PR and the Palace; are the mists clearing?

[Whentherainsetin101]

For those of us interested in the PR aspects of how the institution of the monarchy presents itself to us, the unsuspecting public, and given that Charles Spencer’s book has prompted a re-examination of events which took place over twenty-nine years ago, I thought this might be a good time to examine what Andrew Lownie calls;

“that gap between the curated narrative and the reality”.

We now know lots of things that weren’t obvious thirty years ago, for example;

We know that BP sometimes issues statements that question the credibility of the “accuser” rather than addressing an accusation directly.

We know that the relationship between the press and the palace is largely self serving on both sides.

We know that the royal rota tow the line in exchange for access.

We know that certain tabloids favour certain royals eg Fergie and The Sun.

We know that BP leaks and briefs certain stories to deflect from other more damaging ones.

We know that BP uses “safe” public figures to broadcast their spin for them eg it used to be Nicolas Soames but now appears to be Rory Stewart.

We know that many things presented to us in one way are in reality very different, eg the late Queen Elizabeth’s marriage, AMW being “banished” to Sandringham.

Given all of the above, do you think the Palace are losing the PR battle, simply because people are now much more switched on about ‘spin’ and because they favour a much more authentic approach?

I’m certain that when JS was anywhere near Charles he would have been on his best behaviour

He licked Diana!

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1502727/Jimmy-Savile-licked-Princess-Diana-Prince-Charles-marriage

That is revolting! Part of me wants to say it was the 70s/80s and women like the KP secretaries were just expected to accept someone like JS running his lips up their arms (shudder).

But you look at the Cornell rape story and how they were protected by the establishment and the reactions of so many men online defending the rapists and attacking the victim and nothing has really changed.

Many men just either hate or don’t value women as actual people. Just something to be used.

I’m feeling very jaded at the moment.

Totally agree. It’s just as bad now, if not worse. Pelicot, Cornell. So depressing.

And people still willing to defend and cover up for Epstein and his associates.

Of course she was telling the truth there is no doubt in my mind he had sex with her it just wasn't illegal in the UK at the time

That's irrelevant in sex trafficking cases. You could be any age and usually vulnerable...poverty, addictions, past abuse
VG was recruited at 16 by Maxwell

That's irrelevant in sex trafficking cases.

Only after 2003, which is when the law changed to include trafficking aspects.

Jimmy Saville! , yes I remember what happened on here when he died…..thread after thread of condolences and thanks for his “charity “ work ….a couple of ( brave ) posters tried to highlight his bad behaviour and were rounded on ..called liars and disgusting for disrespecting the dead! …..then the truth started coming out …suddenly everyone knew he was dodgy…..talk about rewriting history!!! , if you don’t want to believe me , if you want to pretend that everyone knew….go back and look for yourselves!

Did Charles have no advisors? Was he not briefed? I find it impossible to believe that none of the team around him offered even the slightest word of warning. Particularly if you accept the Mumsnet Truism that every Royal Engagement takes hours of note reading…..

Totally agree, Jeff.

There's a lot of hindsight in people's recollections. I never liked him - but even so, I was surprised when the revelations came out. I suppose I expected that he might be concealing the fact that he was gay - which in the late 60s/early 70s was still considered newsworthy and slightly scandalous.

Most people considered him a lovable eccentric and gave him credit for his charity work.

Yes, some would have known what was going on and I think, of those, the most culpable were those at the BBC. I even remember him appearing on HIGNIFY where he practically admitted his behaviour. The exchange went like this

Ian Hislop (referring to Savile's camper van which he took everywhere) "But what do you do in it?"

Savile "Anyone I can get."

IH then looks disgusted. Make what you will of that.

JS is a special case - he was always sleazy and creepy. But many paedophiles are outwardly pleasant and 'normal' people. I imagine Peter Ball would have been like that, and the teacher I referred to above certainly was. Of course friends and colleagues would take some convincing of their guilt. Disbelief that your nice friend/colleague is actually a criminal sex-offender doesn't always equate to covering it up. These people live double lives and their friends and families don't necessarily see the ugly side of their character.

He raped a sex trafficked victims who was procured by a grooming gang.
Posting rape myths should be banned on MN.

