Scott Snow, the Invictus Games, and Harry

Scott Snow, the Invictus Games, and Harry

On the eve of Invictus’s One Year to Go event (or whatever it’s called) - Posting this on behalf of a now deleted account who I think wanted to draw attention to the GoFundMe. However it - and a part of the story - seems worth it.

Scott Snow was a competitor representing Team Canada at the Invictus Games in Düsseldorf, in 2023. He was playing wheelchair rugby when his chair toppled, causing life-changing injuries to his head, neck, and spine: CBC News Canada (unarchived) for an account.

Snow’s been out of pocket as, at the time, serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were insured for injury, but veterans were not. He’s currently suing the CAF for C$2.4 million for treatment, pain and suffering, and loss of income.

The relevant bit is an interview with Paula Froelich: NewsNation unarchived

https://preview.redd.it/76eaxnc9sgbh1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d68da3c7c5f14b1f7dbfb174dbca1ab5bc4b1546

This does sound like an internal CAF matter. However one would’ve thought that, at the very least, the organisers of Invictus - with whom Harry’s involved - would’ve seen to insurance, especially for such vulnerable competitors.

But Harry has form in ignoring those in real need. Remember the indigenous Baka people of the Republic of Congo, who suffered abuse, rape, and torture at the hands of rangers employed by Harry’s Africa Parks charity? This was brought to Harry’s attention by indigenous rights group Survival International - but to no avail.

GoFundMe for Scott Snow - unless Harry donated anonymously, it doesn’t look like he’s made a contribution.

EDIT: Those of you who’ve donated - you’re great!

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 15 hours ago

Kate’s mountains vs Meghan’s honey

Daily Mail archived (paywall) has a pithy but acute comparison between the recent activities of the 2 duchesses, I mean the princess and the doucheass.

https://preview.redd.it/gmqa1uo80kah1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c00910adca42b7cba4e50ba0e2068b48ad0a2854

Kate

What the Princess of Wales did recently’s been posted in this sub - but the details are worth noting:

https://preview.redd.it/y9z6l92m0kah1.jpg?width=2118&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb1efc6f14ed04c07d01527abed819525c5bd0c6

This is the converse of what Meghan does, as people on this sub’s been observing for years:

https://preview.redd.it/n1da5rru0kah1.jpg?width=2086&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fffa4ab42da85e8161ab18856073e32ae94b5d6b

Meanwhile, in Montecito (or somewhere in Europe)…

https://preview.redd.it/ggvyhkp81kah1.jpg?width=2122&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6a557e03748dd0d4d567644971bff9a14de3634

And this is the difference between Meghan and the Princess of Wales (well, one of many)

https://preview.redd.it/tymxovoh1kah1.jpg?width=2079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad114e91ee7f6974eab8c0ef82515282428bf5e7

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 5 days ago

Meghan at Wimbledon: what about the security?

This in the Daily Mail archived (it’s behind a paywall), from an article about global trotting venture capitalist, no time for Wimbledon anti-doping measures, tennis champion Serena Williams:

https://preview.redd.it/aq4hpvk9rgah1.png?width=2210&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f6c497f59aecb6462bd4806236de824325382eb

Why would Serena’s people be in touch with Wimbledon to discuss a visit by Meghan? She’d just want to dress badly and clear out the place.

July 2019. There was also a no-photo ban - she wishes.

Or maybe it‘s to angle an invitation to the Royal Box for her? Despite its name, the 80-ish seating area is by invitation only, by the Chairman of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

Meghan wouldn’t want to clear the Royal Box. Apart from the sprinkling of royals, day 1 attendees included David Beckham and actor Mark Rylance. The international celebrity quotient ramps up towards the finals.

But has Serena forgotten that she tends to lose when Meghan’s around?

https://preview.redd.it/3rvw7n21wgah1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a4ac8351e7d9f78b66081d812afc1c0d8779217

Take the original extract with not a pinch, but a Salzberg.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 6 days ago

So coming / not coming WAS a play for additional security

Headline from the Daily Mail archived / unarchived - says it all really.

https://preview.redd.it/ozg4lf3ieaah1.png?width=1099&format=png&auto=webp&s=c71af74caa354b3047926070d2ef5dcca94f7bef

So predictable, and now so obvious.

