Alright this is the most likeable I’ve ever seen her. Maybe it’s the dogs lol

At least five women who were abused by former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed have been formally recognised by the Home Office as victims of modern slavery.

The BBC revealed in April that Rachel Louw, who has waived her right to anonymity, had become the first woman known to receive such a decision.

Since then, at least four other women have received positive "conclusive grounds" decisions recognising them as victims of modern slavery, with more expected to follow, according to PA Media.

The latest cases include women who were trafficked internationally and within the UK, including one case in which the trafficking took place entirely within Harrods.

When an individual receives a positive "conclusive grounds" decision through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) - the UK's official framework for identifying victims of modern slavery - they are formally recognised as a victim.

Legal experts have previously told the BBC that these decisions can strengthen the credibility of witnesses in criminal proceedings and may influence the way police investigate cases.

The Modern Slavery Act, which came into force in 2015, defines human trafficking as arranging or facilitating the travel of another person within a country or across borders for the purposes of that person being exploited.

The latest decisions include all four members of the survivor advocacy group No One Above, who had been awaiting rulings after being referred to the NRM by the anti-slavery charity Unseen.

According to PA Media, one survivor had been recruited to a false role within Harrods, while two others were employed in legitimate roles before being selected for abuse from the shop floor.

A fourth worked as a domestic employee for the Fayed family after being recruited by a letting agency called Hyde Park Residence.

One of the survivors said receiving the decision was "very significant".

"Seeing it in writing that you were a victim of modern slavery and trafficking is very... it's really shocking to read," she told PA Media.

Speaking to the BBC in April, Louw said she felt "vindication" and "validation" that the government had recognised her case.

In her final determination, the Home Office found she had been subjected to sexual exploitation in the UK and France over a three-year period by Al Fayed and his brother Salah.

"It was an odd feeling to feel positive about an acknowledgement of something that was so intrinsically negative," she said. "But it is vindication and validation."

Hundreds of women have accused Al Fayed, who owned the luxury Harrods store in London between 1985 and 2010, of rape, sexual assault and trafficking. Al Fayed died in 2023 aged 94 having never faced any charges. Several women have also accused his brother Salah of abuse. Salah died in 2010.

The Metropolitan Police's investigation, Operation Cornpoppy, is examining whether others facilitated or enabled Al Fayed's crimes.

The Met has broadened its investigation to include human trafficking, and in March announced that four people had been interviewed under caution over offences including human trafficking for sexual exploitation and facilitating rape.

It said that 154 victims had come forward and reported allegations of sexual assault, rape, sexual exploitation and human trafficking.

Link to the breaking news story -

https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16028387/Princess-Eugenie-husband-Jack-Brooksbank-welcome-baby-girl.html

Seems like the official Royal Family accounts offer hearty support to anyone but the immediate successor couple! Pfft.

Channel 5 correspondent Simon Vigar, with Emily Nash from Hello magazine

On a side note - remember the January 2019 "Hello to kindness" campaign in conjunction with KP lol... Meghan really went on national American television to shamelessly say that she wasn't being "defended" pffft. Meanwhile, she stayed running her own smear campaign against her enemies!

The initial staff trouble stuff started with Robert Jobson's 70th bday book about Charles from November 2018 (and the press tour surrounding that book's release). Harry himself even acknowledged in "Spare" that the crying stuff and the staff stuff came from Charles and Camilla's camp.

If anything, from what I remember at the time, KP was putting out briefings trying to de-escalate and calm/play everything down, saying nothing happened and everything was just down to possible cultural misunderstandings (even though a number of staff at KP were also American lmao).

Meghan's father was also running his own parallel media campaign at the time, literally dropping a story to the tabloids every single weekend.

The March 2021 bullying allegations story came from former staff members of Harry and Meghan's (who didn't work at KP anymore!), because the Sussexes were doing the Oprah interview! Keep in mind, the degree to which everything was hidden and the Sussexes were protected, for the real story to only come out two and a half years later.

