Hands Off, Miriam — You Don’t Cancel An Icon For Calling For Peace

The persistent effort to deprive Miriam Margolyes, a national treasure, of her OBE is utterly disgraceful.

This brave woman has only expressed her opinions.

She is an 83-year-old Jewish woman who has spoken out about the ongoing atrocities in Gaza with much suffering and empathy, demanding an urgent ceasefire to end the murder of defenceless women and children. ​

However, every time someone dares to oppose the Israeli government’s activities, a concerted effort is made to have them revoked, demonised, and stripped of their awards.

There must be an end to the use of indignation as a weapon to stifle valid political criticism. ​

Miriam Margolyes has always been fiercely independent, kind, and honest.

Not only is it unethical to penalise a Jewish elder or anybody else for caring about human rights, but it’s also a pitiful attempt to stifle free expression. ​

For years, I’ve questioned why she isn’t a Dame. Not to mention depriving her of her OBE! She talks about the Israeli government because, in addition to the fact that what she is saying is accurate, she can do it without being labelled antisemitic since she is a Jewish lady.

What’s wrong with this world? No empathy. If I couldn’t be a humanitarian, I would say to shove it where the sun doesn’t shine if I had an OBE.

She only speaks what everybody else should also be saying, especially our politicians.

If Miriam gets stripped of her OBE, then England is indeed going up the kiber pass. She has spoken out; she’s not pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes. She says it as she sees it, and good for her.

People like Miriam are the true guardians against anti-semitism by showing us that being a Zionist is a significantly different thing to being a Jew.

She is absolutely right. What has transpired in Gaza is appalling. Netanyahu’s behaviour has harmed ordinary decent Jewish people as well. It’s terrible that she is being targeted for standing up for human rights.

They can do whatever they want, but the majority believe she is a hero.

Trying to cancel people for demanding peace. What has happened to humanity? She should be praised, not cancelled.

Attempting to ban individuals for calling for peace. What has become of humanity? Instead of being cancelled, she should be commended.

Her harsh honesty is something I like. She receives a lot of “bad press” for this, but many more people value her direct and honest attitude. Additionally, she doesn’t care who she offends.

She is an incredible lady who upholds her values, so I have no doubt that she would handle it head-on if it occurs. No matter who attempts to blackmail her, she will not allow that threat to prevent her from talking about Palestine and the Zios.

The moral compass in this country has gone; it just doesn’t exist.

Right now, this minute, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, silence is complicit and is literally murdering Palestinians and Lebanese.

If even one tenth of our politicians (who aren’t on Israel’s payroll) or public figures had Miriam Margolyes’s humanity, knowledge or courage to speak out, it would educate and break the indifference in this country.

The woman puts herself in danger by speaking up, and she is deserving of all the praise for her honesty, compassion, and integrity.

Throughout her life, Miriam Margolyes has made many significant choices, and she will do so once more. No one can take away her numerous accomplishments, so no matter what happens, she can still be proud of them. Furthermore, she is aware that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom support her.

Asked For A Plaster, Got Told To Ring 999. Britain: Where Minor Injuries Get Blue‑Light Treatment

A grandmother of seven who needed a plaster after cutting her finger was refused assistance by her local pharmacy and GP – and told to call 999. Pauline Shillito hurt herself while slicing a melon in her home in Lydd, on Romney Marsh, where she lives alone.

Although the injury was only minor, the 84-year-old started bleeding because she takes blood-thinning medication, so she sought assistance at Well Pharmacy – a three-minute walk away on the corner of High Street and New Lane.

“But the pharmacist said, ‘We don’t deal with blood,’” said Mrs Shillito. “So then I went to the GP, but the receptionist said, ‘We have no nurse on duty today,’ and told me to call 999. “It’s absolutely disgusting. Can you imagine an ambulance coming because of a cut finger when there are people having heart attacks – all I needed was a plaster.”

Pharmacist Tunde Odelade – who spoke to the pensioner following the accident last Wednesday – said his staff are not trained or insured to handle such injuries. “There was a lot of blood. It was literally dripping down her arm onto the floor – in a pharmacy full of people, that’s very unhygienic,” he said.

“I told her I couldn’t help her because I can’t deal with blood. I did offer to take her details and call an ambulance, but she refused.”

Mrs Shillito says she was also turned away from Orchard House GP Surgery in Bleak Road because they “did not have a nurse on duty” – and told to call 999. Fortunately, while walking home, she bumped into a neighbour.

“She saw me crying with a piece of blood-soaked kitchen towel around my finger and helped me,” the former John Lewis shop assistant added. “She cleaned my finger and put a plaster on it. I’m just lucky I have good neighbours.”

A spokesperson for Orchard House Surgery’s operator, Invicta Health, said: “We are aware of the matter you have raised; however, we are unable to comment on issues relating to individual patients’ care due to patient confidentiality. Our practice is committed to ensuring patients receive appropriate advice and access to the right healthcare service based on their clinical needs.”

