By Admin Comment Closed

UK Media Obsession With One USA Citizen Not Residing in the UK

 

 

Background

The way that certain media groups have made bullying and harassment, together with inciting hateful behaviour on and off line in society is alarming, and what is worse, is that the UK Royal Reporters are leading the pack, with Australia in 2nd place.  The target for their ire is The Duchess of Sussex, and it has gone on for 6 years and counting.  I have no idea about Australia, but the UK media (both televised and printed) has blood on their hands.  People have died, or have been mentally abused by some of their activity, and many are still suffering from the trauma of the interaction with the actions of this group.  People are seen as prey and it seems anything is fair game if the person is in the public eye, or has emerged into the public space as a result of a life changing incident.  The UK news media swoon in like hawks, ready to pick the target to pieces, even to the point of feeding off the metaphorical bones of their victim, when they are down and out with physical and psychological exhaustion.  All in the name of clickbait income for their news rag and fame for themselves in the media tabloid job market.

I will never forget the months of harassment and bullying dished out to one tv presenter about events in her private life, by a tabloid hack.  It was clear from the nature of the reporting and the articles that appeared daily, that this presenter was not in a good place, and on the day of her birthday, this same individual compiled a virtual birthday card, depicting a blood splattered scene, with an item (a table lamp) prominent in the image, and wishing her a happy birthday.  The message was clear.  It related to an incident that had taken place days before, about an altercation which took place in her home, and the various salacious headlines that appeared in that particular tabloid afterwards.  It was relentless.  The image was high profile in the said rag, and the abuse was off the scale.  Normal behaviour for tabloids, and the baying supply of their readership were happy to join in the pile on in the comment section.  The following day, that same presenter was found dead in her home.  She had taken her own life.  Within hours of that being made public, that same tabloid journalist, set about erasing articles and sections of pieces he had written over the months, in an effort to clean up the evidence of his part in taking this person to the point of no return. It is standard practice in the UK, and it is time it is called out for what it is.

In 1997 the world lost a much beloved lady, Princess Diana, and true to form, the tabloid press hounded this beautiful soul for years, and when she died, the same media turned their attacks into fake praise for her role in the Royal family, and to this day, they make money from her.  Zero conscience, and it is business as usual.  It matters not, for the purpose of this podcast and article, about the circumstances of her death, my point in mentioning her is that the media playbook was in full force, and in this particular case, the actions of the tabloids were condoned/sanctioned by the British Royal Family.  All these years later, the media (all forms) are still erasing things from the internet in an effort to try and rewrite history, and to gaslight future generations, and young people of the current generations, that certain things did not happen.  Even BBC footage has been ordered not to be shown again – such is the power of the ‘establishment’ and its media arm.

Into this arena of toxicity, entered a female person of colour.  An accomplished individual, with a CV that no person in the BRF could ever hope to achieve.  Not something that could be purchased by wealth, it required talent and perseverance and competence. A six year and counting campaign to destroy this latest target has been underway and to date, has been allowed to continue, with an agenda that will end the same way as previous victims, and in the case where it involves Royalty, the high profile nature of the abuse is evident, persistent, and is called anything but abuse in the media.  The pile on is daily and is relentless.  I am so tired of having to keep on saying this, but not too tired to continue to fight for this cause.  There are many people around the world, who are suffering similar abuse, with complete disregard for their human rights.  A group of us have come together to campaign for this growing phenomenon and to work with organisations around the world, who are advocates in this field of Human Rights, with the aim to trigger discussions in the places of power, to recognise the modern ways in which abuse is delivered to so many, without a voice, and to ensure that all are protected under the law, and to not allow heads of governments to choose to withdraw from elements of that law that prevents them taking liberties with their own people.  All people are entitled to be protected under Human Rights legislation, and no leader or group should be allowed to cherry pick the parts that they do not like, and throw it in the trash.