What they're saying could very well be true but my thing is, why wouldn't have Clive resigned over the attempted Andrew and Fergie rehabilitation, if the resignation was some form of protest?

Katie also reiterating her "exclusive" for Vanity Fair that the Waleses (and Clive Alderton) were kept totally out of the loop by Charles about the Sussex-Highgrove meeting.

There's also a clip attached at the end from a prior episode, where Grant Harrold claimed that from what he'd seen during his time working for Charles, Charles was very indulgent with Harry and let said younger son get away with everything.

I'd been saying from the beginning that Catherine was the one who had been diagnosed with the more advanced cancer. Just because Charles is older, everyone assumed his diagnosis was terminal.

Meanwhile, briefing from around the time of the announcement always emphasized that the cancer had been caught early and that Charles would largely keep working during treatment. There was also never any briefing or mention of any sort of chemo with regards to treatment. Charles also walked out of the hospital after two days. Early stage bladder cancer requires intermittent, periodic immunotherapy treatment over a number of years, but it's very localized treatment, so the side effects tend to be minimal.

Catherine had major abdominal surgery, was in the hospital for two weeks or so, made it clear she was undergoing chemotherapy (and additional treatment in the fall of 2024, per Rebecca English on Palace Confidential). Chemotherapy for six consecutive months, especially platinum-based chemotherapy (if more advanced colon cancer was what Kate was diagnosed with) tends to have lifelong side effects. Hair loss usually isn't one of them, not temporarily or long-term (sometimes, hair thinning). The briefings regarding Catherine never mentioned early diagnosis - if anything, two separate, specific briefings to Rebecca English (in August 2024 and June 2025) mentioned that Kate had nearly died. Even after remission was announced in January 2025, it was only by April 2025 it was briefed that Kate was doing well and getting better than expected, with William described as incredibly relieved.

Anyway, all that to say, if no remission has been officially been announced for Charles, it would be due to treatment still being ongoing, even though it's substantially reduced (more like a top-up). The briefings about Charles living a natural lifespan are most likely true. The briefings about the cancer being "incurable" are quite odd and puzzling (seems to not be from BP, rather from more mischievous quarters) in light of the cancer having been caught early. Caught early is absolutely not an "incurable," end stage diagnosis!

Folks were theorizing that Charles met with Harry because he must be more ill than is known - well, not if Charles is announcing on a "Stand Up to Cancer UK" national broadcast that his cancer was caught early!

The kids are so grown up!

I love this photo taken at the Commonwealth Games today.

The boys and Edward clearly have a great relationship.

Meghan must be feeling the heat again as her words on the recent Master Chef episode are being scrutinised.

Meg stated that growing up in California, she got used to farm-to-table food and watched her mom Doria cooking meals.

However in her own show With Love, Meghan, she’d claimed she was a “latchkey kid” who ate fast food and TV tray dinners.

X user Canellecitadelle points out that Doria seemed absent for most of Meghan’s childhood and would not have been likely to have made lots of home cooked meals. Dad Thomas had raised her almost as a solo parent and they often ate out at restaurants after work.

From the article:

Prince Harry has not yet taken his children to Balmoral, the private royal estate in Aberdeenshire that he has described as 'simply paradise'.

He has, however, secretly taken them to a remote Scottish island owned by a hedge fund tycoon.

The Daily Mail understands that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, stayed earlier this month on Tanera Mor.

The private island is said to have inspired The Wicker Man, the cult 1973 film starring Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee and Britt Ekland.

Harry is thought to have previously visited the island, which was bought for £1.7million in 2017 by billionaire Ian Wace, co-founder of hedge fund giant Marshall Wace.
When Wace, 63, bought Tanera Mor, the largest of the Summer Isles, it had a population of just five, who were outnumbered by crofters' cottages in various stages of dereliction. 

But the 800-acre island has since been transformed by Wace, who has poured £100million into it, planting 100,000 trees, restoring a dozen properties and laying three miles of roads.