Mrs Shillito, who moved to Lydd from London seven years ago, said she refused to call 999 because “it wasn’t an emergency” and she “didn’t want to waste the ambulance service’s time”. The NHS says 999 is for life-threatening emergencies like serious road traffic accidents, strokes and heart attacks.

Dialling 111 is recommended when the medical situation does not rise to this severity, but you think medical help is needed right away. The 111 service can direct users to the best place to get help if their GP is unavailable.

It’s unbelievable that a nurse wasn’t on hand, and what? Can’t a doctor clean a wound and apply a plaster? Says everything about the times we live in.

Unless you are on blood thinners, you have no idea. Clotting takes a lot longer, so a cut finger would bleed heavily and not stop. This lady must have been extremely frightened. Worryingly, the places we thought would help us showed so little compassion in this.

Lovely how the surgeries don’t need to be accountable or give their comments due to “patient confidentiality”. Such a suitable cop out on their part.

They could have put disposable gloves on and cleaned it up, then kept her sat in a chair to see if the bleeding had stopped. If not, then got medical advice. The lady is elderly and required help.

So this lady’s neighbour managed to help her when the professionals refused. She just required a plaster and help with putting it on. And also a little compassion and TLC. All are free.

Just do the human thing: help an old lady.

Ambulance Conveyance In Acute Crisis — Followed By A Discharge That Left Him Clinically Unprotected And Predictably Lost To Psychosis

Antony was taken by ambulance from his home address to Southend Hospital on Friday 3 July after experiencing tachycardia while going in and out of psychosis.

He was discharged at 11:58 pm that same night, despite still being mentally unwell, and CCTV later showed him wandering around the Southend Hospital car park throughout the night until he eventually wandered off the premises at 8:40 am on Saturday.

By midday on Saturday 4 July, he was officially reported missing to the police. Later that afternoon, at around 5 pm, I (his brother Jake) found him in a state of full psychosis. With the help of police and ambulance crews, he was taken to Basildon Hospital, where staff assured us he would be shadowed and sectioned for his safety.

However, at 6:40 am on Sunday 5 July, a new duty doctor discharged him, deeming him fit, even though he remained actively psychotic, had no phone, money, or bank cards, and was also suffering from a strangulated hernia. A nurse had acknowledged over the phone that he was still not mentally well, but said there was nothing she could do.

This isn’t just an isolated glitch — it’s the exact kind of failure that makes people lose trust in a system that’s supposed to protect the most vulnerable. When you watch someone you love being passed around, discharged, dismissed, and left unsafe, it’s not just stressful; it’s traumatising. And it leaves you with a very human reaction: this system is not working for us.

This is a system that didn’t recognise risk, doesn’t recognise psychosis, doesn’t recognise lack of capacity, doesn’t recognise medical emergency, doesn’t recognise missing‑person vulnerability, and didn’t recognise basic safeguarding obligations.

That’s not me being dramatic. That’s the system failing at the most basic level, and the way mental health crises are handled is unacceptable.

How on earth was he discharged twice while in psychosis? That’s a complete failure of duty of care. He was a missing person, medically unwell, and clearly not safe. Any competent clinician should have recognised that.

The fact he had a strangulated hernia and was still discharged is unbelievable. That’s not just bad practice — that’s dangerous.

Hospitals keep saying they’re overwhelmed, but that doesn’t excuse releasing someone who can’t even tell you where they are, and this is heartbreaking. Families shouldn’t have to fight this hard just to keep someone alive and safe.

Mental health services need reform. This isn’t an isolated case — it’s happening everywhere.

I’m actually speechless. How can a hospital let someone in full psychosis just walk out like that? And I can’t wrap my head around this. A strangulated hernia and psychosis — and they said he was fit? That’s terrifying.

How did two different hospitals both think this was acceptable? It doesn’t make sense, and I’m stunned. He was wandering around a car park all night, and they still didn’t intervene?

Allowing a vulnerable patient to wander hospital grounds overnight without intervention raises significant questions about risk management and duty of care, and the sequence of decisions made in this case appears to fall significantly below the standard of care expected under statutory and common‑law duties. The repeated discharge of a vulnerable adult in active psychosis is deeply concerning.

The failure to conduct or document a capacity assessment, particularly in the context of psychosis and a recent missing‑person report, represents a potential breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and allowing a patient with a strangulated hernia to leave hospital without treatment may constitute a failure to provide basic medical care, potentially amounting to clinical negligence.

Locked In By Bureaucracy

Council chiefs in Bristol have doubled down on their refusal to make a disabled woman’s home accessible to an electric wheelchair, saying her home has ‘already undergone significant alterations’.

Bristol Live reported last week that Janice Moule said she was effectively trapped in her own home and relied on her son to come and take her out, as all she has is a traditional fold-up wheelchair.

