Come in Royal Rota – Your Time is Up

Come In Royal Rota – Your Time is Up

SGUK Episode 81

Introduction

In order to give context as to how and why some people in powerful positions thought it would be a good idea to have a large group of people who solely reported on the UK Royal Family and no one else, this podcast explore the main reasons why the UK and USA have tabloids but how and why the UK decided to go to extremes in order to get a story and sometimes according to one professional, be prepared to “violate laws”. All of these people, officially referred to as journalists, work for a tabloid newspaper, and between the group chosen by Editors of said tabloids, but the British Royal Family having the final say so, as to whether or not they are considered the type of people who will fit in with the Royal Family, gives you some idea of the type of coverage required/preferred by the Monarch in post. This group of privileged journalists, only work with the privileged UK Royal Family and as we have come to realise over the years, this favoured group of journalists, also liaise with senior Royal staff, and also various members of staff of varying rank, and have a very close relationship with Royal Human Resources. The non negotiable aspect of privacy and privacy relating to health records or an other personnel type of record, which legally cannot be discussed with anyone outside of Human Resources departments anywhere, is a rule that has also come to light that is not adhered to in the Uk Monarchy. No one actually knows if any of the staff in Human Resources, are actually qualified in various stages of professional qualifications up to and including Full Chartership status. It could be similar to IPSO (we will come onto that organisation shortly), in that in view of the number of breaches in aspect of Human Resources rules and regulations and standards which must be kept to avoid sanctions of one type of another; it is clear that Royal HR turn a blind eye to a number of practices, and ways of doing things, and like other professional bodies on various topics, when it comes to UK Monarchy, all of them turn their backs on statutory functions, and basically give the impression ‘nothing to see here’.

With that information as a backdrop to a nation’s media entities operating and navigating their way through employers responsibilities and legislation, that is questionable, and vague on certain areas, we then have another layer of dysfunctionality in what many if not most of you all have heard described as the Royal Rota, where is there no depth to which they will not sink, or destroy their victims in the search for a story that will bring in the coins, no matter whether it is truth or fiction, income generation is the guiding force in most cases.

Any victim who dares to stand their ground and point out the error in the way of reporting on them for clicks and giggles, will be hunted down like prey. The aim is to destroy them psychologically, to the point that that the individual will practically raise a white flag, and will begin to play the game, and allow the UK media to write articles of pure fiction, with a hint of salaciouness included, in order to get the viewing/listening figures increase, which leads to more advertising revenue and so the viscious circle begins. If any of those people who refuse to play the game are women, their treatment is far worse than what has ever been handed out to men. The crowing glory of the UK tabloids is crystal clear when it comes to anyone daring to say enough is enough, and if those that refuse to play the game are black women, the evidence is there in abundance of how cruel and vindictive and obsessive they are invested in destroying their target completely. These are not women they want to comply, these are women who in the eyes of the tabloids, are not even worthy or valuable as human beings. People have lost their life, or come close to doing so, by tabloid publications intent on destroying them beyond breaking their spirit. There must be some kind of sick pleasure gained from the desired outcome occurring at the tail end of series of behaviours around those women, and the gaslighting that has gone on daily for months and years in some case, with the full aim to destroy them completely. A bit like pay back for daring to say No, I don’t have to put up with this, and I will remaining standing tall, whatever you throw at me, because I know what I saw and heard, and I will not back down in order to make you all feel happy with your win and your increased income, and the knowledge that there are people out there who came dangerously close to having to dance to the tabloid tune, but hung on and eventually were successful. The evidence is there, I am not using rhetoric to make it sound interesting. These things have happened, and these things are continuing to happen.