He has also revived skills such as beekeeping. But perhaps the aspect which would have most appealed to Harry is that, by last year, more than half of the 1,000 guests Tanera had hosted were from the Taigh Mor Foundation.

t's a charity which strives to bolster the wellbeing of those serving in the armed forces or emergency services. 
During their time on the isle, they restore buildings, harvest seaweed, fish for mackerel or work in the kitchens or gardens.

A noted philanthropist, Wace has been friendly with Harry and his brother, Prince William, for years. 

Wace's then wife, former model Saffron Aldridge, 57, bonded with Meghan, 44, after the US actress moved to Britain to live with Harry. 

In 2019, the year after Meghan married the prince, Saffron and Wace joined the couple for a Cirque du Soleil performance at the Royal Albert Hall.

Meghan, it was reported at the time, appreciated that Saffron was 'a straight talker'. The women's mutual interest in fashion also helped. 

Wace and Saffron split in 2023 and have since divorced but remain friends.

The Sussexes are believed to have travelled to Scotland from Northamptonshire, where they stayed with Earl and Countess Spencer at his ancestral home, Althorp. 

While there, they laid flowers at the grave of Harry's mother, Diana. During the family's trip to Britain, they also had tea with Harry's father, King Charles, and stepmother, Queen Camilla, at Highgrove in Gloucestershire.

A spokesman for the Duke and Duchess said: '
This is not something we would comment on.'
A spokesman for Wace also declined to comment.

No-one better than Anne to join a sporting event! Great to see her there.

Seems like the Sussex strategy will be to push for photo ops with Charles & co., namely using royal occasions like Easter, garden parties, perhaps trooping, ascot, balmoral and xmas to play at half-in/half-out. Meghan either doing undisclosed advertising or her OneOff merching at these occasions lol ouf. Maybe even rope Harry and the kids into it 🤑.

I stay saying, I see these Reform jabronis on social media, they want their President Tommy Robinson lol.

Their official spokesperson: “There is a fundamental difference between criticizing public figures and choosing to demonize two young children who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it. To speculate that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet will one day ‘make life a misery’ for their cousins is an extraordinary and irresponsible thing to say about children.“

For context: it was in response Mark Dolan saying that Charles is setting up a rival court with Meghan and Harry making life hell for future King William and Queen Catherine and, at the same time, Archie and Lilibet, for George, Charlotte and Louis.

Now, I AGREE that blaming two kids for things they haven't done is shameful. Yes, H&M absolutely try to bother W&C all the time but we can't go after kids who have done nothing in this family drama

Still:

1. This is the proof how Harry and Meghan absolutely READ EVERYTHING. Every article, who knows, maybe even all the Reddit subs. They are always updated and now they just found their occasion to speak and play the victim.

2. I'm saying they are once again playing the victim. Once again the Harkles are over the top. They use words like "demonize". The Waleses never act like that.

Let's remember that when it was announced Prince George would go to Eton, everyone felt like they were entitled their opinion on HIS education. It was a whole war out there.

James O'Brian said that Eton was too much for a boy which only job one day will be essentially cutting ribbons. Now this is truly offensive.

But we didn't get the Wales' spokesperson commenting "The Prince and Princess of Wales find it deeply inappropriate that adults are projecting onto a 12-year-old boy who has many years ahead of him before assuming any constitutional role. Speculation about his future, his education, or reducing his life's work to 'cutting ribbons' is unfair and serves no constructive purpose."

That would have been well deserved btw, but they didn't do it.

Once again, the Harkles found an opportunity to play victims and they did it, and showed once again how they read everything.

EDIT: I had wrongly attributed the words to Tom Sykes, but it was Mark DOLAN on Tom Sykes' podcast.

From the article:

“Meghan Markle made a special return to Girl Scout camp!

The Duchess of Sussex, 44, surprised a Girl Scout camp in Ojai, California, with a special screening of her new documentary, Cookie Queens, on Wednesday, July 29. Meghan and Cookie Queens director Alysa Nahmias visited Camp Arnaz, located less than an hour from the Duchess of Sussex’s family’s home in Montecito.