The grandmother, who has lived in her council home in Bedminster for 24 years, said she had been told she’s now eligible for an electric wheelchair, which would mean she could get out and about on her own without the need for anyone to help her, but the NHS is not providing one because it wouldn’t be able to get into her home.

She said she has repeatedly asked Bristol City Council to install a suitable ramp from her door to the pavement – which would involve creating a new gate out of her front yard – but the council keeps turning her down.

After Bristol Live reported on her plight, the chair of the council’s homes and housing delivery committee said he understood the distress situations like this caused, but the decision had been made.

“I understand that a situation like this can feel distressing for our residents, particularly when they have lived in their home for a long time,” said Cllr Barry Parsons (Green, Easton).

“Council officers remain committed to exploring alternative housing options that will better meet the resident’s mobility needs and support their independence.

“All adaptation requests received by the council are thoroughly considered, taking into account the feasibility of the proposed works, the scale and cost of structural changes and whether the property can realistically meet the resident’s long-term mobility needs,” he added.

“We also need to make the best use of our limited housing stock, which can often create a difficult balancing act.

“In situations where the level of work required will not provide a suitable or sustainable outcome within a home, officers will work with residents to explore alternative housing options that are better suited to their needs.

“This will include properties that are already accessible or can be more appropriately adapted, which helps to effectively support residents’ independence,” he said.

A council spokesperson told Bristol Live Janice’s home had ‘already undergone significant alterations.’

Her home had been assessed previously by council officers, occupational therapy staff and surveyors, and it has been ‘determined on more than one occasion that it is not suitable for further wheelchair adaptation,’ the council said.

“Due to the layout, structure and physical constraints of the property, further major adaptations, such as reconfiguring the entrance to provide full wheelchair access, have been assessed as not reasonable or practicable,” they added.

Janice told Bristol Live she feared the council was refusing her repeated requests for work to be done to install an access ramp because they wanted her out of her home of 24 years.

She said without the access, and therefore without an electric wheelchair, she could not have a social life, see her friends or go to the shops or for health appointments when she wanted.

“I’d like to go up and meet all my friends, I’d just like to go out with them, and I just can’t, because I’m stuck in here,” she said.

“I’ve been offered that I could go to meetings and clubs, like craft or the RNIB; I could do social events, but I can’t do any of it stuck in here.

“They said they could get me there, but they couldn’t get my wheelchair in their car. If I had an electric one, I could get on the bus and go there,” she explained.

Janice said when she was told of the most recent meeting which decided to turn down her request, she was distraught. “I just broke down crying. That really done me then.

“I said ‘everything has been a ‘no’ for me’,” she said, explaining that after a recent operation and time spent in a nursing home, she was discharged back to her own home but a surgeon said her spine was too complex to be operated on.

So why can she not move to a more suitable home?

She could move — but the system makes it incredibly hard, slow, and often emotionally brutal.

She’s lived in her home a long time and has her memories there, and this is the part councils always treat as an afterthought. A home isn’t just bricks and mortar. For someone who’s lived somewhere 24 years, it’s a whole life.

It’s not just a property she occupies. It’s:

  • Her memories — every season, every visitor, every milestone.
  • Her sense of safety — she knows every corner, every surface, every way of moving around it.
  • Her independence — even if limited, it’s familiar independence.
  • Her community — neighbours, routines, the local shops she can navigate.
  • Her identity — 24 years is a lifetime; it’s not “just a house”.

For a disabled person, the emotional geography of a home is even deeper. It’s the one place where the world’s unpredictability doesn’t overwhelm them.

When councils say, “She should move to a more suitable property,” they’re talking about logistics. But for her, moving means:

  • leaving behind the place where she raised children, grieved losses, celebrated birthdays
  • losing the layout she knows by muscle memory
  • risking being placed somewhere unfamiliar, isolating, or even unsafe
  • starting again in a world that already demands too much from her body

It’s not just relocation — it’s displacement.

And councils rarely acknowledge that.

Seven Years Lost To The Wrong Fight

The NHS misdiagnosed a youngster and administered six cycles of chemotherapy.

Faye Condon, 12, was wrongly diagnosed with the rare autoimmune disease Juvenile Dermatomyositis (JDM) at age five in a mistake mum Christina says “ruined her whole childhood”.

Christina pressed medical professionals at Bristol Children’s Hospital (BCH) to check for additional illnesses since she was not persuaded by the diagnosis. After seven years, Faye was found to have a kind of muscular dystrophy for which there is no known cure.

Christina, from Plymouth, Devon, said: “We have spent her entire childhood in and out of hospital, we haven’t been on holidays, and we don’t have a house or car that is wheelchair accessible as we were told she was going to get better.”

The mum added: “If we had the correct diagnosis seven years ago when Faye was able to walk, we could have gone on holiday and had more fun with her before she was wheelchair bound. We put our lives on hold because we were always told she was going to get better.”

