom Bower: "This woman is really doing something quite dreadful to Britain and Harry has fallen in love with her in a ludicrous way and has gone along as her accomplice," 😂

Omg, I read that, what an eye opener!shocking

I'll answer this (although it's a big derailment! but it does go to the one-person's-bullying-is-another-person's-demanding point).

Why the need for that level of availability to take part? and But why is it that you either work long hours or not at all?

Simply, because if you don't someone else will. Banking is a service industry, you're there to serve clients. If they say "jump" you say "how high?", because if you don't, someone else will and they will get the business.

There's no hazing ritual at all, because nobody cares about anything other than: can you do the job of making us a lot of money? I can see why it might look that way from the outside, but it's not true.

And, as someone who isn't male or rich or upper class or white: again, I see why it looks that way from the outside but it's not true on the inside EXCEPT at the top where you're 100% right - only the unencumbered, able-bodied are able to succeed. There are so few women at the top because they generally have competing calls on their time. Colour doesn't come into it so much these days, family commitments do.

If you conclude from this that it's ugly and missing the point of life, I'd agree with you. Some people like the money, though, and it's absolutely life-changing amounts of money. It can be enough for you, your children and your grandchildren (and then some if everyone plays their cards right). Notions like "working hours", "contracted hours", "hourly rate", these are so irrelevant as to be laughable to people who will reply "yeah, but will YOU be able to afford to send all 4 of your children to Eton, and pay for flats in central london for them when they've graduated from university?".

It's another world, a different mindset. People know what they're doing when they enter these industries, they generally don't want your sympathy (because that would just shed light on how much money they make compared to firemen and nurses and surgeons who literally save lives). They also don't need it. Their money keeps them warm at night.

Bower comes across as very deranged and obsessed, like Piers @unbelieveable22 . From what I've seen his TV appearances didn't help.

I think outside of the UK, his book sank like a stone, so no one knows about it or cares outside of loyal royal watchers.
Meghan not suing them isn't the win some people think it is. Ignoring him is smart on her part rather than giving him the attention he and others seem to be demanding. Good for her I say.

I am listening to the Bower book on audible and he does seem to really hate her.
I wonder how accurate his account it?

Valentine Lowe wrote The Times article reporting on the two former members of staff whistleblowing about bullying. It had lawyers crawling all over it, so they must have felt the story was watertight. And a BP investigation was triggered as a result, which has now been buried by the palace.

Tom Bower wrote Revenge. I actually thought the book itself was very well researched and well-sourced which is probably why they can’t sue, it’s people giving their opinion (and no, someone who worked on Suits disagreeing with Bowers’ source isn’t “debunking” - it’s two humans having two views. To his credit he explains the reason he didn’t present the views of her current friends as much was because they were told not to talk to him). The part where I thought Revenge fell down was the overall narrative he was trying to sell. He wanted to portray Meghan as basically a scheming social climber and Harry as her useful idiot. But from the stories he’d sourced there were more “good faith” explanations - including the poor MH she reported, the heightened scrutiny, anxiousness, ignorance, etc. I don’t think he successfully proved the thesis of the book, but that doesn’t mean the individual stories sourced within it should be discarded.

Tom Bower is scathing to the subject of every one of his books, that's his style. He's written books on Prince Charles (about whom he was excoriating); plus Simon Cowell, Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Richard Branson, who all claimed they were hatchet jobs and full of lies. I'm pretty sure none of them sued him for those books either. Branson did sue Bower for libel over an article he wrote before his book - Branson lost.

Robert Maxwell tried to get Bower's book on him blocked. This is what Wikipedia says on the matter:

In 1987, Robert Maxwell responded to the publication of two unauthorised biographies of himself with numerous lawsuits, threats of legal action against individual booksellers, and the rapid publication of an authorised biography by Joe Haines, political editor of the Mirror Group which Maxwell owned. Of the two unauthorised books, Maxwell: A Portrait of Power by Peter Thompson and Anthony Delano was withdrawn from sale and all unsold copies pulped after Maxwell successfully sued the publishers and authors for libel. The second book, Maxwell: The Outsider by Bower sold out in hardback but Maxwell prevented the paperback edition appearing, in part by buying the publishing company which held the paperback rights. Maxwell also filed a libel action against Bower and the hardback publishers, Aurum Press. Maxwell allowed this action to lapse in 1990 but only after Bower and Aurum had submitted a detailed defence of the book.