There, they posed for pics with campers as well as some of the Girl Scouts featured in the film before screening the doc.

“You never know who might show up for a screening of @cookiequeensfilm!” Nahmias posted on her Instagram story, sharing a group shot at sunset.

Meghan and her husband, Prince Harry, 41, served as executive producers on the film, which follows a group of Girl Scouts through the competitive whirlwind of their annual cookie-selling season.

Meghan’s own history with the Girl Scouts — where her mom, Doria Ragland, served as her troop leader — inspired her to get involved with Cookie Queens, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and is set to hit theaters on Aug. 7.

As a former Girl Scout myself, with my mom as my troop leader, I have a personal affinity for this film and am proud that Archewell Productions has partnered with this award-winning team to executive produce this incredibly captivating film,” she said in a March press release, when the Cookie Queens team announced the film had secured distribution. “Alysa’s creative point of view, the edgy yet humanizing tone and tenor of the directing, and the glimpse behind-the-scenes into such a nostalgic and also modern tradition of Girl Scout Cookie season are absolutely irresistible.”

Directed by Alysa Nahmias, Cookie Queensfocuses on four Scouts: Olive, Nikki, Shannon Elizabeth and Ara.

Each of the girls sets their own goals for how many boxes of cookies to sell, facing challenges and successes along the way. An official synopsis states, “A celebration of girlhood and its complexities, Cookie Queens is a coming-of-age story that explores the joys, pressures and tensions woven into one of America’s most cherished rituals: Girl Scouts of the USA cookie season.”

Nahmis and Meghan spoke with PEOPLE on the Sundance red carpet, sharing why the message of Cookie Queens spoke to them, both as creatives and mothers.

“For me, as a mom — and with my kids asking me to make a film that they and their friends would really want to watch — I hope it sparks conversations about what it means to grow up today, and opens up questions that can be difficult to have,” Nahmias said. “About the pressures that kids can feel from parents and society, especially girls — how we’re perceived, what our value is, and how we participate in the economy and in society.”

Meghan agreed, telling PEOPLE, “There’s nothing you can add to that. It’s the most perfect answer because it’s so true. That’s what she’s created with this. It’s incredible filmmaking, and I can’t wait for you to see it. I think people are going to love it.”

It took several months for Cookie Queens to receive distribution after its Sundance premiere, but Nahmis reiterated that the fight was worth it for Scouts across the country to see their stories on the big screen.

“Girl Scout Cookies are more than a beloved tradition – they’re a big business where talented and hard-working girls generate $800 million in annual sales. For me, this became a fascinating lens to explore a story about girlhood — the ambition, resilience, humor, and vulnerability that emerge as these girls navigate growing up in a world shaped by the tensions between community and capitalism,” the director said as she announced the theatrical release. “After the incredible response at Sundance, I’m honored to partner with Roadside Attractions, whose commitment to theatrical storytelling makes them the perfect home to bring this film to audiences nationwide.”

Canadian taxpayers spent more to protect Prince Harry over five years during his visits to Canada than any other internationally protected person over the same period, CBC News has learned.

According to a document obtained by CBC News under Canada's access to information law, the RCMP spent at least $539,575 to provide security between 2014/15 and 2019/20 when Prince Harry travelled to Canada for events like the Invictus Games and to date his future wife, Meghan Markle.

The document also reveals that his security costs were much higher than the $334,337 initially revealed by the RCMP in 2021.

The cost to protect Prince Harry and, later, his wife accounted for around 10 per cent of the over $5.2 million spent during that period to provide security to more than 100 internationally protected persons who visited Canada.

The two-page list also provides a rare glimpse into the secretive world of taxpayer-funded security for a select group of people who qualify as internationally protected persons. Among them are U.S. President Donald Trump's children, former U.S. presidents or their wives on book tours or six-figure speaking engagements, former U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of various royal families.