This podcast once again focuses on the treatment of one high profile individual, who through sheer strength of character is still standing, despite every effort every day to break her resolve.  The aim is to destroy her mentally or for her heart to stop beating.  It is no exaggeration, when one of the media group gave a number of interviews when she had a book to sell, suggesting that if a tragedy occurred to this particular member of the BRF, then her husband would return to the UK BRF and resume supporting his brother who is destined to be King one day. The absolute nerve of someone to come on tv several times, and write articles stating the same thing, demonstrates the level that UK media personnel are prepared to sink, in order to sell their wares.  No shame in wishing for a scenario where a young mother loses her life, by whatever means, and that her husband, would forget about the years of abuse dished out to his wife and children, and return to the abusers.  No mention of where the children would exaporate to, which is no surprise, because media personnel constantly only referred to the Royal male returning to the fold, and never his wife and children.  The master and slave mentality is played out every day with Uk monarchy, and is always described in other ways in its tabloid partners publications.  It is an absolute disgrace and the behaviour of UK high society and its tabloid partners has been on full display with the death of the Monarch.  It has hopefully revealed to the global audience at large, what has been going on around the Plantation behind Palace gates, and how it reflects a growing phenomenon of hateful behaviour around the world, to groups and individuals who do not have a voice, due to lack of resources to take on the huge corporations behind much of the activity eg land acquisition and abusers in powerful positions.  It is time to reset the clock and the international law makers, to revisit modern methods of exerting hate to a wide range of people or a person across borders.  There is no longer a need to be physically present to be abusive, and systems need to be in place to captiure this abuse when it is sent or published, and wait until the physical outcome becomes public, ie death or injury – physical or psychological.

 

The environment around human rights is changing all the time, and the knock on effect of various forms of abuse is often hidden. Most people cannot and do not have the resources to challenge their abusers and even where people are deemed to be affluent, abuse continues and people turn away thinking that the victim is not deserving of sympathy, not least because it is considered that they have the means to escape. What has been happening to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex since 2016 is both worrying and very sad. We almost lost Meghan and her unborn child in 2018 and the risks to Meghan and Harry has reduced a little since they moved to California but they are fighting against major forces. It very disturbing that abusive activity is still being done to this family even though they have moved to another continent. The travesty of Prince Harry being refused security when/if he visits the UK, even though he offered to pay for it. This is deliberately placing him and his family in danger when/if he visits the UK. The private security that the Sussexes pay for in the USA are not allowed to carry guns in the UK. Last year the vehicle that Prince Harry and his security was travelling back to the airport after his grandfather’s funeral, was chased by paparazzi.

Due to all the death threats from certain people in the UK, and the extreme abuse that the Sussexes encountered behind the scenes when they lived here in the UK, not to mention what happened to Harry’s mother Princess Diana when her security was taken away from here, Prince Harry is justified in being concerned.

Lots more information contained in SGUK podcasts and articles listed. The aim of this campaign is for experts in the legal field, to begin conversations with their counterparts in various countries, and explore the processes and systems that exist in the international human rights legal field, because it does not seem that evident to my non legal perspective. It appears that the international legal community cherry pick which cases and countries they get involved in, and ignore all the others. In the case of the UK we have a Monarchy system that upholds white supremacy beliefs, no matter the official response, since Prince Harry mentioned in the Oprah interview in March 2021 that the family were concerned about the possible shade of skin of their unborn child. The fact that the only person of colour ever to enter that family, lasted 2 years in that abusive environment, with the weight of a government, and newspaper industry, televised media owned by the same or similar people as the newspapers, Aristocracy and police – that is some strong forces to have abusing you. All work together, and to top it all, the Royal family is exempt from certain laws of the UK, and the Monarch is exempt from all of them. It is interesting to note that the Royal family do not have to comply with equality and diversity legislation. Please note that whilst the Monarch is exempt from all laws of the UK, and the family exempt from most of them in reality, the people/organisations doing their bidding are not, despite what they think.

The Sussexes are high profile and they have still been on the receiving end  from powerful forces.  What about all those who do not have such a platform? The abuse continues and their voices struggle to be heard.  Human Rights legislation exists, but is ignored or as in the case of the UK, there are plans to ‘water down’ the amount and type of Human Rights legislation that the UK will continue to sign up to in the future.

 

UK News Media – Printed and Online – Regulatory Framework

Editors Code

Clause 1 – Accuracy

Clause 2 – Privacy

Clause 3- Harassment

  • i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
  • ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
  • iii)  Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

 

Clause 4 – Intrusion into Grief and 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 Assault

Clause 12 –Discrimination

  • i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
  • ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Clause 13 – Financial Journalism

Clause 14 – Confidential Sources

Clause 15 – Witness Payments to Criminal Trials

Clause 16 – Payment to Criminals

 

PDF Version of the Editors Code – 2021 version in the reference sources below.

 

IPSO Framework

In summary, the IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) main activities are as follows:-

  • Make sure that newspapers and magazines follow the Editor Code
  • Make newspapers publish corrections or adjudication if breach found
  • Monitor press standards and Regulations of newspapers and magazines, who in turn have to submit an annual Statement of how they followed the Code.
  • Investigate serious standard failings. Can Fine publishers up to £1m if serious and systemic.
  • Operates a 24 hour anti-harassment advice line
  • Provide training and guidance for journalists – so that they can uphold highest possible standards
  • Provide Whistle Blowing hotline for journalists who feel pressure to act in such a way that is not in line with the Editor’s Code.
  • Work with charities, NGO (non profit organisations) and other organisations to support and improve press standards.