Christina, 36, first took Faye to doctors after noticing she was not running and jumping as well as other children her age. She was referred to BCH, where doctors conducted initial tests, and in November 2019 the family were told Faye had JDM.

Christina said: “I first took her for hip pain and inability to bear weight, and we knew something was wrong, but the doctors couldn’t see what I could see as a parent. She couldn’t walk 200 yards to school; she would randomly fall, and I had to take videos and pictures to prove it.

“The doctor was very flippant about it; they just threw medicine at her, but nothing would make a difference. In October 2019, we were categorically told it was not muscular dystrophy, but I’m sure that the doctor was looking for her to fit into a rheumatology disease; it was almost like he was tainted before he had even seen Faye.

“Everyone could see there was something wrong, but no one wanted to take responsibility for her and do more tests, as tests cost money. The staff at the hospital were very vocal about a financial fight about which department would pay for testing.”

Faye underwent her first round of chemotherapy in January 2021. Christina said: “She was about seven for her first round of chemo and was so sick, it was awful. We couldn’t be near anybody, and she became really poorly; it was horrific to watch. She then contracted viral meningitis as a side effect of a blood product a doctor gave her, and she was forced to stay in a dark room.

“There is no treatment for muscular dystrophy, so she wouldn’t have had to have any of this if they diagnosed her properly the first time. Every test for the autoimmune disease was negative; not a single test they did pointed towards JDM. She even had a muscle biopsy, which pointed to a congenital muscle disease, not an autoimmune disease, but that was overlooked.”

After years of asking BCH for more tests, Christina begged doctors at her local clinic at Derriford Hospital for a second opinion. One of the first doctors who saw Faye at the hospital in Plymouth agreed with Christina that the JDM diagnosis was not correct and pushed to get her referred to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London.

Christina said: “Without the support of doctors at Derriford Hospital, we would never have got the correct diagnosis. They have been amazing from day one; they listened to and believed us as parents and really pushed for someone to listen.”

GOSH diagnosed Faye with de novo Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy (EDMD) type 2 in August 2025, for which there is no treatment.

Christina said: “The specialist at GOSH took one look at her and named this type of muscular dystrophy. All it took to diagnose her was a blood test with specific genetic testing, but the doctors at BCH were so adamant that it was JDM they never sent for this test.

“Those doctors ruined my little girl’s whole childhood. She is losing the use of her legs very quickly; she was refused entry into a school because her needs changed too much.

“She is currently a ticking time bomb; her heart could stop at any minute, and she is on a ventilator at night, so cannot have a sleepover like other girls in her class.

“Had we known from five years old, and they had diagnosed her correctly, we would have everything in place… every appointment we go to is more bad news.”

Professor Steve Hams, Chief Nursing and Improvement Officer at Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, said: “We are very sorry to hear of the concerns raised by Faye’s family and our thoughts are with them.

“We are reaching out to her mother to listen to and understand her family’s experience. We want to approach this with care and compassion and will take the time needed to fully understand what has happened.”

A child put through six rounds of chemo she never needed, years wasted, mobility lost, and a family gaslit at every turn. That isn’t a “mistake.” That’s a systemic failure with a human cost.

Negligence has a price, and when the system fails, someone should be accountable.

Faye is now wheelchair‑bound. Her family lost years they could have spent making memories while she was still mobile, and they were constantly told she would “get better,” so they delayed adapting their home and life.

This is one of the most severe recent NHS misdiagnosis cases involving a child — not only because of the unnecessary chemotherapy, but because the correct diagnosis was actively resisted despite clear evidence pointing away from the autoimmune disease.

I hope they file a lawsuit against the hospital, because in cases like this, the legal threshold for negligence would very likely be met.

Every doctor owes every patient a legal duty, and they acted in a way no responsible clinician would, and her parents can bring a claim now, because the harm is ongoing and documented.

Twenty‑Six Years Of Building A Life — And Now They Want To Tear A Family Apart

A Jamaican man who has lived more than half his life in the UK is facing deportation to his home country in one of the first cases since new anti-immigration measures were announced in last week’s immigration bill.

Mark Nelson, 46, came to the UK in 2000 and set up his own car-mechanic business. He has five British children and a British partner. In 2017, he received a four-year prison sentence for growing cannabis plants, something he said he did after his business experienced financial problems. He has not committed any additional offences.

In 2022, he wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian about being under threat of deportation. He said Jamaica was a place where he no longer knew anyone after his great-grandparents, who brought him up there, died when he was 16.

His removal was later withdrawn, and instead he was tagged and had to report weekly at a Home Office reporting centre. But last Thursday, when Nelson went to report, he was arrested, detained and told that the government intended to deport him to Jamaica.

Speaking from a detention centre near Heathrow airport, Nelson said he was devastated about once again facing deportation and separation from his five children and his partner. “I’m in a hot and filthy cell on the induction wing. My mental health is so bad because of what the Home Office has done to me. For the first time in my life, I have taken antidepressant medication.