Nothing else new in the article.

Still pushing the holiday-in-Europe story. If they can disappear so completely in Europe, why can’t they do the same in the U.K.?

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 7 days ago

The Sussexes’ UK itinerary…sigh

The dates

7-11 July 2026

The engagements

7 July - Invictus event, London. (Guessing: ’The Invictus Games Foundation Conversation : From Policy to Practice’, Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London)

8 July - ? (Noting that: (i) Althorp’s about an hour from Birmingham vs (ii) it’ll be closed on 10-11 July, plus (iii) there’s supposedly an Invictus event with the Chelsea Pensioners at the Royal Hospital Chelsea.)

9 July - 20th anniversary of the WellChild Nurse Programme, Birmingham Children’s Hospital

10 July - Invictus ‘one year to go’ event, National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham

11 July - Scotty’s Summer Festival, Maxstoke Castle (for the charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers)

Asides

Harry should take them to the Scotty’s Summer Festival, which probably will be shut down to the press anyway, except maybe People rag.

and

https://preview.redd.it/tpo01xtegu9h1.jpg?width=1587&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e6cf52cfbbf2b5d9f7d773513aaa26655aaa4972

Please please please

https://preview.redd.it/cacwq82pgu9h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1cff89a65ae2aa43598c5bebfab6b5f392125778

Source: The Telegraph (which I can’t link), and Googling - all public information.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 9 days ago

The window’s fast closing

Harry’s headed towards (greater) irrelevance, and he knows it.

When we were 3…

https://preview.redd.it/uc38icahqt9h1.jpg?width=821&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6559e8f78fb8a2be06464ed844a4a8f5682ee3c4

9 years on…

On a recent visit to RAF Coningsby, of which the Princess of Wales has been Royal Honorary Air Commodore since August 2023:

https://preview.redd.it/g3as06mfqt9h1.jpg?width=1254&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44120e39ba673b2794f461e95bf35b7c855f1106

Also, the Daily Mail has the following article

https://preview.redd.it/l2fxs41uot9h1.png?width=2258&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9216738ab960ddce2157cc3415d78a2ea957860

Out of the mouths of babes

In a 2017 interview with biographer Angela Levin, Harry was uncharacteristically prescient:

https://preview.redd.it/p7cqfx7kqt9h1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e28f37743330981beb05e7887bc209e5fcdd2d8a

This flurry of activity by Harry’s due to something. My guess is that he misses the trappings of the trap from which he escaped.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 9 days ago

‘I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point…’

https://preview.redd.it/89jzv9tz9s9h1.jpg?width=1368&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb86d538747092f8e4d24d615835714ed47dc101

Seemingly that point’s been passed: Harry’s trip to the UK’s been announced on BBC breakfast television - also on their website: BBC unarchived

The BBC mentions that they’ll be ‘guests of the King on a royal estate’. This always has been on offer whenever Harry’s come to the U.K. (as is commensurate security) - so isn’t a branch from that olive plantation which seemingly has supplied so many branches. Just as well that they’re make-believe branches.

https://preview.redd.it/q7787h23as9h1.jpg?width=711&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7749bd2b4e7e5497f7988ef315585a5d72f3a8b7

It’s interesting that the sometimes fawning BBC mentioned their interview with Harry in 2025, after he‘d lost a battle over security. Hence the tantrum:

https://preview.redd.it/6u9fh9p5as9h1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f14a2ec832ba0f0d0f8c7399226816c945fdf0cc

Note the snide comment that follows - the not-quite-subtle nastiness is pure Meghan:

https://preview.redd.it/7gwtaeq7as9h1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=108df16b16c8c01776d985f7c7a78a7962147e50

Also pure Meghan‘s the focus on a literal interpretation to avoid responsibility - in this case, Harry denying that he (and his ghastly wife) had callled the Royal Family racist: it was (surprise, surprise) the British press: Sky News unarchived

https://preview.redd.it/ay0dasx9as9h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf44f82c44ca79701de2f50460b7bf013de2c50b