 

Context of Human Rights Legislation

Key points:-

  • What are Human Rights?
    • Human Rights are standards that allow all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and
    • Guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
    • Human Rights are part of international law, contained in treaties and declarations that spell out specific rights that countries are required to uphold. Some countries incorporate human rights in their own national state and local laws.

 

  • Why are Human Rights important?
    • Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
    • Human Rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves and what kind of government they want to support.
    • By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.

 

  • Human Rights Characteristics

 

  • Where do Human Rights Come From?

International Bill of Rights:-

  • The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
  • The right to life, liberty and personal security
  • Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
  • The right to a fair trial
  • The right to privacy
  • Freedom of belief and religion
  • Freedom of opinion
  • Right of peaceful assembly and association
  • The right to participate in government
  • The right to social security
  • The right to work
  • The right to an adequate standard of living
  • The right to education
  • The right to health
  • The right to food and housing

Who is Responsible for Upholding Human Rights?

ANSWER: Under Human Rights Treaties, governments have the primary responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights.  However, governments are not solely responsible for human rights.  The UDHR[i] states:-

 

The provision means that not only the government, but also businesses, civil society, and individuals are responsible for promotion and respecting human rights.

When a government ratifies a human rights treaty, it assumes a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the treaty.

 

UK Monarchy and Protocols v International & UK Law in Terms of Privacy

 

Article 8

A private and family life: Nobody should be able to secretly watch what you are doing without good reason – and we have the right to enjoy family life in the way we choose.

  • The right to a private life protects your dignity and autonomy (your right to be independent and make your own decisions about your life).
    • That includes:
  • the right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity (this right means you must not to be physically or psychologically interfered with)
  • respect for your private and confidential information, including the storing and sharing of data about you
  • the right to control the spreading of information about your private life, including photographs taken covertly.

NB//  Article 8 is the Section of the Human Rights legislation that was used  in the communication from Prince William’s legal team to UK media and whoever else, and all action ceased, and even comments made by some reporters on social media was removed; I am guessing by the authors.

I am not a legal expert at all.  I am merely inquisitive as to why UK media are using the same piece of legislation in different ways for 2 members of the Royal Family. i.e. one is allowed to use it to stop articles and discussions about his private life, but the other is chased around the world and written about daily with no regard to the law in existence.  Regardless of titles, Prince Harry and his family are no less deserving of protection under the law than anyone else.

The only member of the UK Monarchy who is above the law is The King.  Anyone else in the Royal family who may have transgressed can be charged. As we all know not everyone in the BRF is charged for breaking the law, and in terms of process of looking at or providing evidence for those who are pursuing a case certain important documents suddenly are lost or disposed of in error.

  • Family Life – there is no set description for what constitutes a family. This element is usually applied in cases where children are removed from the family home, for whatever reason.
  • Respect for Your Home – You have a right not to have your home interfered with such as by surveillance, or unlawful entry or evictions which have not followed due process.
  • Respect for Your Correspondence – You have the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others; a right that is particularly relevant when challenging phone tapping and the reading of your private communications.

It is time for sensible people of the UK to give some thought to the process of Monarchy and whether or not it is relevant in a modern society. Questions should be asked in terms of:

  • whether a modern society needs and should pay for a Monarchy?
  • There are questions to be asked about how many in the family line should be funded by the UK taxpayer.
  • Is it right in this day and age to have children brought into this world, to be used as chattels and have a life mapped out for them from birth to grave?
  • Is it right that the first born child of a senior Royal is considered a future King or Queen regardless of whether they wish to take on that role, and more importantly have the competence to do it?
  • Are we saying that modern day slavery within Royal circles is acceptable?
  • Children are prevented from reaching their full potential.
  • Children are used as objects not human beings.
  • Children have no rights within Royal circles but they do if born outside of it.
  • Treatment of children in this way would be considered to be abusive outside of Royal confines.

