UK News Media Gone Too Far Now

UK News Media Has Gone Too Far Now

But They Will ‘Find Out’

 

SGUK Ep 137

131024

 

Hello, Ivy here.

This month’s podcast continues to explore the tactics used by the UK Monarchy family and associate groups to continue focussing on the activities of non tax payer funded Royal Family Members who were forced out of the UK to protect their mental health and to reduce the risk to their lives.  Whilst at the same time, the tax funded Monarchy family continue to allocate more resources and time on vanity projects which constantly aim to destroy the reputation of the people who dared to leave, or to play dress up and live under the false belief that they are anointed and the Monarchy will be there for ever.  The situation is now such that the Monarchy in its current state is there to spend money on giving the impression that UK Monarchy looks good to the world at large, and if it involves an extraordinary amount of expenditure to dress up in costumes and to parade around in the weight of stolen jewels to display the power in play here in full sight, then so be it.

 

A very small percentage of time is spent on what is classed as Royal duties, which enable them to tick a few boxes each year, and a sycophantic press that use brainwashing techniques to those who think they can live their fantasy lives through people who are born into hereditary positions of power, without any concern for expecting any type of knowledge of the subjects or any competence in any field of the vanity projects that they choose to dip in and out of at whim.  Increasingly the UK Monarchy seems totally antiquated and irrelevant to how the majority of society live life.

 

We deserve better than this genealogy procreation scheme for modern day slaves.

No one has dared to leave before and be successful.  Public funds are directed at all BRF members persuading anyone who has doubts about remaining or leaving, to discourage the doubters from ever leaving.  The Monarch calls upon its tabloid press partners to do everything in their power to disgrace the person or people from considering that life would be better outside of the Plantation behind Gilded Gates. It always follows that people around the globe are fed disinformation about anyone who contemplating on leaving.  Everyone within the Plantation relies on income from the Monarch to exist, hence why so many freeloaders are on taxpayer dimes, no matter what the official line is.

 

What happens when a senior Royal in the UK does actually escape?  The campaign to force the return or the destruction of that individual/s is the bottom line. It is wrapped up in fancy rhetoric but the bottom line, no one must be seen to succeed outside of the confines of the plantation.  The forced attempts at controlling someone as to how they should live their life and where, has gone on for centuries, but in this current British Royal Family they are spending so much time and energy on trying to destroy their own family member, and particularly his wife, the ongoing 8 year campaign of seek and destroy is in full swing, and there is not one Human Rights Activist Organisation, who has had the backbone to stand up and say enough.  There are a number of injustices around the world, and I don’t know of many Human Rights groups who are known to bringing that many, if any, conflicts to an end, therefore it is no surprise that when it comes to a Monarchy family, all those Human Rights Specialists turn the other way.  Officially saying by their silence, nothing to see here. This podcast channel has continued to research and to write to activists, along with researchers in their various specialist fields, and now moved on to explore legal entities.

 

This 8 year and counting campaign of abuse in the UK of a senior Royal and his wife who dared to walk away from abuse, under the radar of the regime controlling the Plantation Behind Gilded Gates, set about creating a series of traps which was meant to make the senior Royal return to the fold, and for his wife and children to be left to perish in some shape of form.

Most of the abusers in this chain of activity, have aimed their anger at the multi millionaire bi racial woman who entered the all white Royal family in the UK and very quickly came to realise that the family did not want her to remain.  She was treated like a slave.  Treated like someone whose life had no value.  Pursued for 8 years relentlessly like an animal being chased.  Dehumanised from day one.

 

This podcast will show how the past 8 years has more than provided evidence to take action.  It would not matter if every hater out there joined convents and monasteries tomorrow, they have all done more than enough to be questioned about abusive and dangerous activity towards one family  and I am certain many more are going to be surprised how they are guilty under various laws, and they will be in a mental tailspin as each one is plucked out of the gang and informed of a few home truths in legal documentation.

Yes, all those who have made Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex the target for your Hate for Hire campaign, have provided records over the last 8 years, that matches several areas of illegal activity.  The evidence is there.  You should all have left Harry and Meghan alone, and carried on with the fantasy of the UK Monarchy, as is your right, but when an evidence based campaign can be proven in multiple areas of the law, it is arrogance and denial that lets you believe that you can continue as you have done for years.