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex is treated like less than, any other life form out there, and the venom is on display every day. Meghan knows her worth, and despite everything that the Uk media threw and continues to throw at this couple, they were hurt but not broken, and now they free from the day to day headlines and hate inciting articles, Meghan stands tall, despite what has been thrown her way. The Royal Rota have openly said that the Sussexes would be made to suffer for stepping back from Royal duties, and now have the freedom to choose who they want to report on them and in what publication, without journalists wanting to invade private space that was never on offer, at the start of the conversations each day. Meghan being a bi racial and the first woman of colour that media recognises as such, has made the ire rise even more. How dare a person who came from a humble background, not be pleased to be able to walk the corridors of the BRF, and how disrespectful that she would not accept the abuse we rained on her every day, and the Royal Rota declared in their articles that they would now be at war with The Sussexes from now on, and to compound their arrogance, they stated in their press, that the Sussexes deserved all the “abuse” that they are receiving. We will come back to that word, as it is important in terms of the Golden Threads running through the book Spare, and it is another aspect of Human Rights legislation that the UK Media arm is breaking most days. In one interview with Royal Rota individuals, one then QC (now KC) commented on social media of the daily undertones of racism in the articles published by tabloids in the UK. One reporter responded by saying “yes there are undertones of racism, but undertones are not against the law”. I beg to differ, not least because of the duration of the treatment to date, which is 6 years and counting. So, they might feel emboldened to say such things in the UK, with impunity, but I believe that they will be in for a surprise in the future.

Meghan was a California Princess before she met Harry, and became a Uk Cinderella by her treatment by the Royal Family and their staff, but she left with her husband Prince Harry, and became a Global Princess due to her projects as well as joint projects with Prince Harry. It is crystal clear by those 3 developments, which one is out of sync, and why.

Journalism Ethics and Standards

There is more information and detail of the theory of ethics and standards in journalism in the reference sources below. There are plenty of reference links on the Web in relation to this area, but it seems to me, that there is so much effort to state that standards and ethics exist within this industry, yet it is most definitely not adhered to rigidly and the regulator of the industry is in name only. The travesties and tragedies that have occurred in the UK with links to UK journalistic publications, is there hidden away on the internet, but it is there. As for the Royal Rota they are the sediment of journalism, and if truth be known they are not journalists, more like gossip monger s for revenue. The ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement with the British Royal Family (which used to be an invisible contract/agreement, is now beyond an open secret; it is no longer secret) takes away what remnants of credibility the odd one or two had. No more. So, here you go, the theory of what Journalists follow, including here in the UK.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

Seek Truth and Report It
Minimize Harm
Act Independently
Be Accountable and Transparent

Journalism, Ethics and Standards

Journalism ethics and standards are principles of good practice.
Professional journalism associations, individual news organizations, and journalists themselves often have their own “code of ethics”; however, most share these basic principles: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.
Many journalists also abide by the principle of “limitation of harm” which means that they have a responsibility to not harm others while reporting a story. This is one major difference between professional journalists reporting for “reputable” news organizations as opposed to fringe news sources and fake news creators.
When evaluating a news organization, read its statement or code of ethics. What does it tell you if the organization does not publish its’ ethics for all to access?
Simply use your favorite search engine to search for the name of a news source and ethics.

Journalism Code

The code of conduct has set out the main principles of UK and Irish journalism since 1936. The code is part of the rules of the union.

The code’s purpose is to advise members, and other journalists, on how to carry out their work ethically. It has been used by journalists over the decades to challenge unethical instructions and produce content that is “honestly conveyed, accurate and fair”.

A Journalist:-

At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
Differentiates between fact and opinion.
Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
Avoids plagiarism.

The Editors’ Code

The Editors’ Code of Practice sets out the rules that newspapers and magazines regulated by IPSO have agreed to follow.
The Code is written and administered by the Editors’ Code Committee and enforced by IPSO.
The latest version of the Editors’ Code of Practice came into effect on 1 January 2021. Find a full PDF of the 2021 Code in a link in the reference source list.

The Code – including this preamble and the public interest exceptions below – sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press subscribing to the Independent Press Standards Organisation have undertaken to maintain. It is the cornerstone of the system of voluntary self-regulation to which they have made a binding contractual commitment. It balances both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know.

