H & M announce a visit to Colombia

[ShamedBySiri]

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce they will visit Colombia

mol.im/a/13698271

Another country on the "Don't travel" list.

"But the UK and US governments have both issued security alerts over travelling to Colombia amid fears over crime, terrorism, civil unrest and kidnapping - and Harry's decision to visit comes amid his ongoing battle for his security when in Britain.
The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office 'advises against all but essential travel to parts of Colombia'. And the US Department of State issued a travel advisory for Colombia stating: 'Reconsider travel due to crime and terrorism. Exercise increased caution due to civil unrest and kidnapping. Some areas have increased risk.'"

Perhaps he thinks this is the way to get his security reconsidered? Personally I'd say the opposite.
If he still had UK security I'd expect them to do a risk assessment and say "NO".
Why should security personnel be put at risk by being required to travel to these dangerous destinations.

I agree @Puzzledandpissedoff and it begins to look like they are just using the cause to promote themselves and gain attention in the media (cf also Uvalde).

I had a look at the project and there doesn't seem to be much to it beyond what is available already?

Apparently this Parents' Network is an online group accessed via the official Archewell website.

I'm genuinely curious and asking from a neutral place of interest.

Wouldn't such a forum require, at the very least, full time moderators, suitable privacy and security protection and I would have thought a means to access more professional support or at least resources to signpost suitable services?

What if a parent discloses very real fears that their child is in crisis and imminent risk? Is anyone going to do anything or point them to emergency help?

Will it be open to parents from around the world? In which case it might be difficult to have appropriate resources relevant to different countries and their individual health and care systems?

It seems to me that starting a Parent Network isn't as simple as adding a chat space to an existing website.

No doubt all will become clear with time.

I'm sure it's a good cause, but isn't just supporting the Sussexes publicity drive?
They need to stay in the headlines.
They need projects to do interviews about, keep the interest going.

I worry that the Aspen organisation is funding them to let Archewell act as a depository for heartbreak stories that can then be used to swing public opinion towards censorship.

I think people are better using this:

https://988lifeline.org/talk-to-someone-now/

So they can contact professionals in a wide variety of ways.

Edited for typos.

Some very good points in that latest post, @ShamedBySiri, and yes I'd have thought some signposting at least would be wise - though I haven't gone onto the Archewell site in a while so can't say what's there

I also agree that privacy might be a concern, and don't even want to think about what could happen if H&M use deeply personal details for their own ends.
That said it's not stopped them with other issues, so I guess time will tell

Perhaps in the US the regulations are more lax. It sounds appallingly unprofessional at the very least.

Okay, so I've just visited the site and it says "this safe, free-to-access peer-support network, complete with comprehensive advice and resources provided by a licensed facilitator, offers invaluable support to those in need"

Really not sure what the "licenced facilitator" means - who are they, who's licencing them and are they professionally qualified? - but on reaching the part where you're invited to post intimate details, it says "Please share a bit about your experience, so we can help connect you to fellow parents who share your experience" with no further mention of other "advice and resources"

Before submission, it also requires members to "acknowledge that any personal data I disclose through the Parent’s Network interactive features may be viewed, collected, and used by others. It is held under strict privacy conditions by the Archewell Foundation and will never be sold or disclosed to outside entities"

So as so often with this website I'm none the wiser ... are professional advice and resources available or not, how do they define a "safe" network, and how does data being "used by others" match with "(it) will never be ... disclosed to outside entities"?

I never understood this spiel that H&M suggested ref MMs mental health issues and they couldn't get any help. Everything they say just doesn't add up, ever ... or is always someone else's fault - amazing how narrow their lens is

One royal having in patient treatment in a time where it would not be world wide news isn't exactly setting a precedent the lady in question is in her 90s it's a different world these days

But the RF still comprises the same people. I doubt that they thought of getting the Duchess of Kent treatment was a precedent, just something you arrange for a relative with a health problem. And I bet it was her husband, not HR or the Queen who was her first port of call.

But full marks for ingenuity in dismissing proof that the RF really doesn't have a problem with the optics of in-patient mental health care with a "well, it was all such a long time ago".

I worry that the Aspen organisation is funding them to let Archewell act as a depository for heartbreak stories that can then be used to swing public opinion towards censorship.

Oh that sounds horribly plausible @Rhaidimiddim

I hope not though - imagine how repulsive you'd have to be to use child suicide and these poor bereaved families in this way 🤮

No one knew who the Duchess of Kent was. It is very different from Meghan. Harry and Meghan left the Royal Family 5 years ago, and still they are constantly talked about here and on other forums. The level of interest is insane.

Everyone knew who the Duchess of Kent was. She presented the trophies at Wimbledon. She was very well known.

Of course the public knew who the Duchess of Kent was ! Her husband was still in the top 10 of the LOS when she was unwell . She was an extremely attractive , elegant person and her photos frequently graced newspapers and magazines.
You still haven’t said how you know the late Queen refused to let Meghan go into The Priory or somewhere similar .

The Duchess of Kent was huge in her heyday, the most glamorous of the married-in wives. She presented the women's prize at Wilmbedon for years, so was very high profile, and popular. We had unregulated tabloids then, too - you should look up sometime the libelous vitriol they poured on any woman Charles dated. (Although nothing they ever printed comes close to what Bouzy and the Sussex Squad aimed at William.)

(I assume you know who I am referring to when I use the term 'Sussex Squad.)

It’s only you who doesn’t know who the DOK is, just because you lack knowledge doesn’t mean “no one knew who the Duchess of Kent was”. Posters on here have told you repeatedly of her senior royal status yet you stick your fingers in your ears saying la la not listening because it doesn’t fit the narrative you are trying to pedal. Still waiting by the way for proof from you regarding that the Queen herself denied Meghan mental health care, if you could post a link to this proof that would be most interesting, looking forward to seeing confirmation of this.

If Harry & Meghan had stepped down and went to live their best life in the US I'm sure that everyone would have wished them well.

Instead they have constantly released a whole load of barbs, via interviews, books, their SM associates, towards the RF. Now, I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of the RF, but given that 7 out of 10 of the TOP ranked, fully democratic countries have constitutional monarchies - I'm all in favour of keeping the one in the UK, (and I wasn't born in the UK).

Where's the proof that the late Queen wouldn't allow Meghan to get residential care? I'm going to say that's highly improbable!

It must be so annoying for you that Senior members of the RF have had in patient mental health care, foiled again!

She really was not well known. I am older. She was one of those who stood on the balcony when there was masses of minor Royals. I have looked her up and she is married to the Grandson of George. There were 22 grandchildren. She is the equivalent of whoever marries Harry and Meghan's child. Very minor Royal. And now days there are only 5 grandchildren, back then there were 22.
She married Queen Elizabeth's cousin Edward.
Katharine, Duchess of Kent is one royal you may not have heard of. Married to Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent since 1961, the Duchess of Kent has kept a very low profile in recent years.

No idea! we are all waiting expectantly for @AvrielFinch to provide links confirming this.

@BigWillyLittleTodger sure, foiled again because you found a minor Royal that few have heard of. She was also the first to convert to Catholicism. Minor Royals get a lot of leeway.

You are making yourself look incredibly silly, I’m embarrassed for you.

@AvrielFinch - the only reason the 'level Of interest is insane' with H&M is because people click to see what idiotic thing they've don't next ... nothing to do with them being celebrated etc for anything