Professional race baiter Shouty Shola called it racism. But of course Harry knows better. It was unconscious bias! He then helpfully explains the difference:

https://preview.redd.it/aelbncqbas9h1.jpg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f6471f182c6bd75c92add911d4c5eaf812c2cd57

That’s actually rich when referring to a family that’s worked with the Commonwealth.

https://preview.redd.it/g55sjjkdas9h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6bebe71c9a0d5d92bd468e527a40f488aee5067

There’s no room in this post to go into how Charles, as Prince of Wales and King, has reached out to minorities - his record speaks for itself.

https://preview.redd.it/mh6umfcgas9h1.jpg?width=759&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a541eab43452e77ce0f6607595860fb25920bb1

It will be interesting to see how the Royal Family handles the optics.

Out of sight, out of mind - one assumes that the King has an interest in seeing his grandchildren, but logically it can’t be as compelling as, say, if he’d been involved in their growing years.

However the Royal Family does recognise the drawbacks of being seen with Harry - it can’t be an accident that, despite his many visits to the U.K. since Megxit in 2020, the King’s seen Harry only twice.

What must be the situation be if Meghan’s prepared to:

(1) Return to a racist country.

(2) Return to a country so unsafe (compared to, say, war-torn Ukraine) that they require armed protection.

(3) Introduce their children to racist grandfather and (maybe) aunt. (Oh wait: that was unconscious bias.)

(4) Run the risk of their children’s faces being photographed (unless they won’t be taken out in public because of, you know, privacy).

Arguably this is a roll of the dice to appear royal, like the Waleses and their children whenever they appear in public - and, as instantly as pot noodles, be loved again.

https://preview.redd.it/3m0fzhkacs9h1.jpg?width=1049&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abe4264842342d162dcd235e2ccdc71d533fbe6a

https://preview.redd.it/c9efghkacs9h1.jpg?width=1087&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ce8e3e561e129b6e403a16c395bcb983a23c872

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 9 days ago

Blast from the past: Meghan’s Trooping the Colour x 2 - from hump to frump

The recent Trooping the Colour brought to mind Meghan‘s appearances at this celebration, and how her outfit was off both times - was this intentional?

The right to bear shoulders: 2018

At her first Trooping the Colour, Meghan dressed like someone you called up and paid by the hour (or, if you booked for the week, it might cost $3,000 (back in 1990 anyway)).

How to look cheap in Carolina Herrera.

There was later speculation that Meghan had tried to emulate Diana:

Diana at a gala at the Deutsche Oper in Berlin, 1987, in Catherine Walker.

However, Diana was at an evening function, and was quite appropriately - if somewhat daringly, for a member of the Royal Family - dressed.

There was some applause for breaking the dress code - but at that time, she was a newly minted member of the Royal Family (under a month), and so was treated with some positivity.

The right to bear arms: 2019

At her 2nd and - as it turns out - last Trooping the Colour, Meghan turned up dressed like a bumpkin pretending to be a lady - evidenced by wearing gloves. In a northern hemisphere June (viz summer). Made from leather.

It’s pretty evident why Clare Waight Keller’s contract at Givenchy wasn’t renewed.

She took them off very soon - most photos show her gloveless.

This was the Trooping the Colour where she turned to chat to Harry, who told her to shut up, turn around, and be quiet (I’m guessing, obvs): The Sun (unarchived, for video).

Meghan’s takeaway from that year must’ve been: Never ride to Trooping the Colour in the same carriage as the effortlessly elegant then Duchess of Cambridge.

https://preview.redd.it/6pzgfms5jp8h1.jpg?width=1089&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=055c97b820ab0741d41d005d53c76eec834f2a84

Bonus observation: Meghan‘s (cough) joke

According to Harry (or possibly ghostwriter Meghan) in Sparse:

https://preview.redd.it/60wohh8bkp8h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=f69c6c0d4f16b3165972dc44614e86376866a02f

I don’t believe a word of this. Kate belongs to that class where good social manners is second nature. That, plus her training and experience as a royal, would’ve meant that she could respond to any conversational cue, no matter how banal or awkward.