@CoffeeCantata Peter Ball had already been convicted years before he became friends with Charles.

I agree. Yes, it's horrific but - newsflash, lots of men have sex with 17 year old girls. It's not illegal.

Proving (in court) that someone knew a girl had been trafficked would be very difficult - almost impossible. We can think what we like, but the law demands a very high standard of proof. Believe me, I sometimes wish it didn't!

I sometimes say things like 'But it's obvious X or Y did it!' and the 2 lawyers in my family give me a bollocking for thinking like that. Their view is that it's better for a guilty person to escape justice than for an innocent one to be wrongfully convicted. Well, yes, in principle, but that's just what we're all complaining about here - a guilty person may have escaped justice because of the rigour of the law and the fact that the onus of proof is on the prosecution.

Apparently every royal engagement takes loads of work with security considerations and vetting as well as detailed briefings.
But a convicted paedophile can be given a cottage on royal grounds to live in for years without any security vetting at all.

Yes.

I don't get it. Anyone who spends a lot of time (or indeed, a little) with the Royals undergoes extensive security vetting. However Savile was never subjected to these background checks.

Taken from google...
Because members of the Royal Family are private individuals as well as public figureheads, the state cannot force background checks on their personal choice of friends, romantic partners, or informal confidants. As long as a visitor does not pose an immediate physical or espionage threat, who a royal invites into their private quarters remains entirely at their own personal discretion.

Which, to me, means their personal discretion and judgement was off.

She was trafficked for sex by a grooming gangs.
I am under no illusions that prince Andrew will ever face court. But don't minimise what actually happened

The royal family just didn't care about the allegations against saville

Diana wrote that she found him creepy

Literally said it was horrific but again not illegal in the UK at the time of the offence you can take someone to court because your feelings were hurt you cant take them to court for a legal act that is now illegal as bad as he acted it was the norm for them (especially "randy andy") at that time thankfully times have changed

Posting rape myths should be banned.

As should accusing someone of rape when you have no evidence of that.

We are all in agreement that sex trafficked women are victims and that the ‘man’ involved is someone who is deeply unpleasant.

If you have any evidence that he knew that she was trafficked then spit it out because we would all like to see him (and the other slimy men who are waddling round scot free) try to explain that.

Until then? Saying it won’t get him to court more is the pity and just because we all think they are morally reprehensible, sadly that is not a crime.

I was utterly amazed when Saville’s crimes were revealed. As were many others-despite the 20:20 retrospective vision some people have. But none of us, as far as I know, had the extensive briefing and vetting notes that would have been available to the now King.

They may have been available but we have no idea if those notes were presented.

I suspect, like the rest of us, he was taken by surprise too.

If he wasn’t briefed and we didn’t know, then how is he supposed to know?

Why would he not have read his briefing?

Do you know he was given one?

I think this is a really important point.

I hope TVP are working hard as are all of their colleagues in other regional forces to bring justice to the victims.

According to Lownie, another victim has come forward and multiple police forces, including TVP, are examining allegations involving other women, but particularly a 2010 case where an accuser represented by lawyer Brad Edwards alleged she was trafficked to the former prince at Royal Lodge.

So the trafficking and sexual abuse investigation is expanding beyond the VG enquiry.

However, the Met dropped the investigation in to the email AMW sent to a Buckingham Palace press officer in 2011, the day before Giuffre's first newspaper interview was published, when he was trying to dig up some dirt on her, in which he said,

“I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX, the PPO on duty”.

And the policeman who spoke up about it has, according to Lownie, had his knuckles rapped and received a cease and desist letter from his bosses, even though some argued that that request from AMW amounted to the criminal offense of misconduct in public office.

So it looks like the overall investigation is being hindered. Other PPOs have received letters reminding them of the terms of their pensions if they speak up.

It’s all very murky.

some argued that that request from AMW amounted to the criminal offense of misconduct in public office

Were these people lawyers? If so, can you link to the arguments?

Misconduct in public office is notoriously a difficult offence on which to gain a conviction, which is why the CPS advises to use other statute first where possible.

I linked to the CPS guidance on the requirements upthread, and would struggle to see how an email request, easily ignored or refused, could warrant any consideration under that guidance.