Maxwell also tried to sue Bower in the English courts over an article published in America, by the magazine The New Republic, on the basis that it had 136 British subscribers. Bower also believes that Maxwell tried to break into his house and also went through his phone records and bank statements.

Bower exposed Geoffrey Robinson MP's unlawfully undeclared business dealings vis a vis Maxwell. He's also award winning for his book on corruption within English football.

He's a former Panorama journalist and barrister. Apparently he does extensive research before committing words to paper. Clearly he's written about and gone up against some heavy hitters, and having been sued by someone like Robert Maxwell, I doubt he's going to be simply making things up to sell books.

I've just bought Revenge and Courtiers, so that will be my Xmas reading.

I used to work in corporate PR and we would be up all night if there was a merger & acquisition going on, especially if different time zones were involved. We had to get the statement ready for 6am so we’d have to wait for the lawyers to finalise the deal before we could do anything. Still expected to be in by 9, work a full day with no time off in lieu. It’s the nature of the job. We had good office parties though!

My boss’s friend used to be Princess Diana’s PR advisor. She was on call 24/7 and was frequently phoned at random times throughout the night.

Isn’t Tom Bower the one who said ‘ It’s Meghan I’m after'?

If we insert Kate’s name in that sentence, ‘It’s Kate I’m after.’

Everybody comfortable with that?

I’m not.

Royal biographer sparks controversy after saying 'it's Meghan I'm after'
Emma Mackenzie
Updated 1 November 2022·2
Tom Bower ‘It's Meghan I’m after’

It's little wonder after that he's only to be found on GBNews. Utterly deranged

I'm listening to the Bowers book at the moment and he's so ridiculously biased. He only presents the negative...if he was any kind of writer he would have found people who had good things to say about Meghan because we ALL know those people are out there but he didn't: he wanted people to hate her but in my case at least it isn't working. I'm more and more on her and Harry's side as I would be with anyone being targeted with such venom.

Anyone could take any member of the royal family and go to town on their 'crimes'. From the lessers ones like Kate choosing to eat fois gras with Camilla to the more serious like the future head of the CoE being a filthy cheat to the absolute seriousness of a HoS helping to cover up the criminality of her abusive son and therefore contributing to the silence around sex trafficking.

Anyone could be a Bowers around any one of that family.

Strangely enough, because the Bowers book is well researched, it did show how hard working and resilient Meghan had to be, trying to get acting/modelling gigs, being an influencer, getting in magazines/papers etc. She wasn't put off by failure and really had to self promote and take every opportunity. When she came to the UK that summer of 2016, she was looking for a new relationship, but she also tried to get onto Made in Chelsea, and auditioned for a cookery show. She also tried to connect with Piers Morgan, but wasn't to know how that would work out. It's an incredibly competitive world and she had a lot of knock backs. There's nothing wrong with modelling department store clothes, or befriending people who can possibly promote you.
I personally wouldn't be interested in a rehash of Charles being a "filthy cheat" (or Diana for that matter). I'm not interested in a book about Camilla and Kate eating foie gras.

To go back to the Omid Scobie book of the title, I bought it on the 99p Kindle deal, but am really struggling to read it! I'm only about halfway through, but some of the writing is so poor (one that really jarred was the word shined when it should have been shone) - it feels poorly edited.

Content wise, it's so obviously written with one angle and agenda that it's almost laughable. So he will report people's nicknames and justify them, then a few pages later attack any nicknames for Harry and Meghan, saying how unfair these are and that the palace should have stepped in.

Basically it reads so far as a hagiography of Harry and Meghan, with a corresponding attack on pretty much anyone else. Absolutely no nuance or sense that these are all real people with strengths and weaknesses. Reading the book has been a real chore, and I don't know that I can be bothered to finish it

People are still not getting it. Think of Bowers’ books as a written form of a Panorama type expose. He’s not someone who writes nice puff piece stuff - there are literally thousands of articles that cover all the lovely things that MM has done, said, achieved. He wants to uncover the not so nice stuff. Which I am sure you find distressing. However, unflattering truth and lies are not the same thing, and so far, Bowers has been able to show his research stands up when his subjects have sued him.

@shufflestep - it does sound awful, but hagiography of H&M is what Scobie is all about.