“My family is so upset. My brother, who is 46, was crying on the phone when he heard I had been detained. I haven’t been able to sleep a wink since they brought me here. I was in such a state of shock when they arrested me,” he said.

“What the Home Office don’t think about when they try to deport someone like me is the impact it has not only on the person but on so many other people around them. I love my kids so much, and I can’t bear to think of them being without their dad. I try to be a good role model for them. I talk to them about my crime to try to ensure they don’t make the same mistake I made.”

His partner, Rachel Derbyshire, said that all of Nelson’s family were distraught about his detention and threatened deportation. “It seems that the Home Office is not going to let this go. Mark’s mental health is really bad because of this. He’s a really lovely guy, but the Home Office is treating him as if he was a rapist or a murderer.”

The new immigration bill lays out a harsher test for the family and private life test known as Article 8 in deportation cases.

Although exceptional circumstances are taken into consideration – such as the degree to which a person is socially and culturally integrated in the UK, whether there would be significant barriers to integration into their country of birth and whether the effect of the person’s deportation on family members would be excessively harsh – it appears that the government wants to proceed with Nelson’s deportation despite the span of time he has lived in the UK and his strong family ties.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “All foreign national offenders who receive a prison sentence in the UK are referred for deportation at the earliest opportunity.”

“More than 70,000 illegal migrants and foreign national offenders have been returned since this government took office, a 41 per cent increase.”

People have been extremely vocal about Mark Nelson’s situation, and many are saying that 26 years in the UK, British children, and a stable life make his removal cruel and unnecessary. He’s already served his sentence and rebuilt his life.

His situation is cruel, vengeful and a disgrace, and it would harm his five British children, who would lose their father overnight. They are penalising the children, not just him, and it seems that the system is designed to break people.

This case resembles the Windrush scandal, where long-term Caribbean residents were wrongly detained or deported.

The UK is breaking families apart, and sending him back after 26 years would be dangerous and destabilising. Jamaica has a limited support system for people who have been away for decades, and he would be isolated, with no family, no home, and no realistic way to rebuild.

Community organisations accuse the UK of using deportation as a political tool to appear tough on immigration, and the Home Office is “targeting easy cases” — people who have lived here long enough to be compliant and easy to detain.

Harry Rocked Up — Palace Said, ‘You’re Late, Mate

Prince Harry has touched down in the UK after being barred from staying in Buckingham Palace over a missed invite deadline.

The 41-year-old Duke arrived without Meghan, Archie and Lilibet, a spokesman confirmed – after taking too long to accept an offer of royal accommodation from King Charles.

The arrival of the prince comes just two days after he was told he could not take up a stay at the Palace and at least 36 hours before his own team announced to the world that he would be, the Daily Mail understands. 

Amid the row over his son’s security arrangements, King Charles brushed aside the controversy as he climbed aboard a Challenger 3 battle tank during a royal engagement with the British Army in Bovington, Dorset.

The monarch is understood to have asked for an answer from Harry about staying at the Palace by last Friday, but he was still flip-flopping over the weekend.

The prince had initially declined his father’s olive branch, then changed his mind and attempted to accept it just hours later.

The Duke has now returned to the UK for five days of engagements in London and Birmingham, including marking the one-year countdown to the 2027 Invictus Games. 

On Saturday night, royal officials had told him that the stay was logistically unfeasible due to the lack of the required manpower and hospitality preparations.

However, there was confusion at the Palace on Monday when Harry’s team briefed preferred media outlets, including the BBC, that he would be staying at Buckingham Palace this week, citing direct discussions with the King.

These assertions were publicly contested in a matter of minutes, and only hours before Harry was scheduled to arrive in Britain.

According to palace officials, the Duke had many weeks to think about the offer, but he had just not responded in a timely manner.

Harry’s spokesman later issued an extraordinary statement expressing ‘disappointment’ and accusing Buckingham Palace of withdrawing the offer ‘at the last moment’ – a development that has plunged the Duke’s forthcoming visit into fresh turmoil.

‘I am aware of multiple briefings from Buckingham Palace last week suggesting that the Duke had not accepted the offer of accommodation at a Royal Residence,’ the spokesman said.

‘Following RAVEC’s decision not to provide security for his family, the Duke spent last week making alternative security arrangements. Once those arrangements were in place, he was able to formally accept the offer of accommodation for himself over the weekend.

‘It is therefore disappointing that the offer has now been withdrawn, with Tuesday’s judgment in the Associated Newspapers Limited case cited as the reason.

‘Buckingham Palace has, however, been aware of that judgment since last Thursday. It is therefore unclear why, having formally accepted the accommodation offer, it has now been withdrawn at the last moment.’

The latest dispute marks another twist in more than a week of tense negotiations over Harry’s security arrangements in Britain, a saga that sources say has left the Duke ‘in tears’.