Clause 1 – Accuracy
Clause 2 – Privacy
Clause 3 – Harassment
Clause 4 – Intrusion into Grief or Shock
Clause 5 – Reporting Suicide
Clause 6 – Children
Clause 7 – Children in Sex Cases
Clause 8 – Hospitals
Clause 9 – Reporting of Crime
Clause 10 -Clandestine devices and subterfuge
Clause 11 – Victims of Sexual Assault
Clause 12 – Discrimination
Clause 13 – Financial journalism
Clause 14 – Confidential sources
Clause 15 – Witness Payments to criminal trials
Clause 16 – Payment to criminals
The Public Interest

Do Britains Strict Press Laws Actually Encourage Bad Behaviour?

I came across this article whilst researching for this podcast. As you have all probably gathered I have zero faith in any newspaper in the UK now. The last 6 years ensured that I did not even want to see any quotes from UK tabloids coming across my social media platforms. I stopped reading UK papers long before that, but it finally got to the stage since the Brexit result, that I did not even want to see any reference to any of those publications that got into the heads of enough of the population to get the desired outcome of the newspaper barons. Since 2016 the coverage has been toxic and bears no relation, not even a nod, to the codes mentioned above.

The heading of the article caught my eyes, not least because there were a few question marks on some of the words used in the question itself. I have listed the reference source, so that anyone who wishes to know what this article was all about, can take a look and see what the writer had to say.

The article was written in July 2011. Here is a short extract from it.

“And just like that, the News of the World is gone. Never mind that Rupert Murdoch’s racy tabloid was the best-selling and most profitable weekly in Britain, with a circulation of some 2.6 million. After the paper was caught hacking—repeatedly, and flagrantly—into the phones of everyone from the royals to a child murder victim, and once advertisers started fleeing en masse, a death sentence was the only option left.

The NOTW meltdown has led to lots of focus on the bizarre, hyper-aggressive world of Britain’s red-top tabloids—and, for that matter, Britain’s broadsheets, which often aren’t all that better behaved. While NOTW may have been particularly egregious, odds are decent other papers could have scandals lurking. (As Nick Davies, who broke open the phone-hacking story, noted in his 2009 book Flat-Earth News, more than a dozen British papers have hired private investigators to suss out confidential personal info, often through legally dubious means.) But even setting aside potential lawbreaking, many of Britain’s papers were famous for their reckless pursuit of stories at any cost, their thin regard for accuracy, their adventures in outright libel. No wonder American journalists have been feeling awfully smug this week”.

Press Regulation and Why We Are Unimpressed by IPSO

The following quote is from a report from The Transparency Project Ref listed below.

It is just one example, but it is good to include it in this podcast, because all the information I have mentioned in this podcast, relates to the environment in which the Royal Rota (who have even more freedom condoned by the British Royal Family in order to publish articles as per the agreement of the Royal Reporter with their respective Royal.

So, if you think the tabloids play fast and loose with rules and regulations, then you should probably consider the activities of Royal Reporters and the propaganda that they put out as part of the role, and the freedom or the turning of a blind eye to much of their methods used to write a story, which may or may not be fiction.

In doing so, ie operating this way, and a Regulator who appears to be more focussed on complaints (whilst ensuring that the publications concerned appear to be safe from any major sanctions) than being an actual Regulator, leaves several doors open for questionable activity, questionable reporting, and questionable accountability. It all seems very cosy as arrangements go. Here is an extract from one report by the Transparency Project:-

“There are many things wrong with the way the national press reports legal matters, especially matters relating to the Family Court and the Court of Protection. But they are not going to get better unless and until the so-called regulator, IPSO, takes firmer action to enforce the Editors Code of Practice.

Better still, we should have a genuinely independent and proactive regulator, capable of upholding higher standards of conduct and enforcing them when they are breached. But IPSO is very far from being that.

Following a disappointing response to a recent complaint to IPSO by a group of individual lawyers (including two of our trustees), we decided to examine it in more detail.”

More information on this particular case referred to is included in the reference source.

Failures of IPSO are a Threat to Democracy

As George Monbiot observes, the Independent Press Standards Organisation is “not fit for purpose”, and its complaints process “seems designed to deter” (Why do I have to break an embargo in order to expose press lies about Labour?, 10 December). Based on blueprints drawn up by two Conservative peers, overseen by a secretive committee of newspaper executives, and tasked with enforcing a code written by newspaper editors, the Ipso system is ineffective and riddled with pro-industry biases.