I would like to repeat the key sections from the podcast last month. Not least because it forms part of the legal approach being currently researched.

Tabloid Media – Printed and Televised

• Claimed Activity – What they claim they are doing.
  • Tabloid media (and their counterparts on television) often claim they are reporting news, exercising free speech, or holding public figures accountable. They may present themselves as simply informing the public or providing entertainment.
  • Some tabloid gossip writers have set up tv programmes and talk to other gossip writers and try to appear all sincere and knowledgeable and skilled professionals having serious discussions. The fact that resources are allocated to Gossip columnists to talk about the articles that have written in the previous week, and call it informative or entertaining is beyond parody.
  • The gravy train will come to an end sooner than they have even considered possible.

 

• Actual Behaviour
  • Sensationalism: They publish sensational, often misleading or exaggerated stories to attract readership.
  • Intrusive Reporting: They invade the privacy of individuals, often publishing personal information or intimate details without consent.
  • Amplification of Hate: By consistently publishing negative stories about a person, they can amplify hate and resentment toward that individual.

 

• Examples of Stochastic Terrorism
  • Publishing inflammatory headlines that incite anger or violence.
  • Repeating unfounded allegations that contribute to public hostility toward the individual.
  • Using emotionally charged language that dehumanizes the target.

NB  We did the same for the Aristocratic Family and the Keyboard Warriors.  All the details are in Episode 136 and in the accompanying article on my website, ivybarrow.org

.

Another quote from Episode 136:-

Legal Aspects: Injunctions and Precedents

**Injunctions:**

An injunction is a legal order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. Here’s how it can be applied:

 

– **Against Media:**

While difficult, it is possible to obtain an injunction against media outlets to prevent the publication of certain information, particularly if it can be proven that publication constitutes harassment or incitement.

 

– **Against Family Members:**

An injunction can be placed against individuals (including family members) if their actions amount to harassment, stalking, or threats.

 

**Against Online Harassers:**

Social media platforms have policies against harassment, and courts can issue injunctions against individuals who perpetrate online abuse.

 

**Examples of Similar Cases:**

– In extreme cases, orders such as Non-Molestation Orders or Harassment Protection Orders

have been issued to prevent continued harassment.

– Celebrities have sometimes managed to obtain injunctions against paparazzi and intrusive reporting.

Practical Applications and Challenges

**Challenges in Enforcing Injunctions:**

• Evidence: Substantial evidence must be provided to establish patterns of behaviour.
• Scope: Injunctions need to be specific in what they prohibit, making blanket bans difficult to enforce.
• Jurisdiction: Injunctions can be hard to enforce internationally, particularly with online harassment.

I would like to announce in this episode that this channel now intends to approach Legal entities, giving an outline of the 8 years of research, and the podcasts and accompanying articles over the last 3 years, and the correspondence sent out to a number of community based legal advocates, doing their best to seek legal redress for their clients, who are not in a financial position to be able to afford continuing court dates and cases.  Abusers, usually men like to drag women through the legal system, in the hope that they will not be able to go very far, due to lack of funds. There are childrens’ charities out there, whose members have been driven close to taking their own lives, (some have succeeded), one community group, looking after the interests of children who have suffered hate online and where their mental health has suffered as a result.  In the search that SGUK did two years ago, we contacted a few groups who belonged to an Association which has the support of the President of the USA.  There were many more community based groups, including coercive control specialists, such as Evan Stark and Laura Richards, two specialists that we have included a number of times in our podcasts and details included in a number of articles, giving contact details. The idea behind this was to include any of those we approached to inform about our campaign, as to whether or not they would be willing to be part of a number of international specialist groups, giving their thoughts by telephone, zoom or email, from which part of the world they are based, to help bring together expertise and ideas into one place. I will state here and now, I personally wont be involved in contacting any of the people on the SGUK database from here on, if any communications are sent out, they will come from a legal body, not myself or anyone else outside of a law firm.  UK media, in its various factions have form and have an established pattern of behaviour when exerting their perceived authority as media blisters on regal rear ends. For 8 years I have kept my head down, not got drawn into day to day drama, and tried wherever possible to research and see where this podcast channel could help Harry and Meghan in any way, and in particular to be a strong active member of the Sussex Global Support Network.  It likely will take a little while to attempt to add to legislation, but in the interim, enough breaches in international law exist, that is worthy of our time and effort, because any success for a high profile figure, will automatically help many many others who do not have resources to fight this abuse through existing legal channels; the resources simply do not exist.  Success in this area of abuse, particularly Coercive Control committed across borders, would be a real step forward. Dr Evan Stark was an American sociologist who created the term ‘coercive control’. His body of work is vast and highly respected. Unfortunately Dr Stark passed in March 2024 – he will be greatly missed.  Laura Richards has been referred to several times in podcasts from this channel, not least because Laura has been the architect of law reform to better protect victims on 8 occasions and is in global demand. Laura has applied her psychology degrees to analyse crime from a behavioural and preventative perspective. I hope to see Laura Richards involved with whichever legal team could hopefully be involved further down the line, if any of the stakeholders can possibly secure legal involvement in the future.