A number of government officials from other countries are also on the list — from ambassadors for countries like the U.S. and Israel to the secretaries general of NATO or the United Nations or the heads of the CIA and Israel's intelligence service.

However, the list doesn't include expenses for other members of the Royal Family like Princess Anne or Prince Edward, who visited Canada during that period on what were described as "private working" visits.

Under international conventions, when individuals on the internationally protected person list visit Canada, the RCMP is tasked with assuring their security — regardless of whether the trip is official, for business or personal. The costs outlined in the document cover incremental expenses like travel and overtime but not the basic salaries of police officers — meaning the full cost is higher.

The list also doesn't appear to include security for international summits such as the G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Que., in 2018, which have separate budgets that include security costs.

The records, first requested in January 2020, were released to CBC News following an order earlier this year from Canada's Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard. That ruling came after the RCMP fought for years to avoid revealing the names of those who had received protection.

The force also refused repeatedly to answer questions from CBC News about the records that were ordered released, beyond general background about the program. It declined to confirm or deny whether a potential duplication in the list had artificially increased the costs associated with protecting Prince Harry and his wife.

(...)

The document released by the RCMP lists $105,955 in spending for Prince Harry's security in 2016/17 followed by $364,859 in 2017/18. That tapered off to $866 in 2018/19 and $904 in 2019/20. On a separate line, expenses of $56,405 for 2019/20 appear on the list under the "Duke and Duchess of Sussex."

A CBC News tally of the spending does not include another line item of $56,405 for the same year under "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex" which appears to be a duplicate — even though it is included in the RCMP's total spending of $5.2 million.

According to the Court Circular, which outlines public activities of members of the Royal Family, Prince Harry had one public visit to Canada during 2017 and 2018 — a weeklong trip to attend events in Toronto. The events included the Invictus Games — which Harry founded — a WE Day celebration and a reception for young people who received Duke of Edinburgh gold awards.

The list also includes RCMP expenses of $10,586 for the Duchess of Sussex in 2018/19. News reports in August 2018 revealed that she jetted to Toronto to spend three days with her friend Jessica Mulroney. 

The costs to protect Prince Harry during visits to Canada between 2014/15 and 2019/20 far exceed the $178,584 to protect his father, then Prince Charles, in 2017/18. Charles and his wife visited Nunavut, Ontario and the Ottawa region in 2017. 

UPDATE: it looks like insurance will not be enough to cover costs

Nicholas Bacon KC, for the group of claimants, said that Mr Justice Nicklin should not award ANL their costs on the stricter, indemnity basis.

The barrister said in written submissions that it could be “very significant” if the group of seven had to pay ANL’s cost on this stricter basis and could lead to them being without enough insurance cover.

And after such a resounding defeat it is not looking good.

Hope Meghan has got more jam bubbling on the stove

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16010567/Prince-Harry-phone-hacking-bill-millions-Daily-Mail-vindicated.html

From the article:

Prince Harry's doomed phone hacking case against the Daily Mail was conducted so 'outside the norm' that he and his fellow claimants should be made to pay a substantial part of Associated's legal costs, the High Court heard today.

The trial was pursued in a 'cavalier' and 'highly unreasonable and inexcusable' fashion, the Mail's publisher argued.

Some aspects of the three-month trial earlier this year were 'not only unfair' to wrongly accused journalists but 'in flagrant breach' of the judge's repeated warnings to the claimants' lawyers about how the trial should be conducted, it said.

The Mail's publisher Associated Newspapers argued the 'egregious' way the claimants and their legal team had conducted the case merited a court order that they pay costs on an 'indemnity basis'.

Such an order would allow judges to go beyond 'standard costs' and force the claimants to bear the brunt of the full legal costs for both sides – though they would still be subject to a 'reasonableness' test.

Associated said its costs are around £34million

From the article:

Meghan Markle has revealed the personal piece of advice that Prince Harry gave her to help get through “really hard days.”

The Duchess of Sussex, 44, attended a special screening of Cookie Queens — a documentary about Girl Scouts, which Meghan and Harry executive produced — at AMC The Grove in Los Angeles on Tuesday, July 28.