The Daily Mail understands that, despite repeated requests for clarity, no formal acceptance of the offer of accommodation at a royal residence for the Duke and his family had been received by the Palace before the deadline at the end of last week.

While every effort had, it is understood, been made to facilitate Harry’s stay, the Royal Household needs a minimum period of notice to ensure a royal residence can be staffed and prepared properly.

Since the offer was first made, every indication from the Duke and his senior team was that the accommodation had been deemed unsuitable, including correspondence received on Saturday morning formally declining the King’s offer.

Although a request was later received to accept the accommodation for a limited period, the required hospitality and staffing requirements were no longer available.

Following consultation with His Majesty, the resulting outcome was communicated to the Duke through the ‘appropriate channels’.

It remains the case that accommodation at a Royal residence will be made available to the Duke and his family for a forthcoming stay.

Father and son are widely expected to meet, although any plans are likely to remain private.

The key question now is whether Meghan, Archie and Lilibet will also travel to Britain to see the King and spend time with him for the first time in four years.

Harry’s wish to stay in a royal palace is likely to raise eyebrows given his long-running criticism of the Royal Family and the so-called ‘men in grey suits’ who work for his father.

It came amid toing and froing over whether Meghan and the children would be coming over with him.

The Duchess of Sussex and her young children will not travel to London on Monday with Prince Harry after a demand for additional security was turned down.

The family are thought to have been holidaying in Europe.

Sources close to the couple have not ruled out Meghan and the children coming to the UK later in the week. Archie and Lilibet have not seen King Charles since 2022.

Meghan is due to join her husband at an event in Birmingham on Friday to promote next year’s Invictus Games, the charity for wounded servicemen that Harry set up in 2014.

It is understood Meghan and Harry could bring Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, with them when they travel to other parts of the UK.

Sources previously claimed there have been ‘real and credible threats’, including threats of terrorism, against Harry and his family in the capital.

The five-day Sussex trip to the UK has been fraught with upset and drama.

Harry is still furious that he doesn’t have round-the-clock police security when he travels to the UK.

Instead, he has to give three weeks’ notice of his visits, which are assessed on a ‘case-by-case’ basis.

Harry’s team initially briefed the Press that he was coming with his wife and children – Meghan has not visited the UK since the Queen’s funeral in September 2022 – but, less than 24 hours later, said he feared for their safety if they came without full-time taxpayer-funded armed police protection, and his spokesman said the family would no longer accompany him.

But now Harry’s team are saying that while the family will not travel to London with him, there is a chance they may join him during other parts of his UK visit.

It is believed he wants to take his children to his mother Princess Diana’s family home, Althorp, where she is buried on a private island in the middle of a lake.

A source said: ‘Harry longs to bring his children to the UK, to show them where he comes from and to introduce them to their heritage. And he wants to take them to Althorp, which is where Diana was raised and where she rests. 

‘It’s important to him that the English side of their heritage is part of their life. But their security is everything. There are real and credible threats, and he will not put his family in danger.’

Harry and Meghan had intended to visit the Royal Hospital Chelsea in London as well as other charitable activities in the UK.

It is believed Harry will now attend the London events unaccompanied.

The Sussex drama has been going on all week.

The family is presently in Europe, perhaps at their holiday villa in Portugal, and had been scheduled to travel together on Monday.

The Mail understands there are tentative plans to see members of the Royal Family, including the King, but in a private capacity, with courtiers telling the Sussexes they cannot release any photographs of any reunion.

It is doubtful that Prince William and Princess Kate will see the Sussexes while they are there.

Should Prince Harry pay for his own security while he’s in the UK?

Legally, Prince Harry does not have an automatic right to publicly funded police protection in the UK, and whether he should pay for it is a matter of principle, precedent, and public interest — not a simple yes/no.

Harry decided to leave the UK and his royal duties, so protection when he travels is his responsibility.

Protecting him, however, also protects the others in his immediate vicinity if there are real risks. The same reasoning applies to visiting heads of state; therefore, Harry should not automatically receive taxpayer-funded security, but he also shouldn’t be denied protection if credible threats exist.

Do the royals have a lot of skeletons in their closet? They absolutely do — the British Royal Family has accumulated a century’s worth of scandals, cover‑ups, and controversies, ranging from constitutional crises to deeply serious allegations. That doesn’t mean every rumour is true, but the historical record shows plenty of “skeletons” that have shaped public perception of the monarchy.

So, now we get to the book!

Spare is essentially Harry trying to drag every skeleton he’s lived with out into the light, shake the dust off, and say: this is what shaped me. It’s not a gossip book; it’s a trauma book. And the “skeletons” he’s confronting fall into a few very clear categories.

He was trying to process a lifetime of institutional pressure, family dysfunction, media intrusion, and grief that was never allowed to heal.

