By Admin Comment Closed

SGUK Ep 147

Move Invictus Games 2027

 

The Invictus games started in 2014. founded by Prince Harry. A few members of BRF attended the 2014 event but none since. Harry has always been referred to as the Spare by his families and staunch Royalists. Never seen by them as a human being with aspirations and a hope that he would find love one day.  The family only show interest in the Monarch and the next in line to the throne.  Whilst always focussing on being The Firm, they forgot about the importance of family.  Even as the Firm, it was never a successful business entity, it was just taken for granted that the taxpayer would always ensure that it continued to exist.  That is how BRF function. The fact it is claimed a huge success is a bone of contention.

Childish petulant actions by the BRF. when Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal duties, and moved to Canada initially, Prince Charles removed their security without notice and gave the exact location of the property they were renting to Uk media and wider media and also removed all funding – showed the underbelly of this entity. Within hours the family were surrounded by paparazzi. Veterans were an afterthought to the BRF, their focus was on ensuring that The Sussexes never succeeded outside the confines of the BRF.  Veterans and the respect and care that should have been shown automatically, was not even at the bottom of the Monarchy list of priorities.  The self centred behaviour by the Royal family was increasing the chances of its ultimate failure.

The Invictus Games has gone from strength. Increasing numbers of veterans from increasing numbers of countries taking part each time the Games come around. The games were set up to help veterans heal and to find purpose again following the serious physical and psychological damage and disruption to the order of things that they all understood and lived by throughout their military life. What kind of monarchy ignores its own veterans because the person who founded it has made it an international success, and is not high in the Line of Succession. What kind of family does that?  What kind of message does it send to UK veterans who fought in wars to protect the UK? What kind of message does it send to veterans everywhere?  The BRF stripped Harry of all his military awards and accolades simply because he chose to protect his wife and family from death threats and for the protection of their mental health. Harry served in the army for 10 years. All the BRF love to play dress up and wear fake medals but yet remove all military organisations from his patron role. Family pettiness aside, diplomatically what a poor look internationally.

What does it look like when this is how the UK treats its veterans? Where are the official requirements of this figurehead Head of State? ie the King. The latest slight on the Games is one UK media outlet purchased the right to televise the Invictus games currently taking place in Canada. The BBC (who usually secure the contract and always provided coverage, all day, every day, was outbid this time. ITV was successful. It has transpired that ITV show 45 mins of highlights each day on none of its main channels and no advertising done (printed or otherwise) to inform people of the channel and the time for the golden 45 mins of highlights from a whole day of events. Nowhere near the full coverage as was secured similar to other international media organisations outside of the UK.  Family and friends and taxpayers who are required to pay funds to keep the UK BRF in existence, had no opportunity (if they so wished), to see Veterans competing and their mental and physical health nourished by the experience of being part of this global family. There has been a total silence in the UK. No Uk newspapers have commented on it, and after much consternation by UK residents, ITV managed to pull a lame excuse as a reason for only 45 minutes coverage.  The excuse?  Apparently it is all down to time “time zones”. There has been a wall of silence outside of the Time Zone nonsense. The work of BRF giving the instruction to not show IG to Uk people is crystal clear. The BRF have a track record going back decades of doing this.  Ie putting pressure of some kind behind the scenes on tv networks.  They have form for doing it in the past with one USA network, and there is footage of that whole debacle of what went on behind the scenes.  Absolutely no doubt in many peoples minds that doing the same to a UK tv network, was much easier.  ITV has been given exclusive rights to showcase a few royal events coming up. No doubt the sweetener in the deal. This is clearly a catch and kill deal. A phrase which is being used often on social media platforms to describe the shenanigans that clearly have been at play.  No other UK media channel won the bid. ITV did but only 45 minutes of highlights each day. Not all day coverage like most other countries. British veterans and the family who could not travel to see loved ones compete, plus the UK public have been denied the chance to support all nations veterans due to childish and vindictive puerile behaviour.

How do people think this looks diplomatically? I think this should lead to the losing the right to host the 2027 IG. It was questionable when it was announced that the UK had secured the Invictus Games 2027 bid.  Economically the country is not doing well, and the idea that the IG 2027 has the infrastructure to hold such an event safely, is beyond comedic.  It is wishful thinking, and then when it all goes awry, the UK establishment will do its usual performative insincere platitudes and revel in the pain of Prince Harry as Patron.  The UK does not deserve it and there is risk of sabotage antics just to allow Uk tabloids the freedom to make Harry look bad and to take it away from him and give it to the future King William. which has been William’s plan for a few years now. It is not a royal charity. it is Harry’s. hence why he was allowed to take it with him when he left.