 

No campaign operates without champions from many walks of life.  Elected officials were approached, likewise Authors and Investigative personnel, from a variety of countries, who would be able to add to the strong content in a database put together for the first time.  Some of the podcasts presentations showed a number of academic models used by groups such as the FBI in helping to identify when people move away from being online, and begin to carry out acts out in the real world, and use a hierarchy system to elevate their power and influence on how to reach the pinnacle of their ambitions and end their target.

The SGUK Coercive Control Across Borders campaign (and accompanying book in 2025)  includes all these groups and individuals as examples of what is being done out there on the ground.  All of whom are going about their day to day, with minimal resources, but doing their utmost to protect their clientele. One of the threads running through the book focuses on someone who is affluent, and strong psychologically.  After 8 years of abuse and counting, this particular individual is still standing.  Most would not be alive right now in the same position.  When a nation is persuaded to hate someone that they have never met, but have based their dislike because of what media feeds them every day, both televised and also printed and online, there comes a point for many who begin to take it on board.  Believing it must be true, because it is on the news every day.  Even those who are not that interested, develop an aversion to hearing about the person, because it is every single day, and some days each tabloid publishes 10-25 articles a day.  Members of the public become irritated by their tv screen and newspapers and magazines contain negative stories about the same person or people.  Eventually the annoyance turns to irritation, and then they join the hate train.  It is a deliberate ploy.   To ensure that there is a never ending supply of people who start to post several comments a day all containing and in increasing number of cases, inciting hate against the same person.  Now there is Hate for Hire as a business concept, and people are actually paid to say negative things in interviews and articles and posts online.  All targeting the same person.  Imagine if you knew that approximately 100 articles a day written about you in the most disparaging ways, by the establishment, and the nations Monarchy family, and gossip writers who think that they are journalists openly state in their rags that the person will end up like Princess Diana, or other posts quite frequently state that if something happened to the lady in question, her husband would return to the fold of the Monarchy and would be able to be the scapegoat again.  Some journalists have gone as far as stating in print, that if something happened to the wife and children, the Prince would return to the UK to mourn and find solace in the arms of the slave Master again.  Have you all guessed who the affluent victim is yet?  It is Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.  Every day that Meghan is seen in public living and breathing and going about her business, UK tabloid media hide behind racist undertone rhetoric.  Remember when one Queens Counsel at the time, posted on a social media platform that the volume of regular comments posted by journalists in the Royal Rota which contained undertones of racism was damaging to the UK reputation.  Implying that if someone at this level was treated this way, then what does it say about how people of colour in other society group tiers and their likely treatment by the establishment?  Is this normal for the UK now?  One of the Rota crew immediately responded to the posted comment and stated with his full chest and the impression given of arrogance on speed, replied to the QC (Now KC) that “you of all people should know that articles containing racial undertones is not illegal”.  I say to you Phil Dampier, the Rota member who could not wait to respond to the QC, one comment here and there may not be illegal, but as with stochastic terrorism, active daily in the trash that you all write, is strong evidence of trends and patterns of behaviour. 8 years and counting is a strong place to start from. Remember as stated in the podcast last month, “trends and patterns of behaviour” is a very important factor in evidence gathering of this nature.  Every few weeks, journalists openly state that the Duchess is not welcome in the UK, so don’t bother to come back.  When she does not appear, outside of the UK, (as the Duchess has not set foot in the UK since 2020) the pile on of vitriolic articles begin demanding to know why the Duchess has not visited the UK.  In an effort to try and scrape up a few extra coins by the sheer volume of articles written each day, the content is venomous, lacking all respect, dehumanises the person concerned, all in an effort to vent their anger at the absence, and therefore the inability to abuse The Duchess face to face.  This is the type of gutter press the UK has and which is so far right wing, they meet themselves coming back every day. The Rota and its professional body are so devoid of ethics (despite officially having written statements on Ethics and an Editor Code on Ethics) the whole package are well overdue for an update on Leveson 2 and more than anything, an International legal boundary which cannot be crossed, whether or not all concerned belong to the top tier societal group in the UK.  As things currently stand, that is no moral compass to point towards.

