According, to what The Sun has published and reported, they may have violated numerous UK laws, even though the offenses took place in the Philippines. Some offenses can be applied to Section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977: ‘Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom.’ Provided, the following conditions are met. (Please, note where the word 'OR' is used as every subsection condition need not be met. Also, I included my own notes, but you can ignore them. I am not a legal expert): ~SNIP~ (2) The first condition is that the pursuit of the agreed course of conduct ['the conspiracy plot'] would at some stage involve— • (a) an act by one or more of the parties, [ME: This refers to something that the alleged conspirators themselves actively did. * An example that might apply: The photographer and author having knowledge of- and accessing child pornography, multiple times, over a period of FIVE days, in the Philippines. This constitutes 'possession' of child pornography and is a criminal offense, in the UK.] OR (b) the happening of some other event, intended to take place in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. [ME: This means a result or occurrence that is (not necessarily) a direct physical action by the alleged parties themselves, but an external consequence or happening that takes place outside the UK. * An example that might apply: Tom Jnr. tampering with evidence by opening books for a photographer to capture a close-up photographic copy of child pornography on 35mm film strips, in the Philippines.] *** (3) The second condition is that that act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory. [ME: The alleged criminal offense must also be a criminal offense in the Philippines. * An example that might apply: In the Philippines, it is also a criminal offense to possess and/or photograph existing pornographic images of children.] *** (4) The third condition is that the agreement would fall within section 1(1) above as an agreement relating to the commission of an offence but for the fact that the offence would not be an offence triable in England and Wales if committed in accordance with the parties' intentions. [ME: This means the alleged co-conspirators can be prosecuted in England and Wales for conspiring/agreeing to commit a crime(s), even though the actual crime was intended to take place outside of England and Wales] *** (5) The fourth condition is that— (a) a party to the agreement, or a party’s agent, did anything in England and Wales in relation to the agreement before its formation, [ME: This means any preparatory act that happened within England and Wales before the formal agreement/the conspiracy was finalized. *An example that might apply: Tom Jr. contacting The Sun and/or its agents to offer his story & access to the alleged child pornography, and The Sun and/or any of its agents discussing and/or accepting the offer while they are physically present in England or Wales. It can be by phone, email, or fax 😂] OR (b) a party to the agreement became a party in England and Wales (by joining it either in person or through an agent), [ME: This means the illegal plot itself may have been hatched somewhere else entirely, but at least one person joined the conspiracy while they were physically located inside England or Wales. *An example that might apply: The author of The Sun's 'EXCLUSIVE' article is physically present in England or Wales, when they agreed to travel to The Philippines in furtherance of the conspiracy.] OR (c) a party to the agreement, or a party’s agent, did or omitted anything in England and Wales in pursuance of the agreement. [ME: This means that even if conspiracy plot was hatched outside the UK and all the conspirators are foreign nationals, the UK can still prosecute them if anyone involved takes even a single physical step, or deliberately fails to act, while on English or Welsh soil to advance the plot. * An example that might apply: A co-conspirator from The Sun phoning, sending an encrypted WhatsApp message, or a text message to coordinate with the author &/or photographer, while physically present in England or Wales.] ~END~ *** *All references to 'An example that might apply' are hypothetical. Even if some turn out to be true. *** Section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/199…

Your theory on the kids is as good as mine. The FBI is so corrupt though. I think she is relieved they are involved. But their involvement is limited to sharing databases of known child pornographic images. Funny, that is effectively the only 'evidence' that could be made use of to prosecute someone. The rest is worthless. When I read that is their involvement, I paused because they could and would create evidence. They answer to the same puppetmasters that I believe MeMe answers to...the global government mafia.

I'd say the stage is set for a specific female to serve as one of Snr.'s 'alleged victims and they were 'named' in the letter (that Meghan gave to the Met instead of the original letter they gave her). And they were "young", perhaps too young to remember with any degree of certainty. archive.ph/f2MYv#selection-1…

Jr. worked from a list of what not to do with evidence. That's why he held the devices with his greasy fingerprints and stuck pieces of tape to them. Then he labeled them 'Dad' so they could also be used as proof the evidence was tampered with by someone who calls Sr., "Dad." The Sun, operating from a similar list, took a photo of of the devices undergoing cross-contamination, in a pile. This photo made certain a defense attorney had photographic proof the evidence is unreliable as it was left unsecured where an unknown number of people accessed it. Then, The Sun published an article where the author demonstrated bias towards Sr. and characterized the evidence as ‘horrific’ and ‘sickening.’ They also featured comments from Jr that demonstrate extreme bias. This was done to create speculation that Thomas Jr. and The Sun may have had motive to help frame and/or convict Sr. For example: "A vast hoard of evidence against accused Thomas Markle Snr including VHS tapes, DVDs and photographic negatives was laid bare yesterday as it was removed by detectives." *** The Sun also took an unknown number of close-ups photos of the disgusting images that they accessed at least three times, in five days. What they did after they made photographic copies of the material, I can only imagine. Perhaps they sold the unredacted photos on the dark web, who knows? This is why it is imperative that @metpoliceuk @MetCC immediately act and investigate The Sun's actions.

Met Police crime reporting link: met.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/…