While we at Hacked Off work mostly with individuals who have been personally affected by newspaper misconduct, Monbiot’s article highlights how the absence of independent and effective newspaper regulation in the UK can have wider societal effects, in particular on “the course of our politics”.

Introducing the Leveson system of independent self-regulation is critical to restoring trust in the press and protecting the integrity of our democracy, and should be a priority for any incoming government.

Royal Rota and Royal Rota Obligations

This quote is from one of the best people to explain how the Royal Rota really work. That person is Prince Harry, from the Netflix documentary “Harry and Meghan”. The article is by a publication called Bustle. Reference at the end of the article.

For the last 40 years, the royal family has collaborated with something called the Royal Rota: an exclusive group of UK print newspapers who get first dibs on leading any media coverage of the royal family. Due to a number of different practical circumstances, such as security and space restrictions, it just isn’t possible for every single media publication to accompany members of the royal family on their visits and engagements. And so, instead, this small group of newspapers take it in turns to cover events, and share any photographs or content across the whole rota in return.

According to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website, the following UK newspapers make up the exclusive group of outlets who take turns covering royal events: The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Sun.

“If you’re part of the Royal Rota, you have priority over the story, over everybody else,” Prince Harry says in the third episode of the series. “All royal news goes through the filter of all the newspapers within the Royal Rota most of which, apart from The Telegraph, happen to be tabloids. It all comes down to control. It’s like, ‘This family is ours to exploit. Their trauma is our story and our narrative to control.’”

Similarly, the Duke is also sceptical about so-called royal experts and royal correspondents, who often lead coverage of his family. “A royal correspondent is a title, I suppose, that is given to a select group of journalists so that those newspapers can use them and their stories with ‘Royal Correspondent’ as credible fact… anyone can be a royal expert,” he claims in Episode 3. “The whole point of it is to lend legitimacy to media articles, and they get paid for it. That press pack of Royal Correspondents is essentially just an extended PR arm of the royal family. It’s an agreement that’s been there for over 30 years.”

Back in 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced that they would no longer be participating in the Royal Rota as part of their new media policy, and would be “adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work.” Since then, the couple have focused on partnering with grassroots media organisations and specialist media instead.

You can see why the Royal Rota have been treated in a similar way to Royal Children who are deemed important, and therefore indulged and spoilt. Well is they are white they are spoilt. The 3 people in the Royal Family who are people of colour, are barely acknowledged and definitely were and still are regarded like modern day slaves. Well the family who looked down their noses at the Sussex family, are eating crow now (IYKYK).

The Royal Rota and their dust wipes otherwise known as Royal Experts feel emboldened to do and say what they like within reason in their publications, and they go in front of cameras and tell bare face lies on too many occasions. I think, and this is a personal view, regardless of who their nominated Royal person is that each Royal Reporter liaises with the most, the fact remains that any Uk Monarch is above the law of the land, and when as is the current case, the Monarch and his wife, work hand in hand with the Royal Rota, and a host of celebrities who have been awarded a few medals by the said family, and who all, including the RR attend gatherings with Monarch and his wife, to name but two, members of the family. All manner of food and drinks and pleasantries no doubt take place, and if the preverbial ever hits the fan in subsequent articles, apart from the fact no one is going to admit what was discussed over a simple lunch or two etc., but the backdrop to this, is that when you have the reigning Monarch and/or wife there anyway, one is covered. Notice how none of the famous folk who attended, who most have come out and stated something publicly about who is in favour in their eyes, and who is absolutely lovely etc., tells sane people all they need to know. Rest assured, if any of them get into hot water over what they have written or said publicly, I guarantee no regulator will punish them in any way that impacts their livelihood. They media will play the game that they are reporting on misdeeds, and they know how to word these things, as most days they need to write their own articles in this safe but shady style. In summary they are all covered by the Royal Umbrella of privilege – for now. People cannot go around abusing people from another country, simply because one is Royal, or has Royal friends. Not every nation reveres Royalty, and International Law does not hold a safe space for such groups. That is also my personal opinion with my non legal mind, and I stand by it.

