In the above clip during a WellChild video chat, is TOS, reading cue cards or having to pause to think and remember what TW had told him to say when asked about the invisible children? He looks to his right as he appears to recite the word salad phrases of ‘he’s busy’ and ‘using her voice’ as coined by his wife when asked about the child known as Archie, and the child with the stolen nickname.
The VING thing censoring continues with concerned comment being hidden by the snowflake moderators. What I can't understand is why they simply can't respond to the issues raised by the comment, and to reassure adults that there are appropriate measures in place to safeguard the personal data of minors?
The Overseas Son doesn't appear to have dropped his case against ANL, and his legal challenge against the government doesn't appear to have been withdrawn either. The recent legal filings indicate there are several contradictory statements that TOS has made in the past during various backstabbing interviews. These are are now coming back to challenge his latest version of events. Recollections may vary, but when they were made public via the Opera Winfrey interview and Apple documentary series, the judge may have ask TOS which version of events is the truthful one.
If TOS dropped the case then people would not be focused on the Sandringham Summit, where BP back then covered up issues which TOS is forcing them to now reveal, which means outing the Sussexes behaviour (as per the bullying allegations).
Here are some basic facts that concern both the ANL case and the judicial review, that have come from statements made by the Queen, and statements that TOS has made himself in various interviews that have come from his own mouth as evidenced by video footage.
The Queen stated that discussions concerning TOS and TW to step back as working members of the royal family had been going on for many months already. The statement was dated 18 January 2020, which indicates that the duo had planned to leave the RF before the Southern Africa tour in September 2019, and that the RF and aides knew about it.
The duo would've been informed that full protection would have been withdrawn if they no longer were working members of the royal family. This would've been queried and discussed already, and the Sussexes already knew the answer before the formal RAVEC decision.
Despite this, they attempted to force the RF to give them full protection whilst living abroad in Canada by stating that they were entitled to have protection as a fact on the unauthorised Sussex Royal website. They claimed they were international protected persons, and entitled to full protection wherever they were in the world, but the text was deleted within 24 hours as it was incorrect and misleading. The website also claimed that all the information they shared was accurate, however, it was not. Simply because somebody believes it is accurate doesn't actually mean it is factual.
This was because they had hoped to use public opinion to force the Queen to permit the half in, half out model they desired—the perks, and to choose what patronages to support, while monetising Sussex Royal.
BP were aware that the duo were making plans to leave the RF due to the extended holiday from November 2019 through to January 2020, in Canada. Only a small handful of engagements had been booked for either of them from November 2019 through to March 2020, and the nanny had already been fired. There were only about three engagements that officially represented the Queen, and the rest were private patronages and projects.
During the Oprah Winfrey interview (March 2020), TOS stated that when he called to discuss (November/December 2019) leaving the family, his father told him to put the issues in writing. We do not know whether or not TOS did put the issues to be discussed in writing, but it is clear that discussions had been carried out unsuccessfully, necessitating everything to be put in writing formally so that there could be no misinterpretation of the issues.
Rushbrook, his lawyer has presented his defence as such, in that TOS ‘believed and hoped’ that his offer to pay for protection would be passed to RAVEC. That is not a factual statement, but is a subjective view. A judicial review is based on facts and not subjective views.
TOS admits to not making the offer to pay for protection personally to RAVEC in writing, and had expected that members of the Royal Household/aides would convey a vague message to RAVEC on his behalf. Again, this is a subjective belief, where TOS did not express any explicit instructions for any such vague offer to be presented to RAVEC on his behalf.
If the best defence the lawyer can come up with by claiming TOS, ‘believed’, ‘hoped’ and ‘expected’, statements to be conveyed to RAVEC, then that is weak, as these are not statements of fact and are subjective opinions. Would the reasonable person have those expectations, beliefs, or hopes when it came to a formal and binding decision that would be borne from the public purse, and not to have submitted anything formally in writing? If there was anything in writing, then the letter would be in the public interest as it concerns public funds.
