Ham pr disasters 57! ….continuing the confusion and controversy….

[jeffgoldblum]

Once more into the breach dear friends!!

I meant Vera99.

It’s like old home days! I wish everyone would just go back to their old names. It’s too hard to keep up.

Exactly & she said herself she was the one who recieved it & trusted an investigation was taking place.
This has nothing to do with the palace & they are under no onus to respond.

And they bizarrely received a humanitarian of the year award 🙄

Hmmm ~ when you look at the list of awards Donald Trump has been given, I think it shows that some of them are not worth the tinfoil they're printed on

And also.. they weren't witches.. they were just women who spoke out.

I always find it interesting that people concentrate on the women that were tortured and killed. But no one ever talks about the men doing it - and 'why' they were doing it, really. But anyway another derail!

And, as for doing it in private when everything else was done very publicly, that isn't really commensurate with the damage done to peoples' reputations.

Full-page ad in The Times.

You have no proof to claim that it was sent to solely to MM - the Met said it was sent to the Office of Harry & Meghan. I am asking, not claiming nor assuming other royal officials may have seen the letter.

It wasn’t a personal correspondence sent to MM it was sent to directly to LE - I doubt it was sent on to MM as a private note from her DF ex wife of 44 years - it was considered a sufficient security issue by the Met to involve the Office of H&M. In any other workplace if police became aware of a security issue to an employee in a company I would imagine they would alert others in that company to be informed about the threat to their employee. All I am asking is what did royal officials know and do on receipt of this information. Declining to comment looks shady to me.

They tended to be the poor, the marginalised, the eccentric and the ones who otherwise stood out - mentally ill or physically disabled. There's a good book about Matthew Hopkins that goes into the social background behind witch hunting in the 17c in England.

I agree BP owe MM nothing now but as any institution be it a school, scout camp, workplace when an allegation of such serious nature lands on your desk you have an obligation to deal with it as per your in-house policies or any other legal or best practice requirements.

It’s not clear if her spouse knew about this particular landing on a desk. Let alone her in-laws.

We know why the men did it to be fair! , same old story, different times , same shite!

We've been through this before, haven't we? Not going to go over it again with you.

Meghan was an absolute idiot to make any mention of this letter. She has drawn herself into a media storm when there was no need to do so. That's on her. That's her problem. BP are not going to get pulled into this tawdry affair because of someone who hasn't been their responsibility for several years, nor should they. The only person who seems to think they should is you.

Meghan said she recieved the letter not her office, it was in a personal capacity about her father ,a US citizen. It has absolutely nothing to do with the palace..
Meghan had this knowledge for years, the buck stops with her.

Well, Vera, Andy and Val, I think you have to shoulder a bit of that blame yourself, er yourselves... I must say, you do sound like a Blue Peter team from the 1970s!!!

I mean, why try to deceive people? It doesn't help your argument - it sort of makes it look as though you don't trust your own argument to be any good.

It's like voting fraud....not very democratic.

Tut tut, indeed.😁

One last time! , Meghan herself said they shared it with her personally! ….are you calling her a liar? ….why don’t you believe her this time?

And if they can't provide "accurate facts" because they know nothing? The kindest thing to do in that case would be to say "no comment" rather than throw MM under a bus with a statement that she never mentioned it to us.

The RF, with it's "no comment", is indicating clearly that they are not in the slightest bit interested in this matter, and have no intention of getting embroiled in MM's latest toxic mess.

Meghan doesn’t comment on Harry’s mess and Harry doesn’t comment on Meghan’s mess - at least as far as the past year or so has shown. So I’m not surprised to see no comment from Him at this time.

Forgot the 🦢 but that’s about as much cross over as I’ve seen 🙈

Susannah lipscombe has written some great books on this but her tv documentary “ witches a century of murder “ ..was excellent ( not for the faint hearted!) , I can’t praise it enough!

if police became aware of a security issue to an employee in a company I would imagine they would alert others in that company to be informed about the threat to their employee.

Well first, you're assuming they did. To prove that you have to find the employee/s who were alerted. Then those employees have to be asked if they remember it, and after seven years, that's a bit of a feat of memory. What if they don't remember?

All I am asking is what did royal officials know and do on receipt of this information.

You can ask all you like, that doesn't mean you're entitled to an answer

Declining to comment looks shady to me.

So what? in what way does it look shady? you are making one heck of a list of assumptions on the say so of someone who wouldn't recognise the truth if it tripped her up.

The letter doesn't even say anything specific or contain any indication of criminal activity. It just claims Thomas Markle said something in what appears to be an argument with his ex-wife.

The real question for me is why didn't Meghan confront her father and ask him if there is any basis for this claim. Instead, she simply cut him off, just like that, on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim by his angry ex-wife.

I think the swan thing was her wanting to be seen as the second Diana. So not directly supporting the book iyswim

Ironically a swan song is believed to be someone's last act; their last piece of work or performance.

Very apt for earl Spencer then!

I think it is for CS.

I went to Waitrose at lunchtime. God those newspaper headlines are brutal.