I think the 2027 games should be removed from the Uk. What do you think? What are the implications for this almost total black out to see the IG via tv. To treat veterans all over with such disrespect. I am so disgusted.

 

This situation highlights complex issues concerning media, Royal Family dynamics, and the treatment of veterans. Here are a few points and implications on this matter:

 

  1. Royal Family Dynamics: The British Royal Family (BRF) is no stranger to public scrutiny, especially regarding family relationships and public roles. Tensions between Prince Harry and the rest of the royal family, add to a narrative of internal conflict that the public follows closely.

 

  1. Media Coverage: Media treatment of the Invictus Games in the UK seems to be a contentious issue, though the reasons for limited coverage are not definitively clear, ie to have definite proof. Being generous here, it could relate to commercial decisions or perceived biases, affecting public perception of the BRF’s support for veterans’ causes.

 

  1. Diplomatic Implications: The limited coverage and any seeming lack of support for the Invictus Games could potentially affect how the UK is perceived internationally, particularly in terms of its treatment of veterans. It might be seen as a neglect of those who have served, which in turn could affect diplomatic relations or public opinion abroad.

 

  1. Veterans’ Support: The Invictus Games are an important platform for supporting wounded, injured, and sick service personnel and veterans. Any perceived lack of support or media coverage can be seen as a disservice to them, affecting morale and public perception of national support for veterans.

 

  1. Hosting Future Games: Decisions on hosting future Invictus Games are likely to consider a variety of factors, including national support, logistics, and capability. While controversy could influence public opinion, official decisions typically weigh multiple factors.

 

  1. Public Sentiment and Policy: As public opinion can sometimes influence decision-making processes in democracies, strong public sentiment against perceived injustices might foster changes in how veterans’ affairs are handled or how media contracts are negotiated in the future.

 

Ultimately, the situation reflects broader questions about how media contracts are handled, the influence of family dynamics on public engagements, and whether the UK is perceived as supportive of international events celebrating and supporting veterans. The complexity of these factors makes it a matter of both domestic and international interest.

 

I think domestically and internationally, it is an own goal by the UK but we have an establishment in top societal tier one that spend public funds on unnecessary pomp and ceremony as one example of many other extravagant self gratification activities, whilst increasing numbers of people sleep on our streets in the UK and sad to say a high proportion are elderly and also veterans. Absolutely disgusting.

 

There is a broader debate about the allocation of public funds and societal priorities. When resources are directed towards ceremonial aspects of the state, such as royal events, it can raise questions about whether those funds could be better used to address pressing social issues, such as homelessness and veteran support.

 

Here are a few considerations on this matter:

  1. Public Spending Priorities: The balance between funding ceremonial events and addressing social issues like homelessness is a common topic of debate. Many people argue that funds should be redirected to provide more tangible support for those in need, especially vulnerable groups like the elderly and veterans.

 

  1. Public Perception and Accountability: Public pressure can sometimes lead to changes in how governmental and royal expenditures are managed. Transparency around how public funds are used is crucial for maintaining public trust.

 

  1. Role of Advocacy and Media: Advocacy groups and media coverage play significant roles in bringing such issues to the forefront of public discourse. They can influence public opinion and, subsequently, policymaking.

 

  1. International Image: How a country treats its most vulnerable citizens, including veterans, impacts its international reputation. This can influence diplomatic relations and perceptions among other nations and international organizations.

 

  1. Social and Economic Policies: Addressing issues like homelessness and veteran support often requires comprehensive policy approaches, including affordable housing, mental health services, and employment programs tailored to the needs of veterans and other vulnerable populations.

 

While the royal family and related ceremonies are an integral part of British culture and history, the need to address social issues remains pressing. Balancing these aspects is a continual challenge for policymakers, civic leaders, and society as a whole. Public commentary and lobbying might be useful in advocating for change and re-prioritization of societal values and funding. My thoughts relating to lobbying and whether it would be feasible to begin such an awakening of the establishment is a huge issue in my opinion. I wonder about the value of approaching international forums because the UK establishment close ranks and seem to care less about what outsiders think or feel. the delusion they have is that the UK is supreme and the colonial mentality is very strong. Lobbying for change, especially in an entrenched system like that of the UK establishment, requires a strategic approach. Maybe there are some possible steps that could be considered, by public figures with the power and influence to be at least be heard:

 

  1. Grassroots Campaigning: Building a grassroots movement can create momentum and pressure from the bottom up. This can involve organizing petitions, rallies, and awareness campaigns to highlight the issues and demand change.