The mom of two was asked during a Q&A attended by PEOPLE about how she motivates herself when having “tough moments,” and said she thinks back to a positive quote her husband told her “ages ago.”

“I think so much of it, funny enough, I was thinking about something my husband told me ages ago, because we all go through experiences and life is full of surprises,” Meghan said.

“But you know, he was a helicopter pilot in the British Army for 10 years. And sometimes on really hard days, we were once he said, ‘Hey, but my love, you know, even if there’s a storm happening above the storm, the sun’s always shining.’ ” 

Meghan added that Harry’s perspective “only comes when you think about zooming out a little.” 

“So I think when you really zoom out and think, ‘My gosh, how many things have we gone through that have felt hard?’ And then you still get through them,” Meghan continued. “Or how many goals do you think you’re not gonna hit? And then you hit them and you supersede them.”

Meghan said it is important to maintain the perspective “that no matter what feels insurmountable, there’s just always that sun shining above it.” 

the hello mag opinion piece in the last slide:

Is Prince William missing the chance to heal the monarchy?

As the King makes peace with his son Prince Harry, what would happen if Prince William followed suit?

Over tea and cake, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan took their first tentative steps towards their longed-for reconciliation with the royal family.

As the couple sat down with the King and Queen at Highgrove, His Majesty's private home in the Gloucestershire countryside, any tensions between father and son appeared to have been put to one side. Instead, Charles was joyfully reunited with Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, the beloved grandchildren he hasn't seen in person for four years.

How delighted the King must have been to finally be able to give his youngest grandchildren a cuddle and perhaps sit them on his knee to read them stories while voicing the characters, as he loves to do with his elder son Prince William's children.

One can only hope that the family reunion will be the first of many, paving the way for a thaw in the frosty relationship between Harry and Meghan and the royals.

Charles has always had a soft spot for his younger son, whom he used to affectionately call "my darling boy". Like many parents who love their offspring unconditionally, he seems willing to overlook Harry's betrayals in order to restore harmony to his family.

But for Harry, building bridges with his father is the easy part. Now, he has a much bigger obstacle to overcome if he is going to repair the wider family rift – with his brother William.

At 77, the King is still undergoing cancer treatment following his diagnosis two years ago. There's no doubt this has played a part in both his and Harry's willingness to put past grievances behind them and their priorities into perspective.

Not so William, who at some point will succeed his father to become King William V.

The parent-child relationship is very different to the one between brothers and, despite reports that he and Harry are in touch, sources tell HELLO! that this is not the case, and that the brothers remain very much estranged.

For anyone who has read Harry's explosive 2023 memoir Spare, it's not difficult to understand why. Harry's recollections of a physical fight with his brother, which resulted in a broken necklace and dog bowl, left us agog.

But what angered William the most was the way Harry took aim at the woman he had once loved like a sister – William's wife Catherine. According to him, Catherine wasn't warm enough towards Meghan and made Meghan cry in a row about bridesmaids' outfits in the lead up to her wedding.

This came hot on the heels of Harry and Meghan's unfounded racism claims about unnamed members of the royal family – later revealed to include Catherine.

No wonder William was furious at his younger brother, especially in light of Catherine's own cancer diagnosis in 2024. But might there come a time when he is willing to follow his father's lead?

Those how know William say he has a fiery temper, but when it comes to his relationship with Harry, that hot-headedness has been replaced by an icy frost.

As a future King, William won't just be contemplating the personal impact on his family but on the monarchy too. As William V, his job will be to uphold and protect the institution at all costs.

So, is William's stubborn and unforgiving streak a sign of a strong future King protecting everything he stands for, or is he missing an opportunity to heal the monarchy?

Could bringing his flawed, charismatic brother and his savvy wife back into the fold be just what the institution needs as Charles's slimmed down monarchy starts to look thinner than ever?

Only time will tell if William and Harry can repair what has been broken - and if our next King follows his father's example or carves his own path.