Harry describes being told to walk behind her coffin at 12, being discouraged from expressing grief, and growing up in a system that treated his mother’s death as a PR event rather than a family tragedy.

He’s attempting to get across that he wasn’t allowed to mourn properly, the media’s role in her death, and the monarchy’s stern response.

The tabloid machine that stalked him from childhood. Harry writes about the paparazzi chasing him at school, newspapers inventing stories about him, being portrayed as the “problem prince,” and the palace often refusing to defend him.

This is a huge part of the “skeletons”: the monarchy’s long, messy relationship with the press.

But people don’t want the truth; they want the fairytale, because the fairytale is usually more satisfying than the truth, particularly when it comes to the royals. And Harry’s whole point in Spare is that he grew up inside a storybook that everyone else adored, while he was living the messy, lonely, sometimes brutal reality behind it.

We should also remember that even though they are from royalty, they are still human, and humans are not infallible.

Royalty doesn’t cancel humanity. The crown doesn’t make someone perfect, wise, or morally untouchable — it just makes their mistakes more visible, more politicised, and more mythologised, and people often forget that, but sadly the fairytale demands perfection.

Where The Crown Forgets, The Blood Remembers

Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon were first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II, part of the royal family through the Queen Mother’s side.

Both girls were born with extreme developmental disabilities at a time when society heavily stigmatised conditions like theirs.

In 1941, at just 15 and 22 years old, they were quietly moved to the Royal Earlswood Hospital — an institution for people with mental disabilities.

But what ensued would only be exposed decades later.

The family declared both sisters dead in official records.

Even official genealogical records recorded them as dead in the 1940s… while they were still alive inside the institution.

For years, no visitors came—no public mention. No acknowledgement.

It wasn’t until 1987 that the truth emerged through a tabloid investigation — revealing that both sisters had been alive the whole time, living in near-total obscurity.

Nerissa died in 1986 and was buried in a pauper’s grave marked only with a number.

Katherine survived until 2014, spending over 70 years inside institutional care.

The royal family described it as a “private matter. But for many, it became a haunting reminder of how even those born into privilege could be erased just for being different.

This is how things were done then when they were young. Numerous families put away children considered “not normal”; numerous children with Down syndrome were locked away; it was the way of society. So pleased we are living in a more enlightened age.

You would have expected, though, that the royals would have made sure these ladies had a better place to live than an institution.

What is the true source of genetic problems in royal lines?

Generations of cousin marriages reduce genetic diversity, increasing the chance of recessive disorders. Small gene pools — when families only marry within a tiny circle, harmful mutations accumulate. Selective breeding for appearance — prioritising “royal features” over health. Hidden illnesses — conditions quietly passed down because they were never publicly acknowledged, and Social pressure to hide disability — meaning no one addressed or treated underlying genetic issues.

None of this is about impurity. It’s about too much purity — or rather, the dangerous myth of it.

It wasn’t outsiders who troubled the royal bloodline — it was the walls built to keep them out.

The crown feared contamination, never realising it was suffocating itself.

The Queen Mother lived in a world where secrets were currency.

She absolutely knew about children hidden away in aristocratic families, about heirs quietly removed from succession, about cousins institutionalised and erased from public memory, and about scandals buried so deeply they only resurfaced decades later.

She lived through the era of Nerissa and Katherine Bowes‑Lyon — her nieces, placed in an institution and declared “dead” in Burke’s Peerage, aristocratic families hiding disabled children, royal doctors quietly managing “unacceptable” conditions, and the monarchy’s obsession with presenting a perfect lineage.

She knew how the system worked. She knew what happened to children who didn’t fit the narrative. She knew how easily a life could be erased.

“Behind every royal procession walks a shadow they hope no one sees.”

Tap The Earring, Trap The Danger

A 16-year-old from Limpopo built an “Alerting Earpiece”, which is now award-winning and has been widely reported.

In situations where reaching for a phone is unsafe or impossible, this covert earring protects women and girls by concealing a camera, GPS tracker, and emergency alarm system.

With one hidden press, it can silently photograph or record video of an attacker, send live GPS location to trusted contacts and emergency services. It also transmits distress alerts without any visible movement and captures evidence, including images, timestamps and location, that strengthens prosecution.

This isn’t conceptual — she built a working prototype and presented it at the Eskom Expo for Young Scientists, earning national recognition.

South Africa’s gender‑based violence crisis is severe, and 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence and 120,000-plus cases of violent crimes against women and children are reported annually.

It was commended by experts for integrating discreet activation, real-time notifications, and evidence collection—functions that are seldom combined into a single wearable.

Her invention has been featured on BBC Africa, SABC Morning Live, and Metro FM, and she won a bronze medal at the Eskom Expo and received praise from Limpopo’s Education MEC, who called her a “role model and change‑maker.”

She later founded Mphahlele Alerts (Pty) Ltd to commercialise the device and integrate it into national emergency systems.