 

  1. Engagement with NGOs: Partnering with non-governmental organizations that focus on veterans’ welfare, homelessness, and economic inequality can amplify the voices of concern. These organizations often have established networks and influence.

 

  1. Media Engagement: Utilizing media to raise awareness and keep the public informed can help maintain pressure on the establishment. Writing op-eds, using social media platforms, and working with investigative journalists can bring attention to these issues. NB I feel it necessary to state here, that this is unlikely to take place here in the UK. We lack investigative journalists in the mainstream UK media, and those that do an excellent job of writing about the underbelly of UK media (printed and televised) are self funded supplemented by donations from a concerned public. The gatekeepers of ensuring that only certain types of news is published and lauded daily to the hungry public for targets to criticise and write about in social media, not least because it earns them money.  Hate is monetised here in the UK social media platform world, and as it occurs daily for decades, the general public start to believe the content, and the damage continues to occur and to erode what was once a respected entity.  The Royal Rota who are there to ensure that the BRF is seen in a positive light, and the symbiotic relationship and dependency between the Monarchy family, and the Establishment and the press is a complicated one and its main priority is to attract finance into their balance sheets.  Income is the holy grail.  Everything else in terms of mental health and its erosion by media practices, is secondary.  Money is King.

 

  1. Political Advocacy: Engaging with sympathetic politicians or political parties who prioritize these issues can help bring them to the forefront of the legislative agenda. It is not impossible, but one has to be realistic as to the environment the UK has created for itself. Without the existence of the Royal Rota and is unwritten contract with the BRF, neither one of them would still exist without the assistance of the other. Attending town halls, writing to MPs, and participating in public consultations can also be effective but it is against a backdrop of behind closed door deals that has gone on for decades, if not longer.

 

  1. International Collaboration: While the UK might be insular in some respects, international pressure can still play a role. Engaging with international human rights organizations and forums can help highlight the UK’s treatment of vulnerable populations on a global stage.

 

  1. Academic Research and Reports: Commissioning or supporting academic research that highlights the social and economic impacts of current policies can provide evidence-based arguments for change. Think tanks and universities can be valuable allies in this effort.

 

  1. Corporate Social Responsibility: Encouraging corporations to take a stand through their social responsibility initiatives can also be a powerful tool. This approach focuses on ethical business practices and can influence both public opinion and government policy.

 

  1. Legal Action: In some situations, legal challenges regarding veterans’ rights and social welfare provisions can provoke change. Exploring avenues for legal recourse might be necessary, especially if rights are being violated.

 

The key to lobbying effectively is persistence, coalitions of support, adaptability in tactics, and a clear, focused message. While ingrained attitudes and systems can be difficult to change, sustained efforts, especially those that appeal to the public’s sense of justice and equity, can eventually lead to significant shifts in policy and perception.

 

I would like to see the location of the Invictus Games 2027 moved out of the chosen UK location.  I feel strongly enough about it that I wanted to make a short podcast.  To do that, I felt it professional to set out the reasons for my thoughts, and to be fair in terms of the possibilities and reasons for certain decisions or actions by others.  I am not of the age or persuasion to go out there and try to change peoples minds about what I consider to be red flags.  I will, however, be contacting people who I think are in a better position than I am to be vocal and public about any concerns that they may have.

My health is not great and I wont put myself under any additional stress to be out there being vocal about the Games.  I will do my lobbying out of view.  The Flyer for this podcast has already attracted the type that crawl out from under stones and write their toxic views in the Comment section.  Yes, this is the UK I was born in but it has changed so much.  The Comment section of my podcast is moderated, and toxicity does not get through to the public facing comments.  I do, however, keep a record of all of them, and they will appear in lights one day.  PS Your User Names do not protect your real identity.  You should all keep that in mind, before you think to write  some things.

That is it for this week. I hope you found that interesting and helpful should you wish to take any further action regarding the Invictus Games 2027.

 

Ivy Barrow

16 Feb 2025