Apparently, TW claims she wrote a letter expressing that TOS was entitled to full protection, and as TW loves to make letters public and keeps copies, then why doesn’t the public see a copy of this letter? More so, because it also involves public funds!
TOS, also contradicts his version of events involving his interference with the RAVEC procedures, claiming that he contacted Sir Mark Sedwill when he didn't feel that the RAVEC decision would go his way. In fact, Sedwill was contacted prior to the Sandringham Summit (January 11 2020), which contradicts his reasons for attempting to circumvent the neutral RAVEC procedures. In short, he knew what the RAVEC decision would be as he was told the likely outcome beforehand, and it looks as if he wanted to influence the decision before the meeting.
Both TOS and TW were fully aware that if they stopped being full time working members of theRF, that full-time protection would be withdrawn. Since RAVEC made the decision back in February 2020, TOS’s version of events don’t correlate, if he contacted Sidwell prior to the formal decision being made.
TOS also made an empty gesture of offering to pay for a service that doesn't exist, basically because you cannot pay privately for a public service.
Now, even if you could pay for the service, TOS has admitted in the Oprah Winfrey interview that he did not have the funds to pay, which is why he had to gain employment to pay for security. Therefore, he was making an offer to pay for something when he had insufficient funds to do so (no doubt he was hoping to send the invoices to Pa Charles).
TW, in her latest podcast (where interest has already waned), with Breaking down ‘The Bimbo’ with Paris Hilton, as expected, who can take it seriously or be interested? Once you see the name Paris Hilton, no one with active brain cells would waste 52 minutes of their life by listening to the podcast or even reading the transcript.
TW has always claimed that she hated being a briefcase girl on, ‘Deal or no Deal’, in 2007, even though it gave her a regular income, and for many hostesses, it’s a step on the ladder to other projects. The model/actresses were hired for their looks, and for that they were paid well, and were able to pay their rent and buy food. That was the nature of the job, and still is today where models get paid well for their looks. The same goes for ‘Suits’, they hired her for her appearance rather than her acting ability.
This was around the time that she challenged the IRS over the tax they said owed but refused to pay. She lost the case in tax court, and had to pay the amount (less that $1,000) and all the court fees in 2009 (Docket number:29399-09S).
Cancel culture has been a hot topic around the globe, and TOS’s best bud, James Corden appeared to have cancelled himself by getting a temporary ban at a NYC restaurant, Balthazar. Kevin McNally’s restaurants are hotspots for celebrities to be seen at, and the staff work there because they expect good tips, and they will put up with some rudeness and abuse for the sake of it, so Corden must have been really out of order for him to get a ban, albeit temporary.
The doors then opened on other stories being released about Corden’s lack of manners and poor behaviour—not dissimilar to people eager to tell the world about their experiences with TW! However, there are still some people sitting on stories about TW. Will Corden be ghosted by the Montecito duo now that the world has seen his true colours? Like TOS, the US, you are welcome to keep Corden and TOS indefinitely as a humanitarian act for the world.
Variety magazine joins the ranks of the sugar media, where they paid for an elaborate photo session where TW preened and posed. I wonder how many NDAs had to be signed for that day? TW talks (as ever because no one can shut her up) with her word salad catchphrases, still trying to convince the world she is ‘nice’ and ‘kind’, but it’s all an act for the cameras.
In the UK, we are more interested in the state of the government (very messy would be an understatement) and the energy bills that will be on the rise to care about what TW does or says. It’s just another heavily retouched image of TW that an American outlet has stupidly thought would be a money spinner for them with a sycophantic interview, full of fantasy wood salad garbling. For someone so vain, why did she get them to airbrush out the vein across her forehead? As for Variety magazine, I guess we’ll just wait to see who gets ‘Markled’ first, but why the PR now? What is this supposed to distract the media from—that’s the real question.