The three groups covered in the last podcast and article are just a sample of what is out there.  The SGUK campaign has many in its sights, but we need to start somewhere.  All stakeholders who benefit from this Hate for Hire business model, are about to find out one day, about international law.

Samples of Evidence

Here are some notable headlines from UK tabloid newspapers about Meghan Markle since 2016 that have been critiqued for their obsessive and potentially harmful nature. Here are some examples that have gained attention for their tone and content, and these are by no means the high quality ones.

1. “Meghan Markle: I’d Turn My Back on the Royals” – Daily Mail
2. “Harry & Meghan’s ‘Narcissistic’ Parenting Style Revealed by Royal Expert” – The Sun
3. “Meghan’s Ultimate Betrayal: More Revealed from Her $100M Netflix Deal” – Mirror
4. “How Meghan Markle’s Fashion Choices are Costing Taxpayers Millions” – Express
5. “Tarnishing the Royal Reputation: Meghan Markle’s Hollywood Ambitions” – Daily Mail
6. “Devastating Impact of Meghan’s Actions on Queen’s Health” – The Sun
7. “Meghan’s Diva Demands at the Palace: Insiders Speak Out” – Daily Mirror
8. “Meghan Markle: The Modern Yoko Ono of the British Royal Family” – Daily Express

 

These headlines illustrate the kind of relentless coverage and sometimes hostile tone that has led to discussions about media harassment and its impact

8 Headlines covering the 8 years of UK Tabloid Questionable Headlines Relating to Meghan The Duchess of Sussex.

• The Daily Mail published the article with the headline “I would turn my back on the Royals” about Meghan Markle on October 1, 2016. The piece was based on comments made by Meghan Markle’s half-sister, Samantha Markle, where she was critical of Meghan’s relationship with the British Royal Family. This was before Meghan became engaged to Prince Harry in 2017.

 

• Headline: “Meghan Markle’s Secret Engagement to Prince Harry Revealed”
  Publication: The Sun
  Date: November 27, 2017
  This article covered the announcement of Meghan and Harry’s engagement, detailing their relationship and future plans.

 

• The headline “How Meghan Markle’s fashion choices are costing taxpayers millions” was published by The Express on November 10, 2018. This article claimed that the cost of Meghan’s designer wardrobe was being covered by taxpayer funds, despite Meghan reportedly paying for her clothes herself. The narrative also included the fact that King Charles had allocated money to support Harry’s wife in general, further complicating the issue because he was the one who informed Harry that there was no money available for Meghan and perhaps she could return to acting to secure funds. This was quoted in Harry’s book Spare, yet officially it was denied that it ever took place.  To add to the confusion one Royal Rota individual wrote an article stating in effect how Meghan’s work in Hollywood tarnished the value of the British Royal Family.  Clearly that person had not checked with next King Charles about the issue of no funding and suggested that Meghan should return to acting.  It was obvious that the Rota knew about no money put aside for Meghan, but one jumped the gun too quickly to complain about Meghan acting and tarnishing the Royal brand by doing so, when in fact Meghan stepped away from acting upon marriage.  Nb See one of the bullet points below, connected to this article, by the same tabloid.  They knew the facts but decided to go down this route deliberately.

 

• The Daily Mirror published the headline “Meghan’s diva demands at the Palace: Insiders speak out” on December 1, 2018. The article claimed that palace insiders were accusing Meghan Markle of making “diva-like” demands during her time living at Kensington Palace, further fueling media narratives of tension within the royal household.