 

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been treated like pariahs because they dared to:-

  • want to work for a living
  • Did not want to be a third wheel for his older brother and wife, merely because he was born 2nd.
  • Royal Family and their media Associates in the Royal Rota tried to make it difficult for the Sussexes to leave, by quoting all manner of restrictive reasons why it was not a good idea; that did not work.
  • The Royal Family have attempted to punish Prince Harry for marrying someone who was not from the gene pool usually fished in for spouses, in order to continue the parasitic way of living off UK public.
  • The Royal Family have spent the last 6 years of a bullying and harassment campaign against the newest member of the Royal Family and who also is a person of colour. Needless to say the campaign backfired, and the couple left the UK.
  • UK media professionals constantly and openly used phrases that ordered Meghan to go back to her own country. Prior to that there was talk of shipping her and Harry off to Africa, as if the whole continent of Africa could be used by the British Royal Family as some kind of dumping ground & punishment for those who did not abide by the rules??
  • Rules that they were born into, and had no say in composition. Rules that morphed into various permutations dependant upon the anger that the British Media wanted to pretend existed on any given day.

In 2019  one Queen’s Council wrote on one of the popular social media platforms about the “undertones of racism written by Royal Rota Reporters.  The QC referred to the implications for people of colour in the UK if someone like Meghan could be treated this way, what hope for ordinary people?

Like clockwork, one of the reporters from that Rota, who regularly posts negative comments about Meghan and implies that Harry is a weak and easily led man etc etc., responded to the QC admitting that “there were indeed undertones of racism in the reporting but that the QC should know that “undertones” is not against the law.  Let that sink in for a moment.  We have always known that this has existed from the start 6 years ago, and we were gaslighted every time.  Now that same pack feel confident and secure enough to admit they choose their wording carefully but it is indeed racism that is the main theme here.

One of the Royal photographers made a short video last year, pretending to show sorrow about how things had turned out, and was begging Harry to return to help out the Cambridges.  Less than two months later, that same photographer had an article in one of the tabloids this month, now stating that the Sussexes “deserve all the abuse” that they are receiving.  I stated in all of my articles since March 2020 that the treatment of the Sussexes, commencing with Meghan since 2016 has been abusive, which has become worse over time, and the dangers to the Sussex family have increased because of the behaviour of the Royal Family and their partners in abuse in the British media.

 Obsession

the state of being obsessed with someone or something:

“she cared for him with a devotion bordering on obsession”

  • an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind:

“he was in the grip of an obsession he was powerless to resist”

  • synonyms:

fixation · ruling/consuming passion · passion · mania ·  compulsion · preoccupation · enthusiasm · infatuation · addiction · fetish · craze · hobby horse · phobia · complex · neurosis

Harassment

The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail (I’ll stop bothering you, if you will etc etc etc) eg grant me an interview.

The victim may file a petition for a “stay away” (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

 

Coercive Control Across Borders

You’re probably familiar with some forms of domestic violence, such as physical or verbal abuse. There’s a more subtle type of abusive behavior that’s equally harmful.

Coercive control is a strategic form of ongoing oppression and terrorism used to instill fear. The abuser will use tactics, such as limiting access to money or monitoring all communication, as a controlling effort.

While this form of abuse is illegal in some countries, including the United Kingdom, since 2015,  the United States has increasing number of states that have a Coercive Control Bill that has been passed protecting residents of that state from actions by others.  On 29th September 2020 California joined those ranks.  I am exploring, on the same basis that single purpose online accounts set up to target one individual are being discussed at this moment, how this can include activities by UK Royal Reporters conducting a number of Human Rights Breaches, and Coercive Control activities against a USA resident for 3 years on UK soil, and the last 2 years and counting against a USA citizen who has been chased out of the UK, and is now residing in California, and is still being pursued by a number of media personnel, and as a result the risk to life has increased.  The BRF and is partners in the Royal Rota have been behaving just like an ex spouse, who just cannot accept that the partner that they abused for years, has managed to escape, and is leading a successful life on another continent. The abuse continues, but in a different form.  On average 5 articles per hour are written on The Sussexes, most of the about Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.  The Comment sections of these tabloids are a cesspool of hatred, and it is like feeding the beast of hate via the articles and the comment sections are the places where the bile is allowed to spill when following the gorge of the food of hate is consumed and needs to spill somewhere.  How can it be right to allow a group of people based in the Uk to obsess and stalk and harass a person living in the USA, a citizen of the USA, and her husband and children.  It is not right and it is not acceptable, and the breaches in Human Rights law is very clear in several areas.

Anyone can experience coercive control, but it’s often grounded in gender-based privilege. Between 60 and 80 percent of women seeking assistance for abuse have experienced coercive control.

Here’s a look at 12 major signs of coercive control, along with some resources that can help you get out of a bad situation.

1. Isolating you from your support system

A controlling partner will try to cut you off from friends and family or limit contact with them so you don’t receive the support you need, says clinical psychologist Cali Estes, PhD.