One nation paying for a a handful members of a privileged family, to spend every waking hour trying to destroy one member of the Royal family and his wife and children, purely because they chose to leave home and and buy a property of their own, and secure employment and be self funded as opposed the UK taxpayers providing all their basic needs. They left home to ensure that that their mental health was not further eroded by the behaviour and antics that were considered the norm in that environment behind the locked gilded gates. They left because the pregnant person of colour was treated like something under their Royal shoes, and appeared to be on a mission to have a 2^nd Diana incident, including the ending of an unborn child. The couple left because the Royal Rota baited the UK public to join in with the daily mantra, that they should leave the Uk if they did not like things here. To their utter shock, the couple and their child did indeed leave the plantation and they also left the country, and within 3 months of doing so, paid back all the fictional costs incurred at their rental that they never owned anyway. No matter I digress. The couple left as they had not further need to eat unseasoned bland food, with people who had staff run their hot water for washing etc., and even went as far as putting toothpaste on their toothbrushes, but it seems no one was taught how to use a toothbrush, even though it was probably the most ecxpensive toothbrush and paste known to man. Now the Sussex family look sun kissed, healthy and happy, and all their teeth look clean and sparkling, which is rather handy as they smile every day now, out of sheer love and bliss. When you eat seasoned food, and surround yourself with genuinely good and kind people who wish you no harm, and who also like seasoned food, and who have sparking teeth, and look alive, it is simply amazing what a change of scene can do for one.

Throughout all sections of the book entitled Spare, The BRF and the RR feature like poison arrows weaving their way through every chapter, with the intent on causing disarray and harm to health of the targeted victims. However, you know what? UK taxpayers are not going to continue to fund your vanity projects or fund your mission to destroy. Your poison arrows will return to you all one by one, containing the poison and the stress that certain groups were planning for. All will return to sender. Any monarchy which requires its own propaganda crew, who are notionally employed by newspapers, but in this case, the UK has a monarchy who relies on tabloids. Oh my word, how low the mighty have fallen. Tabloids owned by less than a handful of owners, who have a political stance that they wish to see, as it suits them in non Uk homes, and in doing so, impact on the political climate in the UK – you know the one that the BRF never get involved with. The time is fast running out. The Royal Rota and dust wipes and the Royals are about to go through some things over the next few years, and it will all be self inflicted.

No child or vulnerable adult should have to choose between heat or food, and the nonsense that has come out lately that a person can live on 30p a day, is an insult to some of those who currently support Royals, but that is changing day by day, as the standard of living falls in a country that was once doing ‘ok’ but now is a laughing stock to most of the globe, and only the deluded or the indoctrinated believe otherwise. The light bulb moment will come. The majority of us, wont have to do anything, but continue to watch the self inflicted damage and own goals you are doing to your 1000+ year old institution. By the way, I am sure that the First Duke of Sussex would be more than proud of the 2^nd Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the history books will record how the same actions taken against two grandchildren of the King who he did not like, is being done in this reign in 2023. Be assured that published works by Squad will document the similarities in so many ways. We don’t have to rely on Royal Rota and the myriad of Royal authors to write their fairy tales, because Squad will ensure the history books will document the back stories and how those two grandchildren will be globally known and respected, way beyond the unseasoned crew on Shutter island.

Ivy

120223

Reference Sources

https://www.rd.com/list/why-british-tabloids-are-more-extreme-than-americas/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/30/tabloids-british-phone-hacking

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/aug/20/mondaymediasection.business

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/us-tabloids-less-aggressive-british-experts-194517133.html

https://www.anewseducation.com/post/the-uk-media-explained/

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tabloid

https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-89;jsessionid=D49DEDDFFA5C8E6BFB22EE22571B1EDE

https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/2032/ecop-2021-ipso-version-pdf.pdf

https://newrepublic.com/article/91590/news-of-the-world-murdoch-daily-mail-libel