 

• The headline “Harry and Meghan’s narcissistic parenting style revealed by Royal Expert” was published by the Daily Mail on July 20, 2019. This was part of a series of articles where various “royal experts” criticized Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s parenting approach following the birth of their first child, Archie, in May 2019.

 

• The Express published the headline “Meghan Markle, the modern Yoko Ono of the British Royal Family” on March 10, 2020. This article compared Meghan Markle to Yoko Ono, suggesting that her presence was divisive within the Royal Family, much like Ono was rumored to be within The Beatles.

 

• The Express published the headline “Meghan’s ultimate betrayal: More revealed from her £100m Netflix deal” on September 26, 2020. This article followed the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s multi-million-dollar production deal with Netflix, which led to widespread media scrutiny and claims of betrayal towards the Royal Family, as the couple had stepped back from royal duties earlier that year.

 

• The Daily Mail published the headline “Tarnishing the Royals’ reputation: Meghan Markle’s Hollywood ambitions” on December 27, 2020. This article criticized Meghan Markle for allegedly prioritizing her Hollywood career over royal duties, further straining her relationship with the Royal Family following her and Prince Harry’s decision to step back from their roles as senior royals. Nb once again the Daily Mail deliberately twisting themselves into pretzels just to create drama.  Empty headed Rota clearly know next to nothing about Hollywood and paid channels such as Netflix.

 

• The Sun published the headline “Devastating impact of Meghan’s actions on Queen’s health” on April 13, 2021. This article speculated about the effect Meghan Markle’s public actions, particularly following the Oprah Winfrey interview, had on the health of Queen Elizabeth II, framing it as a source of stress and concern for the monarch.

 

• 2022

Headline: “Meghan Markle’s Netflix Docuseries Sparks Controversy”
Publication: The Mirror
Date: November 30, 2022
This headline addressed the backlash surrounding Meghan’s new docuseries and its portrayal of the Royal Family.

 

• 2023

Headline: “Meghan Markle’s Return to the Spotlight: What’s Next?”
Publication: The Daily Mail
Date: March 1, 2023
This article speculated on Meghan’s next steps following her and Harry’s increased public appearances and the growing anticipation for new projects.

• 2024

Headline 1: “Where’s Meghan? Fans Concerned Over Her Absence”
Publication: The Daily Express
Date: March 10, 2024
This article questioned Meghan’s public absence and the speculation surrounding it, highlighting fan concern.

Headline 2: “Meghan Markle: The Duchess Who Vanished?”
Publication: The Sun
Date: January 15, 2024
This piece also discussed Meghan’s recent low profile and the discussions it sparked in the media.

Here are some common themes and trends in UK tabloid headlines and coverage related to Meghan Markle:

 

1. **Criticism of Lifestyle Choices**: Tabloids often criticized her decisions, whether they pertained to travel, eco-friendly choices, or her approach to motherhood.

 

2. **Scrutiny of Family Relationships**: Articles frequently focused on Meghan’s relationships with her own family and sometimes depicted them in a negative light.

 

3. **Fashion and Appearance**: Meghan’s fashion choices were often dissected, and while sometimes praised, they were also sometimes used to critique her for being too lavish or not adhering to royal traditions.

 

4. **Allegations of Royal Protocol Violations**: Tabloids sometimes claimed Meghan was breaking royal protocols, even for small actions or choices.

 

5. **Comparison with Kate Middleton**: Headlines have often drawn comparisons between Meghan and Kate – the latter being treated like a child that can do no wrong. The next UK Queen can go missing for months on end, and fabricate a tale of cancer related illness/ailments, pre cancer, preventative cancer, and at the same time, be part of body doubles tale of posing as her in farmers markets or her mothers hired car (because it was definitely not her own, and not to mention more than 4 wheels on it. Lets not even go there re the altered images, more than once, and the use of AI – yet still the future Queen still reported on as if she is in fact a Stepford Wife created, perfect in every way, and Meghan is painted as a villain.  A persona that no one in all her years of working with professionals, have nothing but praise to give, but yet coming to a Royal Family with entitlement and arrogance, but no active brain cells present, no critical thinking, and working on the same project for almost 20 years, with not one single measureable outcome.  Until Meghan arrived on the scene, tabloid headlines were far from glowing, but since June 2016, a metamorphis has occurred apparently.  Definitely not among people with a functioning brain.  Meghan has been treated badly.  The treatment of her led to a miscarriage – that in itself is beyond vile – and the behaviour became worse not better by Royal Rota personnel.  The headlines incite hateful behaviour, and there will be a loss of life again, if this Hate for Hire is not tackled at source and quickly.