Here are a few ways they do this:

  • suggesting shared phone and social media accounts for convenience
  • moving you far away from your family so that it’s hard to visit them
  • fabricating lies about you to others
  • monitoring all your phone calls with your family and cutting the line off if anyone tries to intervene
  • convincing you that your family hates you and doesn’t want to talk to you

2. Monitoring your activity throughout the day

“Abusers pursue coercive control through attempts to make themselves omnipresent,” says Wendy L. Patrick, PhD, a career trial attorney and expert in criminal law.

They do this by wiring your house with cameras or recording devices, sometimes using two-way surveillance to speak to you at home during the day.

“This invasive surveillance often extends to private areas, such as the bedroom and even the bathroom,” notes Patrick, “adding an element of humiliation to what is already a clear boundary violation.”

All of this allows them an added element of control and also serves as a reminder to you that they’re watching.

3. Denying you freedom and autonomy

Someone exerting coercive control might try to control your freedom of movement and independence.

Some methods include:

  • not allowing you to go to work or school
  • restricting your access to transportation
  • stalking your every move when you’re out
  • taking your phone and changing all your passwords

4. Gaslighting

“The abuser must always be right, and they will force the victim to acknowledge this,” says Estes.

5. Name-calling and putting you down

Malicious put-downs, name-calling, and frequent criticisms are all forms of bullying behavior.

They’re designed to make you feel unimportant and deficient, says Melissa Hamilton, PhD, a criminologist and expert in domestic abuse.

6. Limiting your access to money

Controlling finances is a way of restricting your freedom and ability to leave the relationship.

Some ways they’ll try to exert financial control include:

  • placing you on a strict budget that barely covers the essentials, such as food or clothes
  • limiting your access to bank accounts.
  • hiding financial resources
  • preventing you from having a credit card
  • rigorously monitoring what you spend

7. Reinforcing traditional gender roles

Regardless of the type of relationship you have, your partner may try to make a distinction between who functions as the man and the woman in the relationship.

They’ll attempt to justify that women are homemakers and mothers, while men are the breadwinners. Using this argument, they may coerce you into taking care of all the cleaning, cooking, and childcare.

8. Turning your kids against you

If you have children, either with the abuser or someone else, they may try to weaponize the children against you by telling them you’re a bad parent or belittling you in front of them.

This attitude can create a rift in the relationship between you and your kids, and may make you feel powerless.

9. Controlling aspects of your health and body

They’ll monitor and control how much you eat, sleep, or time you spend in the bathroom.

Your abuser may require you to count calories after every meal or adhere to a strict exercise regimen. They may also control which medications you’re allowed to take and whether you go for medical care or not.

You may feel as though you’re always walking on eggshells and that your body is no longer your own.

10. Making jealous accusations

Jealously complaining about the amount of time you spend with your family and friends, both on and offline, is a way for them to phase out and minimize your contact with the outside world.

They might also do this in an effort to make you feel guilty.

11. Regulating your sexual relationship

Abusers might make demands about the amount of times you have sex each week and the kinds of activities you perform. They may also demand to take sexual pictures or videos of you or refuse to wear a condom.

“The victims may come to an ‘understanding’ that if they do not comply with their perpetrators’ demands or desires,” Hamilton says, “then they may face significant consequences.”

12. Threatening your children or pets

According to Hamilton, if physical, emotional, or financial threats don’t work as desired, your abuser may try to use threats against others in an attempt to control you. For example, your kids or pets may be at risk.

This can look like:

  • making violent threats against them
  • threatening to call social services and say you’re neglecting or abusing your children when you aren’t
  • intimidating you by threatening to make important decisions about your kids without your consent
  • threatening to kidnap your children or get rid of your pet    Note Guy, Meghan’s rescue dog had two of its legs broken less than a month after quarantine ended and he joined the family at Kensington Palace.  The cause of the injury remains a mystery.  The Sussexes did not use the Royal vet for Guy’s recovery, but a practice owned by an independent vet.  The Vet was subsequently invited to The Sussexes wedding. One does not have to think too deeply about the situation, and the message that was clearly being sent, and why the Sussxes, had their beloved pet treated outside of the confines of the firm. The evidence exists so there has been no attempt to erase history on that front, but the wall of silence from the BRF and UK media speaks volumes.

How to Get Out

Coercive control is a pernicious form of domestic abuse that entraps you in a hostage-like situation. Regardless of the history with your abuser, even if it included some happy moments, you don’t deserve this treatment.

Getting out of an abusive relationship can be complex, even more so when children are involved. But with a bit of planning, you can make a safe exit from the situation.