Apart from Harry’s caveat in Sparse that his memory’s unreliable, there are several passages so eulogistic about Meghan that we could be forgiven for thinking that she’d written them herself. For example:

Their mouths fell open. They turned to each other. Then Willy turned to me and said: ‘F—k off?’

I was baffled until Willy and Kate explained that they were regular - nay, religious - viewers of Suits.

’Great,’ I thought, laughing. I’ve been worrying about the wrong thing. All this time I’d thought Willy and Kate might not welcome Meg into the family, but now I had to worry about them hounding her for an autograph.

Sure, Jan.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 15 days ago

The most telling photograph of Meghan

In my opinion.

I believe this was taken on the first day of the Invictus Games Vancouver Whistler, on 14 February 2025.

I think it shows Meghan exactly as she sees herself.

The classic ploy to make a budget look appear high-end: a single overpriced (but comparatively affordable) accessory (here, the Burberry beanie).

- The person everyone’s been waiting for; the centre of attention.

- She smiles graciously, because she walks in beauty (in her head anyway). It’s probably a genuine smile, because it’s her moment.

- Because she’s the cynosure of all eyes, she leads the way. Princes trail in her wake - everyone follows.

- And because the world’s waiting to see her, nobody should obstruct her path. Just a gentle but firm touch to make way for the star attraction.

And here she is, Sasquatch feet and all.

‘She’s Love, she loves, and yeti is not lov’d.’

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 15 days ago

ELI5: The prodigal son and the fatted calf

Explain like I’m 5.

What follows is the narrative of Meghan and Harry, as set out in headlines put out by respectable news outlets - the question comes at the end.

The racist country

https://preview.redd.it/skapdizsuv7h1.jpg?width=1578&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92d4dd4561df7a621cbb178f00f9eb3bd672dfff

Meghan’s view doesn’t seem to be unsupported (anything can be supported, really).

https://preview.redd.it/plwi5a1avv7h1.jpg?width=1546&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20a568dfe63ca44f7f3a79f927553a82e77e1b2e

The racist family

There seems to be some suggestion that Harry wants to be reconciled with his father. But after the way his family treated his wife?

https://preview.redd.it/e60g1ptlvv7h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f046dc0c5583d359c1e9c750d29f6b37d0b02c1

In fact, it seems to have affected Meghan quite badly.

https://preview.redd.it/dnk6jpnsvv7h1.jpg?width=1581&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6aae44ad8b0d243ee42351e040400d11e739d28f

Should they introduce their son to such people?

https://preview.redd.it/ph1ph3dtwv7h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b98606a65f45fddceebbdcc3d5d127fa7e1d19bd

Especially as they can be identified?

https://preview.redd.it/dfu05399xv7h1.jpg?width=1555&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0333120d93acf8ffb6a0744ff287d5540b8f50dc

Maybe it’s OK because it wasn’t really racism?

https://preview.redd.it/vbado7ojxv7h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56ceffb05b566b651148530afdc474a4be67a316

So against all this, ELI5 this recent headline:

https://preview.redd.it/4uri33bwxv7h1.jpg?width=2257&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bc42bf03a55a6f8e6cea9db15bef7c2b4cec805

In other words - Harry and Meghan want to:

- Return to a country so racist that it compelled them to leave

- Meet with a family so racist that Meghan felt suicidal (not very supportive of Harry, really)

- Introduce their son to family members who made questionable comments about his skin colour, even before he was born

Why?

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 19 days ago

Harry and Meghan: Has America had enough?

This is the title of a (UK) Channel 5 documentary, as written up by the Daily Mail archived / unarchived

Not sure if this is actually a view of a majority of Americans; of an echo chamber; or put forward for ratings.

