Ham pr disasters 64! …….Prince Charming…Prince Charming…..ridicule is nothing to be scared of ! …..

[jeffgoldblum]

A lack of humour and self reflection is not helping.

They could spin that RF are victimising Meg because of her father's sins?

Actually, I just found this, they were to make a joint 15 minute speech, which makes sense, usually keynote speakers get to speak longer than other speakers. So they cut Meghans speech and Harrys’ was reduced by around 2 minutes to match the other speakers slot.

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are in Brussels today on the invitation of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on Children’s Rights. The plan was for them to deliver a joint 15-minute speech on the importance of digital safety for children.”

I expected them to be stood down. They must have decided that on balance, they wanted the press coverage, which they have got, in spades.

Ah another piece of brilliant PR for Megs when shes out there protecting children.

The David Williams allegations that he targeted teenage girls and groomed them. guess which lawyer he used to threaten with litigation?

The guardian:

‘The letter was written by Jenny Afia, a renowned lawyer specialising in reputation management for the law firm Schillings. Afia is best known now for representing the Duchess of Sussex. She also acted for Walliams.* *Afia wrote to the young woman, who was 19 at the time: “You are at a significant risk of committing a serious civil offence should you disclose, to the press or any other third party, private information or purported private information concerning our client.”’

Will Megs continue to use this lawyer now?

The shame of her father's crimes indeed isn't hers.

Not alerting authorities herself, not actually following up on what was being done about the investigation into her dad, blaming someone and something else (H and the press) for the breakdown of her relationship with her dad - those behaviours are entirely on her, and I don't think there's any coming back from that.

What do they actually want social media companies to do? And how would this be achieved internationally?

It feels like they just take up 'issues' which allow them to say: I think this is a bad thing. It should stop. And I am a good person for thinking this obvious thought.

But it doesn't actually require them to do anything except pontificate.

It also seems quite unfortunate that they don't exactly have a great track record themselves on the causes they choose. E.g. Travalyst, while jetting around the world. E.g. online harm, while posting photos of their children on social media and potentially allowing child abuse to continue for 8 years.

Someone really needs to tell them that 'celebrities', which is what they are now, do not endear themselves to the public by lecturing them as if we require educating on the bloody obvious. I think Ricky Gervais has tried to tell celebs this, and those with any brains avoid this type of posturing. H&M, though, think they have a special role to educate us all.

Also, I personally feel very, very wary when there are discussions of child suicide, when it is being attributed to one cause and used in campaigns. One of the biggest risks with child self-harm is social contagion, and there is a very serious risk of linking online harm with a particular outcome. Or of giving it a special status, which is dangerous.

Further:

‘The legal letter demanded a written undertaking within 24 hours that the woman would not talk about her experience with Walliams. She had no representation and Sarah says she was shaken by the threat.
“If that was me, I’d have freaked out,” Sarah says. Looking back, she wonders if such action had a chilling effect on other women speaking out. “I think all this should have come out a long time ago.”

So Megs is surely going to step back from this firm, now it’s caught up in the David Williams allegations.

No idea.

But I’ve just watched a video of Emilio speaking from the Philippines about missing children (including those trafficked and abused) to Italy’s version of Childline.

It was a year ago, and I bet he wishes he’d been handed a crystal ball while over there.

In that weird clip I think she’s just posing for the camera, pretending to speak so she looks animated/involved.

I looked at that clip and thought - that is someone unravelling.

The RF must be quietly very pleased that HAM are so definitely outside the firm n0w. They can remain silent on the whole scandal and not have to have any association with MM again.

They didn't know it at the time, but in the long run that Oprah interview has been a Godsend, it means they have good clear reason to never let MM near the firm again and to keep the whole sordid mess well away from themselves.

And is now desperate for the same life for his own kids, having failed spectacularly on the outside. What an absolute worm of a man he is.

DH says the joke going around his department is that Andy Burnham has said he wants all homeless veterans off the streets for Christmas so we should thank Ian Wace for setting a good example . . . . .

Oh absolutely. Imagine if they let them back in the royal fold when they arrived back in UK ? They'd be slap bang in the middle of it

In the video and photos I've seen he seems to be barely looking at her. Meanwhile in his speech well ...

What is interesting is that Harry doesn't seem to be automatically deferring to her.

Usually, if she butts into a conversation, Harry backs off - but here she attempts it and Harry keeps talking to Emilio... even though Emilio has to lean way around her to continue the conversation with Harry.

Meghan starts looking looking around at the cameras and starts talking to give the illusion of inclusion - but nobody is playing today - not even Harry! He even looks away when she attempts to give him "the look"

It's all very awkward - clearly nobody wanted her there. I wonder if she was uninvited to speak and they hoped she'd stay home?

The body language looks like Harry is angry with her and that she has no idea what to do when her usual tactics don't work.

Where is your quotation from? "Keynote speech" sounds odd in this context. It was just addressing a parliamentary group on legislation that is being considered in relation to children and mobiles. It wasn't a conference or forum. Other interested "stakeholders" also spoke. Maybe Meghan was also going to give a separate speech, it's not clear. But Harry spoke for what seemed like a regular slot.

If none of the past few years had happened, they absolutely could. But they publicly left the RF, then publicly slagged them off to anyone who would pay listen.
If they'd left quietly and stayed quiet, they could have quietly returned.
Alas, they did not.

God this situation is horrendous. So bad. Everyone (media etc) needs to be careful with them. Especially with recent events concerning another particularly compulsive liar.

I read that completely wrong - thought William was being harassed and needed protection.😆

I don't think he's angry with her or not deferring to her. I think this was simply one of those moments of waiting around which required small talk and politeness and an attempt to express interest in what someone else is rabbiting on about and because Harry's been bred for that he was able to do it perfectly whereas Meghan has no idea what to do when she's not able to make herself the centre of attention and she has to be polite to strangers and do small talk.

The oddest part of M's eight-year silence is that concern for her father, her children and herself didn't spur her on to follow up with the Met. In her situation, you'd want to be able to say 'These were baseless allegations. How dreadful for my father. What a relief I am not the daughter of a child abuser. Thank goodness my children do not have to carry the burden of being the grandchildren of a child abuser.

You would also be fearful that you would be faced with the knowledge that your male parent was a paedophile, and have to make massive adjustments in how you viewed your childhood. That fear would also push you to check what the police were doing, because you would want to know either way.

Instead, she carried the knowledge of the accusation for six years then wrote him a letter assuming his guilt. Now that he has been charged is when she's upset. It makes no sense to me.

That is how it was reported last week in the outlets favoured by the Sussexes, until the revised story that Meghan would travel and not speak. The outlets that gave more detail explained that they would share the slot.

Here is one example
https://archive.is/ahcih
The Sussexes are set to give a keynote address in Brussels about the importance of meaningful action to protect children’s digital safety.

Here are some more pictures from Brussels.

She was building her brand then. Nothing was going to get in the way. The pair of them have absolutely no regard for anyone else