Here’s what you can do:

  • Maintain communication with your support systems whenever possible. This is important regardless of your abuser’s displeasure, says Patrick. You should also make sure family and friends have all of your contact information and check in on a regular basis.
  • Call a domestic violence hotline regularly. Keep track of where your nearest public phone is and periodically weigh your options with a professional. Our resource guide can provide you with more options.
  • Practice how to get out safely, and practice often. If you have kids, teach your kids to identify a safe place, such as a friend’s house or the library, where they can go to for help and how to call the police.
  • Have a safety plan. “When deciding to leave, victims should have a plan regarding where to go and who to stay with,” Patrick adds, “recognizing that the initial period of separation might be the most dangerous in terms of an abuser attempting to reconcile — through both legal and illegal conduct.”

 

Lessons Never Read About or Taken on Board

The Age Profile of the so called Magnificent 7 (The King & Camilla, William & Kate, Anne, Edward & Sophie) is beyond critical stage Anne has high ‘work’ figures in the annual accounts, but I never see her referred to as being part of this group of 7 saviours in the media.{Update 07/10/22 – Anne now included} In fact, the actual outputs of the senior Royals, are not generally measurable, so at this stage I am not sure what their contribution is anyway.

The media tried it for a few days when they attempted  to devalue Meghan’s work, and tried to suggest in the press that Kate was somehow involved and the successes were down to her.  That poor humour (as it definitely was not factual) only lasted for another 24 hours, when Sussex Squad attributed all manner of life saving, mind blowing acts all around the world, and the Squad praised Kate the Great Saviour for all these achievements.  Every piece written was accompanied by at leaat one image of Kate hard at work. UK media soon realised their folly along with crassness for going there, because all it did to the individual concerned was highlight the fact that not one achievement can be recorded for the experienced Senior Royal, and that fact has not changed even now we are in 2022.

The British Royal Family is not in a healthy state.   The sad thing about all of this, none of these individuals have suddenly landed on earth in the last few years.  The country and its government just expected The Queen to last to be a 100 or so, and when she was no longer with us, her eldest son Prince Charles would take over.  Zero thought given to the age profile of the Royal Family Senior members over the last 40 years.  A childlike assumption, that when one person goes, you just plug in another one.

Yet when Harry stepped back, with his family he was accused of putting the Monarchy in jeopardy.  The same media who abused, stalked and harassed the Sussexes, particularly Meghan, were the same ones who took no responsibility for Harry and his family leaving, and filled their tabloids with even more venom than the previous 4 years. Meghan The Duchess of Sussex joined the family in 2018, but not recognised as family or an employee (receipts exist for such statements), yet during the two years Meghan was with the BRF the projects that she worked on and delivered were above and beyond any outputs of the 7 Seniors who are being paraded in the media as saviours.  I have seen not one iota of evidence that anyone apart from the Queen, understood the assignment, and that is someone who was carrying the others, when she should have been able to take a back seat and not have to worry about what the ‘children’ are doing unsupervised.

It begs the question, what is the use of the Monarchy post Queen Elizabeth.  There is no workforce planning or Succession Planning.  I have serious doubt that up to date Policy and Procedures exist for a whole range of things.  It seems to me, and I say this is my personal opinion, reached over many decades of watching this show unfold over the years, that it is a juggernaut that has always been there, and being there gives Royalists comfort.  It allows them to forget or ignore facts, and truly look at what place or rationale is there to continue this set up.  Either it runs like a business, with clear objectives (not soundbites) independent scrutiny of its accounts and compliance with the laws of the land like every other business has to do.   One could argue that there is a body that is elected to do those things, and if they do not do it to the satisfaction of the nation, they can be voted out.

The Monarchy has over a thousand years of history.  Be proud of it, if you wish, continue to enjoy the history of it, if you wish, but honestly ask yourselves where is the place for such an Institution in a modern society today?  If we are going to have one, then there needs to be a complete revamp of the way it operates, and people just being born into positions that are not accountable to the British people, is not the way forward.  The BRF is losing its appeal by the day, and those who support such an institution, are in the age group of 70% of the Magnificent 7.  The remaining 30% of the BRF have no achievements to their name and as a nation we should be looking beyond, justifications such as “he has waited so long, he deserves it”, or “miss him out and choose the younger person” as if age alone makes the Monarchy assumed to be in safe hands.  Someone who may be younger, but is only lined up for a top position because of his parentage.  I repeat no modern society needs a Monarchy.  Harry leaving did not put the Monarchy in jeopardy, it just exposed to the world, the weakness of the others.