However, it‘s further evidence that, after Megxit in January 2020, the media aren’t afraid to be critical of Meghan (and Harry), compared to the early days, when everyone seemed to take her lies, I mean her truths, uttered at the Oprah interview in March 2021 as gospel.

u/Mickleborough — 25 days ago

Why Meghan has supporters

Catherine Mayer, ex-TIME staffer, has written a book called Divide & Rule: Royal Women and Their Battles. The theme appears to be how royal women are demonised for sinister monarchical purposes - the aim is to reveal the truth behind the myth.

On that premise, Meghan’s behaviour is myth; here’s the ‘truth’, ie the reasons behind her conduct:

We didn’t understand her background

https://preview.redd.it/oy1qqfgpgs5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=246365229a0fc1b24e652f70adb61b8d1de30127

From memory, the only such article was the Daily Mail’s ‘Straight Outta Compton’ article, which focused on the neighbourhood of Doria’s home: Daily Mail archived (hopefully the link works).

It was pretty clear how she grew up: the private school; Northwestern and the sorority; the internship in the US Embassy - an upper middle class American upbringing.

Race was a factor

https://preview.redd.it/w5oafit9hs5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ea203a8696f764b2374c0e9a7982ec3b6677f64

Palace intrigue was a factor

https://preview.redd.it/z5ptg4pdhs5h1.png?width=1118&format=png&auto=webp&s=6660937c3093504ea04242cbf0a6763bf34185e5

California girls was a factor

https://preview.redd.it/9gjdapuhhs5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=edd81aa11f6dd73307f1872457acdac125ad1fae

https://preview.redd.it/chzzmeslhs5h1.png?width=1186&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9e3b564e0027df2fba7c908c1dee4801f163234

’What exactly has she done to earn such hostility?’

https://preview.redd.it/11bwhh8rhs5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3308535e85255b6d3a8c2cb8d2c02d03065a825

Interestingly, Mayer refers to the Sussex Squad as if they were an organised, recognised entity. Nor does she (in this extract anyway) allude to their undoubted nastiness.

https://preview.redd.it/3xbrl544is5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=5e2cd8345359d740a53d71ffb0f691157a2b8079

https://preview.redd.it/qbvt60hlis5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=27d57b4677a0d2d229f1e1faac8e2cf0ccdc3960

The babes in the woods

https://preview.redd.it/55vnfeeris5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=462e391afa9a2cd77af5785f0d25868adc447ca3

https://preview.redd.it/y9x6rmouis5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6bef98db444d71d1b57e4536369ffafdad170da

https://preview.redd.it/gqvc4zy3js5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=d14d35252b4fda5722860f6afd580954ace8ac97

https://preview.redd.it/q7cp6al6js5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2d4e36f3d44d04cf1c72dae0c3e148f3cabc77c

https://preview.redd.it/opkdznh9js5h1.png?width=1377&format=png&auto=webp&s=e54fbf9e5d9e02e41e940432cd54f2d2414a0ab9

And finally - the Diana card

https://preview.redd.it/0b370ehcjs5h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f76dd925c27f90fcd1dd829651489962004555d

Conclusion

People take Meghan’s side, not because of who she is, but because it suits their agenda. And to do this, they’re prepared to ignore what seem to be obvious truths.

EDIT: Daily Mail link to the extract from which the above is taken: archived

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 29 days ago

Blast from the past: When Harry mentioned his ‘little friend’

Amazon Prime has a rather good (in my opinion) series about the professional and private lives of barristers* in a set of chambers in London.

The BBC drama series is called Silk (2011-2014, 3 seasons), a reference to the highest point of a barrister’s career, when he or she’s appointed King’s Counsel, in recognition of exceptional specialised knowledge, and can command enormous fees.

Google AI states that Silk averaged between 4.5 and 5.6 million views per episode.

Season 1, Episode 4 involves a complaint of racism. I’ll stop here to avoid spoilers, but will mention that one of the characters says:

‘Prince Harry. He called somebody “my little Paki friend”.’

That incident took place when Harry was a 21-year-old cadet undergoing officer training at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, around 2005, and was filmed apparently by him. (The News of the World first released the footage in 2009.)