 

6. **Public Expenditure and Security**: Especially during her time as a working royal, there was critique regarding the costs related to Meghan and Harry’s security and housing funded by taxpayers.

 

7. **Race and Heritage**: Some headlines contained racial undertones, which sparked public debate on whether the coverage was tinged with racism.

 

8. **Perceived Attitude and Behaviour**: Meghan has at times been portrayed as difficult or demanding, sometimes dubbed as “Duchess Difficult” by tabloids.

Summary of Violations

• Coercive Control: Meghan was subjected to coercive control while living in the UK, including financial abuse (removal of her passport, driving license, and credit cards), isolation and emotional manipulation (pressure to “dim her light” and avoid outshining senior royals). Under the UK Serious Crime Act 2015, such behaviors qualify as criminal offenses.
• Harassment via Media: UK tabloids, acting with impunity, engaged in relentless media harassment, violating privacy laws and exacerbating Meghan’s mental health struggles, which included suicidal ideations. Her attempts to seek help were ignored, as institutions like the Royal Family refused her access to medical assistance.
• Ongoing Harassment Across Borders: After moving to the U.S., Meghan continued to face harassment through online platforms and media outlets based in the UK. This constitutes a breach of both U.S. and UK laws regarding harassment and cyberbullying, and yet no substantial legal intervention has been initiated.
• Racial Discrimination: The campaign against Meghan appears to be racially motivated, aimed at preventing a Black woman from entering the historically white Royal Family bloodline. The racist undertones are undeniable and violate international human rights laws, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

Key Legal Considerations

1. International Jurisdiction: Meghan’s status as a U.S. citizen and the ongoing harassment she faces from UK-based entities provides grounds for invoking extraterritorial jurisdiction. Legal experts should explore the application of cybercrime conventions like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime to address online harassment.
2. Coercive Control and Human Rights Violations: Meghan’s case falls under coercive control laws that the UK recognizes domestically. International human rights law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), also mandates protection against inhumane or degrading treatment. As such, Meghan’s rights have been consistently violated by institutions both during her time in the UK and after her return to the U.S.
3. Failure of U.S. Legal Protections: Despite being a U.S. citizen, Meghan has not received adequate protection from U.S. institutions or lawmakers. Legal intervention from U.S. authorities has been conspicuously absent, despite ongoing abuses and harassment. The fact that wealthy and powerful entities are involved should not exempt them from legal accountability.
4. Urgent Need for International Legal Action: The failure of both UK and U.S. legal systems to adequately address Meghan’s coercive control and harassment raises serious concerns about gaps in international protections for individuals targeted across borders by institutions of power. Legal experts should urgently engage in dialogue to create pathways for intervention, including civil litigation, cyber harassment prevention, and human rights protections.

Call to Action

I urge legal experts and international law agencies to seriously consider Meghan Markle’s case as a precedent-setting example of coercive control and harassment across borders. My research provides detailed documentation of violations of both international human rights and domestic coercive control laws.

This case calls for:

1. Legal intervention to hold accountable the UK-based institutions and individuals responsible for the ongoing abuse and harassment of Meghan Markle.
2. International cooperation between U.S. and UK legal experts to develop frameworks addressing coercive control, harassment, and cyberbullying that transcend national borders.
3. Enforcement of existing laws (e.g., Serious Crime Act 2015, Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, ICERD) that protect individuals from coercive control and racial discrimination, regardless of the wealth or status of the perpetrating institutions.

I will continue to request for justice for Meghan Markle – The Duchess of Sussex via the SGUK podcast channel and accompanying articles, and hope that my research triggers meaningful legal and political action which will ultimately all those people suffering around the world, who do not have the resources to pursue redress using national or international law.  It is about updating law over the coming years to match developments in the abuse is delivered to its chosen targets – both Adults and Children.

 

Ivy Barrow

13^th October 2024

NB  I have not used anything that i consider to be high quality evidence in any of the podcasts or on any slides.  I am not here to make the abusers feel comfortable.