Newshash
2026-10-30
Viewing archive: 2026-10-30 Back to today
← All stories

Met refers itself to IOPC over handling of 2019 letter about Thomas Markle

Unbiased summary

The Metropolitan Police has voluntarily referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over its handling of a 2019 letter containing allegations against Thomas Markle, father of the Duchess of Sussex. The letter, written by Markle's first wife Roslyn Loveless (now deceased), was passed to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex but not shared with overseas law enforcement. The Met said the letter contained claims of alleged offending outside the UK. The referral concerns the decision not to inform other agencies and the decision to pass the letter to the Sussexes. Separately, Philippine police have obtained a warrant to examine devices seized from Markle's former home in Cebu, following allegations by his son Thomas Markle Jr that he found child sexual abuse images there. Markle Sr denies the allegations, calling them 'sick lies'.

Generated with deepseek-flash (DeepSeek)

Coverage by outlet
The Guardian left
Angle Frames the story as a serious institutional failure by the Met, highlighting the gravity of the allegations against Thomas Markle and the international dimension.
Bias Emphasises the Met's failure to share the letter with overseas agencies and the subsequent referrals to the FBI and Philippine authorities. Includes strong quotes from the Philippine interior minister calling Markle a 'possible sex offender of the grossest kind' and details of the allegations. Downplays the Met's stated reasoning that the letter did not contain security information. The tone is largely factual but leans towards underscoring the seriousness of the claims and the police's mishandling.
BBC News centre-left
Angle Provides a straightforward, balanced account of the Met's referral, focusing on procedural aspects and including denials from Markle.
Bias Sticks closely to the facts: the Met's statement, the identity of the letter's author, and Markle's denial. Mentions that the letter did not contain security information and that the Met is making further referrals. Slightly more emphasis on the Met's perspective and less on the graphic details of the allegations compared to other outlets. Overall, minimal deviation from neutral.
The Independent centre-left
Angle Presents the story as a developing scandal, with two separate articles: one on the Met referral and one on the Philippine warrant, emphasising the international investigation.
Bias Highlights the Met's admission of failing to pass on allegations and details the Philippine police action, including potential extradition and prison time. Includes specific claims from Thomas Markle Jr and the prosecutor. Somewhat more detailed on the allegations than the BBC but less graphic than the Daily Mail. The framing is largely factual but the selection of details (e.g., potential prison sentence) adds a sensational element.
Daily Mail right
Angle Sensationalises the allegations against Thomas Markle, focusing on graphic details of the child abuse images and portraying the story as a major scandal involving the royal family.
Bias Heavily emphasises the most graphic and disturbing claims: 'sickening collection', 'videos of girls no older than ten or eleven', '15-minute video of naked girls', and a photograph allegedly showing Markle having sex with a young Asian girl. Includes extensive details from Thomas Markle Jr's account. Downplays the Met's procedural referral and the fact that the letter did not contain security information. The coverage strays significantly from neutral by amplifying sensational details and emotional language.
GB News right
Angle Focuses on the Philippine investigation and the Met's referral, with a tone that underscores the seriousness of the allegations while maintaining a formal style.
Bias Emphasises the Philippine police warrant and the interior minister's 'possible sex offender' comment, as well as the Met's self-referral. Provides detailed procedural information about the warrant and the devices. Avoids the most graphic details compared to the Daily Mail but still highlights the gravity. The coverage is relatively factual but leans towards a sensational undercurrent by repeatedly referencing the serious allegations and the international probe.