The News of the World footage had some interesting revelations:

https://preview.redd.it/iv6dvn0nu54h1.jpg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c27ce582eb6d4ecd01a86e3ff9f8baa9f696cfe9

https://preview.redd.it/wz4y5ng7v54h1.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d75a6ddbb2203d118b1d295be8997fd462012eca

https://preview.redd.it/wiw7kthfv54h1.jpg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c4386f8ba4b1b037ad7c54b774eac480f5b099d

Thankfully, marriage to Meghan has helped Harry shed his unconscious bias due to his royal upbringing:

https://preview.redd.it/etpd8a2hv54h1.jpg?width=1364&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9014b79ca81ae325614c47b5c565f3ff33cef38

This must be an example of Royalty demonstrating unconscious bias:

https://preview.redd.it/f4je5z2kv54h1.jpg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2018d73da2cd69b42ec1665f2662507b5703140b

* In the British legal system, as well as in some Commonwealth countries, persons who argue in court before a judge are called barristers. One of the traditions is that a client can’t consult a barrister directly: they have to go through a solicitor (lawyer).

The Guardian (on the incident) archived / unarchieved

The Guardian (on Harry’s unconscious bias) archived / unarchived

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 1 month ago

Oh, the drama! Meghan’s speech to a near-empty Geneva square

This is a bit late to the party but - I transcribed most of Meghan‘s speech (one pays the price for curiosity). And I didn’t want the effort to go to waste.

(NB It’s not word-perfect because that would mean having to listen to Meghan speak - I’d copied the YouTube transcript.)

The style is interesting in the sense that it relies heavily on emotional blackmail.

It blatantly tugs at the heartstrings; wants to make you cry; pretty much do everything that the film Beaches (or, supposedly, The Notebook) did to audiences.

Here’s a sample:

It is a public health issue and a human one. Behind us stands the lost screen memorial.

Not statistics, not avatars, not data points.

Children, each name belong to a child who was loved beyond measure.

A child whose laughter once filled the kitchen, whose shoes once waited by a front door.

Whose future once felt limitless.

And now their faces ask the world questions we can no longer avoid.

The issue appears to be:

Relentless algorithms, exploitative engagement, and endless exposure to harmful content that they are not seeking out.

The solution? Write down what you think it is in the comments.

Children must be saved by design, not saved by chance, because danger now travels globally, instantly, invisibly and intimately. 

And our protections must do the same.

And as technology advances, as extraordinary speed, we cannot simply stand by waiting for the damage to catch up with us.

Demand better from the platforms shaping our children's lives. Be an example in your own social media use of how to be intentional in every moment that you like, that you comment, that you post, that you share - hold your community to the same standard.

Write to your elected officials. Ask what they are doing to protect children in digital spaces and join the parents, campaigners, health experts and young people around the world calling for global standards that put child well-being before algorithmic profit.

Because children one day will be appalled at the absence of safeguards. (Knowing children, they’d more likely be trying to circumvent barriers.)

One day, generations from now, children will look back at this era with absolute disbelief that adults once allowed digital spaces to exist without basic protections for young people.

But let's do something now. So they will also look back and see that during this increasingly polarized time where people can barely agree on basic facts, that beyond politics or party lines, beyond demographics, incomes or ideologies, beyond race or religion, we could all universally agree on one thing: we want our children to be safe.

There’s a lot more to her speech, but it‘s emotive and could be divisive.

Compare this to the Duchess of Edinburgh’s speech at the same time and place, but to the WHO assembly. I can’t find a transcript of her speech, but did find a quote:

The value of vision is just not a moral argument but an economic argument. The case for investment is more than compelling. Every dollar invested in eye health in low- and middle-income countries generates an estimated twenty-eight dollars in economic returns.

Eye health accounts for up to ten per cent of patient consultations in many low- and middle-income countries yet receives less than one per cent of national health budgets. That gap is not sustainable. And it is not justifiable.

Basically, objective facts.

EDIT:

(1) To clarify that this is not a full transcript - about 1/3 or more, as it wasn’t my intention to provide a full transcript.

(2) To note that she does refer to some victims by name. I have omitted those references as they might be triggering - the language is certainly intentionally emotive.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 1 month ago

Meghan’s Geneva speech used the same arguments published by medical expert Dr Dana Suskind

Posting for KilnTime.

