Ham pr disasters 60! ….they are mysterious and murky….mendacious and moany …..the markle family ….

[jeffgoldblum]

Well apparently this story isn’t going anywhere!

How can it be a nothing burger when there are now literally shed loads if CSA material subsequently uncovered in at least two countries which if the LE had the opportunity to investigate at the that time further children would not have been sexually violated and criminal prosecution could have been been instigated.

PR wise definitely there was no need to say anything whatsoever. Even a simple statement to say it was a private family matter. There was no need whatsoever for her to elaborate & then implicate herself in her pursuit of a gotcha over her critics.

I totally get the emotional upset but she is married to the King's son with an unimaginable amount of wealth & resources at her disposal.
She said she was "assured" investigations were taking place.
Who exactly was assuring her?
And how could she still be "assured" years later?

I think her past record for untruthfulness will be an issue.

Not quite.

The IOPC has not yet carried out any investigation. It has accepted a voluntary referral, and decided that in this case an independent investigation is the most appropriate of their several options:

Following a voluntary conduct referral from the Met Police, we have decided an independent investigation is required into its failure to pass on allegations of serious offending, contained in a letter it received in 2019, to relevant overseas authorities at the time.

We have decided that a further conduct matter – relating to an alleged data breach where information was passed on to a third party – should be returned to the force to be appropriately dealt with including via its data breach policies if required.

Surely that would be a job for LE in the appropriate jurisdictions as part of any investigations IF they had been given the opportunity to do so by the Met police.

It would be highly inappropriate for MM to involve herself with hostile siblings who were at that time (and one still is) highly defensive of the alleged perpetrator TMs. This could have compromised any evidence and investigation - this may have given him the opportunity to clear his sheds and hard drive - same as when MM stepped in in 2025 with her letter to him telling him she knew - that was a terrible mistake IMO - especially as it was self serving to her own PR at the time and not the needs of any victims.

I don’t rate CD&Ns highly in terms of credibility.

But it had occurred to me that as onerous as it would be to convict, it is equally onerous to exonerate.

Depending on how advanced the dementia is or isn’t, somebody deemed to have capacity can simply refuse to take medication that is essential to maintain their status as living for more than just a short time.

I was in a more fortunate situation in the sense that I was entirely sure the allegations presented to me about my relative were false. I still spent the rest of the relative’s natural life altering the shape of my life, to ensure the allegations would never reach their ears. In part because I feared their instinct for retribution for the creation of the accusation. In part because I feared they would feel The Stain was indelible and there was only one way not to live with it. Or both fears could come to pass, one after the other.

So even if #9 isn’t from a reliable source, it doesn’t take the item off the table as a reasonable concern.

So could it be that this wasn’t actually a lapse in memory but was a deliberate attempt to imply that the letter could have been seen by the Cambridges

Overall there's starting to be an assumption that every piece of paper that came into their offices was seen by the Cambridges. It's like saying that every piece of paper that came into the accounts dept where I worked was seen by the CFO (which of course it wasn't). And I can't imagine MM saw that letter (whatever it said) and went running to the Cambridges to show them.

Apologies if that's been pointed out, just catching up.

If (and I say if because we don't have all the information) there was nothing more substantial in the letter than what The Sun has already disclosed, that would not form credible information which could be passed on to an international police force.

It was a recollection of a single conversation by a deceased person, in which the accused person denied criminal activity and mentioned other activity which was not illegal.

I’m sorry you had to carry that burden @MindThePause. These allegations are so hideous that they leave a stain even when completely unfounded.

Can I ask people what they mean by saying that earlier action would have prevented children from being abused? As I understand it the allegations are about internet material, not actual direct abuse by TM of children. Is there more to this I haven’t seen? (I admit I’m not following that closely)

But the IOPC yesterday announced that following their review the Met were obligated to pass that letter on at the time - and the Met are doing that now. The IOPC have also requested a further independent investigation as to WHY the Met failed in their obligations which required them to pass that letter on to appropriate LE overseas.

The DM and the Sun have got their hands on the evidence and are potentially compromising the evidence.

This is what I find incomprehensible. From all accounts the Mail at least is lawyered up to the wazoo before they break major stories. Surely someone in the legal office told them they're tampering with evidence and prejudicing police investigations?

The children in those images / videos / live streams are being sexually violated on demand. There was also at least one image which identified TMs within it allegedly raping a child.

You have very valid points but if MM or whoever was assuring her in her statements had contacted the siblings to let them know or even enquire if thay had also recieved a similar letter from their mother.
Either way it's an absolute Pr disaster.

I'd like to know who exactly was assuring her. How much assurance she got over the years & did she regularly ask for updates on the investigation?

Her 2025 letter seems to point at direct abuse.

Well, if for instance, the letter did not mention that there were shed loads of CSA material in at least two countries (TM’s wife whom he had divorced more than 40 years earlier might not know about that), but instead made vague claims that were unsubstantiated and did not relate to illegal activity.

Absolutely spot on, @Mondommountain - she has holed HaM below the waterline with her pomposity.

There’s even a thread of some desperation now on here (‘when did the rf know what and when’) giving chapter and verse on the script the sussex squad are trying to use to counter Meg’s massive PR cock-up. The trouble for the squad is, they can’t bully the IOPC into a specific position and they can’t force the outcome they want. It’s a waiting game now, and meanwhile HaM could well continue to make their pompous mistakes while the professionals do their jobs.

Fancy, the squad having to play whack-a-mole for their hapless principals as the pantomime season approaches.

They are quite the mental gymnasts 🤸‍♂️
Interested to see the spin if it turns out the RF knew nothing about it and/or Meghan asked the Met not to do anything.

Thank you. I didn’t realise there were livestreams or on demand images involved. I assumed stock material previously created. Still unspeakably grim but naively I imagined historic.

I put it down a couple of years ago. So I’m free.
I kept therapists away from me like they were plague carriers, which was probably the right instinct. Had coaching more recently, and it was amazingly effective with release in very short order.

If I had any connection to HAM I’d drag them to my coach and with a bit of luck and effort to engage on their parts their personal landscape could be less barren and rocky.

Mind you, the coach is good, but not equipped with a magic wand. And I’m not sure they haven’t painted themselves into an emotional corner that they feel entitled to stay in, come hell or high water.

No, it's the Times and the Sun that are News International titles - the Telegraph is owned by a German company, Axel Springer. So M is spreading the net widely.

But then she would have revealed that she knew about the allegations, think how exposed that would have left her to two people who hate her and would do anything to bring her down.

I get that she didn’t want to open that channel, I just don’t understand how she thought she could keep this contained. It should have gone straight to the top, so that the full BP machinery could engage.

What doesn't make sense to me is the 2025 letter that Meghan sent to TM in hospital that was videoed .
In the letter Meghan says "I know you abuse young girls ".. had investigators come back to her to confirm this?
How did she know & what was she doing to stop it? It makes no sense.

The books, maybe, although not illegal to own per se.

As regards CSA, not necessarily any evidence of that, is there. Some photos of young- looking females are not necessarily proof of CSA. And the Met probably just told M that they would "look into it" which has been interpreted as "investigate". They probably "looked into it" and decided it was just the hearsay ramblings of a drunken embittered ex-wife trying to stir up trouble. I think the main reason for any IOPC investigation is that they allegedly passed the letter to M at all. And she presumably said "can I keep this?"

As if… MM wanted the whole thing to go away! Can you imagine this story at the time?