Even if all of the 7 were like top performing executives, with lots of ideas, and high productivity with measurable outputs, the fact remains that the BRF is on life support, and the lights are going out in terms of popularity.  The Queen had the respect of Royalists and large swathes of the British population, but make no mistake, none of the 7 have that kind of following or support, and the age group of the support base, will be visibly reducing each year, with new supporters being nowhere near enough to replace the older age groups.

UK you have a problem.  No one should be slotted into roles that they are ill prepared for, and worse if they have swanned about for decades beforehand.  At least Prince Charles (now King Charles III) decided to set up a range of projects for himself from his early 20s, and he has measurable outcomes for most of them.  Unqualified people playing at being Diplomat is dangerous however, and just adds another factor why this should be elected personnel, run in an accountable manner, with the right skills and competence and experience gained before they take on certain tasks.  I just do not see any Royal family as being around for many decades more, anywhere in the world.  If we have to have one, then some serious changes need to be implemented.

 

Conclusions

Before I go on to question the need for Royal Reporters (both in numbers or the need for a specialist group, that will appear in the next scheduled podcast) let me quote a few facts about the proliferation of articles written by these so called specialists over a few stated periods; articles which all contained The Duchess of Sussex name, or rather mainly her maiden name, but none of the UK media have ever shown any respect to the marriage that took place in 2018 and have continued to use her maiden name, or derivatives of it, most of the time. That is not done with any other Senior Royals, or for that matter, any other female member of the Royal family.

  • According to the records of one tabloid publication, they published over 7000 articles including the name of “Meghan Markle” between 2016 to May 2019.
  • For only the month of May 2019 that same paper published 451 articles containing the name of the Duchess of Sussex.
  • One could describe that as being obsessive, or fixated or even stalker like. None of those descriptions could be described as healthy or of an acceptable standard for any publication, particularly one that can be viewed online by a global audience.
  • The head of the UK Royal Family or the rest of the Senior Royals come anywhere close to that total in any similar timescale.
  • None of the articles were positive, and it could be argued that much of this content is in breach of several Codes and none of them were ever challenged by the industry bodies, who should be protecting victims of such activity, not just those who are employed in the newspaper and magazine industry.

No other senior Royals had their health and safety put at risk by the actions of the newspaper industry since Princess Diana, and none have had to move house because their privacy and safety was compromised by the actions of the Royal Reporters.  Earlier that year there was a court ruling which confirmed that fact, yet not one Royal Reporter made any mention in their respective tabloids that day or since. In previous weeks and months those same reporters wrote report after report about the location of the property, including publishing the post code of the said property and displaying photos they purchased from the helicopter company who to this day no one is admitting to chartering or being involved in some way.  The Sussexes took court action and as stated they were successful.  The images included images of inside the property, including a bedroom, and also various details which compromised the security of the building.  A similar course of action took place in Canada and then again in USA when the tabloids found out details of the location from the Royal Family and then printed the location in their publications, where once again paparazzi appeared in the vicinity for weeks.

 

Summary of Sections I have Stated in this podcast/article today, which demonstrates aspects of legislation in relation to Obsession and Harassment which has and continues to generate incitement of hate and has already led to suicidal ideations and various emotional states including evident on scenes following the death of the Monarch and which UK media openly found amusing.  Time for this cruelty to end and for it to have legal measures applied.  Enough is enough.

  • they are fighting against major forces. It very disturbing that abusive activity is still being done to this family even though they have moved to another continent.
  • The travesty of Prince Harry being refused security when/if he visits the UK, even though he offered to pay for it.
  • Due to all the death threats from certain people in the UK, and the extreme abuse that the Sussexes encountered behind the scenes when they lived here in the UK, not to mention what happened to Harry’s mother Princess Diana when her security was taken away from here, Prince Harry is justified in being concerned.
  • The fact that the only person of colour ever to enter that family, lasted 2 years in that abusive environment, with the weight of a government, and newspaper industry, televised media owned by the same or similar people as the newspapers, Aristocracy and police – that is some strong forces to have abusing you
  • Clause 3 of this so called Editors Code, which is supposed to make a difference: – Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
  • Please note that whilst the Monarch is exempt from all laws of the UK, and the family exempt from most of them in reality, the people/organisations doing their bidding are not, despite what they think.
  • What are Human Rights?
    • Human Rights are standards that allow all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and
    • Guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
  • Why are Human Rights important?
    • Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
    • Human Rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves and what kind of government they want to support.
    • By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.