Controversial portions of Meghan Markle's speech in Switzerland for the Lost Screens memorial were plagarized from an article written by Dr. Dana Suskind and published in The Chicago Tribune on April 30, 2026, days before Meghan's speech.

Specifically, Dr. Suskind, who was writing about the dangers of AI in social media and the inadequate response from social media platforms (and who quoted research showing that economically disadvantaged families were more concerned with physical threats than social media threats) wrote:

“We would never accept a food safety system that required parents to individually test every product for toxins before feeding it to their child. Instead, we regulate the food supply.

“We would never accept a policy that ensured car safety for wealthy children but not their low-income peers. Instead, we require car seats and seatbelts. We don’t outsource public health to individual families.

“And make no mistake: The potential developmental harms of AI slop are a public health concern. Rather than leaving it up to parents to navigate this risk (or not) on their own, we need universal, platform-level solutions."

Sound familiar? Meghan used the exact same arguments in her speech.

She could have credited Dr. Suskind and actually given her speech more strength by quoting or referring to a pediatric surgeon known for her research and writing on early brain development. But then she would not have gotten the credit.

(Credit for this information goes to Lyndadavis6829, who made a comment on Tom Sykes video " The $64 Distraction" on YouTube. I just followed the breadcrumbs. Dr. Suskind's article can be read here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/30/opinion-artificial-intelligence-ai-youtube-kids/)

u/Mickleborough — 2 months ago

‘All right, Mr DeMille, I’m ready for my car park.’

OK, it’s not a car park - but it’s both topical to Meghan and alliteratively close enough.

I thought it might be useful to have an idea of exactly where Meghan gave her ‘powerful address’.

Here‘s the powerful address of her powerful address:

The Place des Nations: a public square. Think that’s the Nations tram stop to the right.

Here‘s a photograph:

The approach to the UN’s Palais des Nations is to the left.

It’s across the road from the Palais des Nations, approached by an avenue of flags:

https://preview.redd.it/646dh6fsua2h1.jpg?width=1443&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e774a1c73cdb69d1d89ff2ea5fe19ec0d3fb219

And here’s her audience.

https://preview.redd.it/y7uq93p2va2h1.jpg?width=1113&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd2714bd82c3dd33ad7335e192ec04fc3241dec3

https://preview.redd.it/3cfclg7xua2h1.jpg?width=1128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d105c6a7b9b076d17c48bff2e7440e7196bf0bc

The travelling sideshow seems to be behind the Broken Chair memorial. No crowd waiting there to watch her escort notables.

https://preview.redd.it/q7gq9tejva2h1.jpg?width=1128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a359842b200bd93ffef6b493f5ab4377b3ec402e

https://preview.redd.it/6t43ei5nva2h1.jpg?width=1119&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae5a567afcfea60c28792f451373423da2e54800

It’d have been good to have a shot of the people in front of her (from memory it looked like a mere handful of invited guests).

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 2 months ago

The remit of the World Health Organisation

From the WHO website:

https://preview.redd.it/wt2v3ptgbt1h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a346c4026a559d832df9058b7f32eb202eace16

As far as I can tell (admittedly from skimming), this ‘healthier, safer world’ involves eradicating disease. The current aims are:

https://preview.redd.it/pjhfrko0ct1h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=e99df24f753f86ae3283e322b616b82be7767a25

How does preventing harm to children from social media - a laudable cause, don’t get me wrong - fall into this? It seems to be a concern that affects those countries where, at least:

(1) mobile phone communication‘s available, and

(2) easily accessible by children who

(3) have the requisite mindset to bully.

These appear to be comparatively narrow criteria in comparison to, say, people globally who would benefit from the 6 strategic objectives set out above.

Asking for a friend.

EDIT: I agree with the comments below that mental health arguably falls within the (necessarily) broadly drafted aims of the WHO. However my impression, from their website and reports, is that their primary focus is on issues that can be resolved through education or science, not therapy or banning conduct.

reddit.com
u/Mickleborough — 2 months ago