This isn’t just a clever gadget — it’s a young woman refusing to accept a violent status quo, and her work is now sparking conversations across Africa about youth-led safety tech, GBV prevention, and the importance of discreet tools for victims.

She has created an incredible invention, but it’s also sad that girls need this to survive; nevertheless, she has essentially built a wearable panic button that collects evidence.

This clever device needs to be rolled out internationally, and schools should give these out to girls for free. Now people want the device for their daughters because it gives them hope that their children will be safer, and it just shows how deeply personal the issue is. People aren’t just impressed; they’re emotionally invested, and this is the mother of invention.

Whilst it is amazing, the fact that it was even needed in the first place is alarming, but still I believe it’s needed in every town, every state, every country because there are some extremely sick people in this world. It’s kind of like insurance; we don’t need it until we need it.

Fishing For Hate — Catching Suspended Sentences

Two men who went ‘fishing for Jews’ in north London as they filmed anti-Semitic TikTok videos have been given suspended prison sentences. 

Adam Bedoui and Abdelkader Amir Bousloub, both 21, previously pleaded guilty to religiously aggravated intentional harassment after they shouted anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish person.

Bousloub approached the victim and started yelling insults while filming it on a mobile phone, while Bedoui stood behind him, laughing and also tormenting the victim.

The two can be seen grinning while strolling along a street in Stamford Hill with a fishing rod in videos released by Shomrim, a Jewish volunteer neighbourhood watch organisation.

They have attached a note to the end, in reference to vile anti-Semitic tropes about Jews.

In CCTV footage, Bedoui is seen holding the rod in front of him while Bousloub records with his phone as they pass through an entry hall.

Subsequent video shows Shomrim volunteers standing close by as the two are searched and taken into custody by police.

The Metropolitan Police said Bedoui and Bousloub had travelled to Clapton Common with ‘deliberate’ intentions to capture anti-Semitic content. 

Shomrim reported that the pair had specifically targeted Orthodox Jews in the filmed encounters.

Officers were called about 9 pm on Thursday, May 7, and detained the pair after they attempted to flee.

According to the CPS, the defendants intended to publish the footage on social media.

When questioned by the police, Bousloub said he had gone to Stamford Hill to film a video with a fishing rod with the aim of getting a reaction and to copy what he had seen on an Instagram reel.

He said he had intended to share what he filmed with others on TikTok and that he was expecting numbers in the hundreds or thousands of people to watch it. 

He tried to claim that he thought the Jewish community would find what he was doing funny. Bedoui made a no-comment police interview.

The victim said the incident left him feeling vulnerable and targeted.

The pair have now been sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for twelve months. 

Prosecutor Varinder Hayre said: ‘These men deliberately targeted a member of the Jewish community, and subjected him to antisemitic abuse in a public place.

‘They filmed the incident with the intention to upload it to social media and amplify the harm caused to the victim.

‘The CPS worked closely with the Metropolitan Police to build a strong case, securing a conviction less than 48 hours after the incident.

‘Hate crime has a serious impact on victims and communities. We will continue to prosecute these offences robustly.’

Detective Chief Superintendent Brittany Clarke, who leads policing in the area, said: ‘These men thought nothing of travelling to Stamford Hill so they could generate social media likes from hateful so-called content.

‘There is no place for antisemitic hate in this city, and this case carries a clear warning for anyone tempted to commit hate crimes in pursuit of online notoriety.

‘These men were arrested within minutes of the incidents being reported to us. They were then charged, remanded to court and convicted 48 hours after the original report.’

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: ‘This sentence has absolutely no deterrent effect.

‘If anything, it reminds antisemites how little they have to fear from the criminal justice system even now amidst the worst wave of anti-Jewish attacks in modern British history. 

‘It is surely because of outrageously lenient sentences like this one that only 10 per cent of British Jews think that the courts do enough to protect them. 

‘When antisemites are given a slap on the wrist, it sends the message that Jews are fair game.

‘This decision is appalling and will only further erode what little confidence the Jewish community has left in the criminal justice system. 

‘Antisemitic offenders must face punishments that actually reflect the seriousness of their crimes.’ 

This sentence was absurdly light. ‘Suspended’ – why bother taking them to court at all? If you violate the law, then it should be jail time. They should have been given a custodial sentence, but then what do you expect? The whole judicial system is a disgrace, which then enables all kinds of crimes to take place without fear of incarceration.

Well, that was a great deterrent, and it does nothing at all to make Jewish people feel safe. The judge may as well have given them compensation and a flat for their inconvenience because our courts have wilted.

Prosecute robustly. I guess the judicial system is unfamiliar with the true meaning of those words. Now this pair will be laughing and bragging about how they got away with it.

This type of behaviour is similar to the Blackshirts, fascist supporters of Oswald Mosley who used physical altercations in the East End to intimidate Jews. These are the new Blackshirts, and believe me, things will only get worse.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started