 

International Bill of Rights:-

  • The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
  • The right to life, liberty and personal security
  • Freedom of opinion
  • The right to work
  • The right to an adequate standard of living
  • The right to education
  • The right to health
  • Is it right that the first born child of a senior Royal is considered a future King or Queen regardless of whether they wish to take on that role, and more importantly have the competence to do it?
  • Are we saying that modern day slavery within Royal circles is acceptable?
  • Children are prevented from reaching their full potential.
  • Children are used as objects not human beings.
  • Children have no rights within Royal circles but they do if born outside of it.
  • Treatment of children in this way would be considered to be abusive outside of Royal confines.
  • Royal Family and their media Associates in the Royal Rota tried to make it difficult for the Sussexes to leave, by quoting all manner of restrictive reasons why it was not a good idea; that did not work.
  • The Royal Family have attempted to punish Prince Harry for marrying someone who was not from the gene pool usually fished in for spouses, in order to continue the parasitic way of living off UK public.
  • The Royal Family have spent the last 6 years of a bullying and harassment campaign against the newest member of the Royal Family and who also is a person of colour. Needless to say the campaign backfired, and the couple left the UK.
  • UK media professionals constantly and openly used phrases that ordered Meghan to go back to her own country. Prior to that there was talk of shipping her and Harry off to Africa, as if the whole continent of Africa could be used by the British Royal Family as some kind of dumping ground & punishment for those who did not abide by the rules?? Since the Sussexes chose to step away from this targeted cruelty in 2020, and the UK Media were convinced that the Sjussexes would fail and have to return to the UK, they were salivating at the spotlight of the world being on the BRF.  It was never there in the first place, but the delusion was on display.
  • The spotlight they had since 2016 was due to the Sussexes partnership, and now that they had been forced out of the UK, the country and its media were about to discover that having a spotlight on a less than stellar institution with a media that caused huge damage daily to targeted peoples lives, the heat was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Meanwhile The Sussexes were thriving in their new environment.
  • In 2019 Queen’s Council wrote on one of the popular social media platforms about the “undertones of racism written by Royal Rota Reporters.  The QC referred to the implications for people of colour in the UK if someone like Meghan could be treated this way, what hope for ordinary people?

Like clockwork, one of the reporters from that Rota, who regularly posts negative comments about Meghan and implies that Harry is a weak and easily led man etc etc., responded to the QC admitting that “there were indeed undertones of racism in the reporting but that the QC should know that “undertones” is not against the law.  Let that sink in for a moment.

  • Coercive control is a strategic form of ongoing oppression and terrorism used to instill fear. The abuser will use tactics, such as limiting access to money or monitoring all communication, as a controlling effort.

 

The SGUK Campaign is underway, and it is planned that the public will become aware of its intentions and progress, via high profile organisations and individuals, in order to avoid the usual attack and pile on from Royal Rota towards members of Sussex Squad who have previously been named on social media.  If BRF supporters and its media try to attack any Squad volunteer in this, it will be a very bad move, likewise if they try to take on global organisations. The bullying and harassment and cruelty playbook needs to be shelved.  It is taking the reputation of the UK into the sewers, to be flushed out into the waterways which are meant to be the lifeblood of the country. Enough poison has already been fed to the masses, and the indoctrination is well underway.  Don’t add to it by adding to the sewers of life and inflicting any more damage onto the nation, than it already has to contend with, from a variety of sewers.

 

As a final note and reminder, the current high profile target for UK media (televised, printed and online) is not a good look for any one, but to deliberately target a non UK citizen on UK soil for 3 years and to continue to do it on USA soil where the Sussexes now reside, is beyond out of order, as well as illegal.  Trying to implement coercive control across borders is going to reap outcomes you had not considered.

Repeat reminder – behaving in certain ways and doing certain things outside of the UK , to a citizen of another country via variety of methodologies, in a sustained manner puts UK media in the spotlight. UK Media are not immune from the law.  None of them can hide behind their job role as justification.  Royal Reporters in particular should be very concerned about the activities of many of their colleagues, who are on film and in print saying things that could and should place them in a legal setting.  The threats and/or incitement of violent activity against a named target is not a good look for any individual or the organisation who employs them or contracts them to do certain things, and the professional bodies who are meant to ensure regulations and good practice are maintained, should and hopefully will be held to account one day too.

 

Ivy Barrow

18 Sept 2022

 

 

Reference Sources

Coercive Control: 12 Signs and How to Get Out (healthline.com)

https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/

Draft journalism code of practice (ico.org.uk)

Journalism ethics and standards – Wikipedia

The ‘invisible’ pact binding the UK royals and their tabloid tormentors | Financial Times (ft.com)

National Union of Journalists (NUJ): Ethics

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

 

 

[i] Universal Declaration  of Human Rights:- all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and