Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why can’t Harry just pay for his own private security?

636 replies

jennylamb1 · 03/05/2025 14:36

Don’t get it. He says that he can’t ever visit the UK again because his security won’t be provided. Loads of celebrities and high profile business people pay for their own security, why should tax payers pay for his security when he isn’t a working royal anymore?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 23:19

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:17

No that’s not legal, but armed police would offer him better protection

Show quote history

Armed police would offer me better protection too.

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:17

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 23:13

And do you think his security guards that he employs should be armed in this country, is that what you are suggesting?

Show quote history

No that’s not legal, but armed police would offer him better protection

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 23:14

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:13

Is he not higher profile than other RF members? There is a lot of online animosity towards him & Meghan , maybe that makes him higher risk?

Show quote history

And that will be taken into account, our Security Services are not imbeciles.

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:13

TempestTost · 03/05/2025 23:12

His American security won't have access to intelligence either, in the US or in the other places he travels.

He's completely talking the piss.

Show quote history

Yeah but they have guns

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 23:13

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:10

Because his personal security in Uk aren’t allowed to be armed

Show quote history

And do you think his security guards that he employs should be armed in this country, is that what you are suggesting?

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:13

HonoriaBulstrode · 03/05/2025 23:10

also what if the treat hasn’t been identified but is stil a threat

Same applies to every other member of the RF that doesn't have full time security. Why is Harry special?

Is he not higher profile than other RF members? There is a lot of online animosity towards him & Meghan , maybe that makes him higher risk?

TempestTost · 03/05/2025 23:12

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:53

Yes, but they're just private citizens with no special privileges and no access to intelligence. They have to abide by the same laws on the use of arms as anyone else in the state. It's very different from specialist close protection officers.

Show quote history

His American security won't have access to intelligence either, in the US or in the other places he travels.

He's completely talking the piss.

HonoriaBulstrode · 03/05/2025 23:10

also what if the treat hasn’t been identified but is stil a threat

Same applies to every other member of the RF that doesn't have full time security. Why is Harry special?

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 23:10

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:55

What are you suggesting?

That specialist, in demand close protection officers be on standby in case a private citizen living 8 time zones away decides to pop over?

No threat assessments are 100% guaranteed to be correct of course, but RAVEC have a pretty good record. As I said, Harry manages fine without access to such assessments in his daily life, not to mention his jaunts to Colombia, Ukraine and Nigeria. Why is only London, a very safe city for VIP's, considered so terribly dangerous?

Show quote history

Because his personal security in Uk aren’t allowed to be armed

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 23:09

Seventell · 03/05/2025 22:46

I feel its sad that charles doesnt speak to harry at all anymore.

Theyre allowed to be in love, but Meghan was definitely a bad influence in some ways.

Harry william and charles had a fairly close relationship before meghan came along. After meghan, now neither william or charles speak to harry. So meghan ruined those relationships

Harry has to take responsibility for destroying his relationship with his family. It is not Meghan’s fault.

MoominMai · 03/05/2025 23:08

Seventell · 03/05/2025 22:46

I feel its sad that charles doesnt speak to harry at all anymore.

Theyre allowed to be in love, but Meghan was definitely a bad influence in some ways.

Harry william and charles had a fairly close relationship before meghan came along. After meghan, now neither william or charles speak to harry. So meghan ruined those relationships

There’s a different thread ongoing for that

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 23:03

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:40

Have just read a bit about this. So if he gives 28 days notice he will ge given security depending on a threat assessment. So if no threat apparent he presumably won’t get armed security. I can kind of see Harry’s point because there may be no intelligence on a potential attack on him. So if it happens, all he has is his own unarmed security. He doesn’t feel safe without armed security which he and his family won’t be guaranteed unless a threat has been identified…

My (completely unqualified) assumption would be that an assessment of the threat level would not necessarily only give security if there was a specific, recognised potential attack against him, but would consider the general risk level that he’s at as well.

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:55

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:52

also what if the treat hasn’t been identified but is stil a threat

Show quote history

What are you suggesting?

That specialist, in demand close protection officers be on standby in case a private citizen living 8 time zones away decides to pop over?

No threat assessments are 100% guaranteed to be correct of course, but RAVEC have a pretty good record. As I said, Harry manages fine without access to such assessments in his daily life, not to mention his jaunts to Colombia, Ukraine and Nigeria. Why is only London, a very safe city for VIP's, considered so terribly dangerous?

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:53

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:50

I suppose he has armed security in usa

Show quote history

Yes, but they're just private citizens with no special privileges and no access to intelligence. They have to abide by the same laws on the use of arms as anyone else in the state. It's very different from specialist close protection officers.

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:52

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:50

I suppose he has armed security in usa

Show quote history

also what if the treat hasn’t been identified but is stil a threat

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:50

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:46

It doesn't matter how he 'feels'. Security is not allocated on the basis of 'feelings' but on specialist threat assessments.

If no threat is identified why should he get full police protection? He seems to manage fine without it in California.

Show quote history

I suppose he has armed security in usa

Seventell · 03/05/2025 22:49

Its sad how its become so combative between them all.

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:46

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:44

I suppose people / celebs like the backhams don’t get armed security when in Uk I wonder if visiting royals would . Or the pope .

The Pope is a Head of State so yes.

I would guess that foreign royals, other than the monarch, would only get protection if on an official visit.

Seventell · 03/05/2025 22:46

I feel its sad that charles doesnt speak to harry at all anymore.

Theyre allowed to be in love, but Meghan was definitely a bad influence in some ways.

Harry william and charles had a fairly close relationship before meghan came along. After meghan, now neither william or charles speak to harry. So meghan ruined those relationships

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 22:46

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:40

Have just read a bit about this. So if he gives 28 days notice he will ge given security depending on a threat assessment. So if no threat apparent he presumably won’t get armed security. I can kind of see Harry’s point because there may be no intelligence on a potential attack on him. So if it happens, all he has is his own unarmed security. He doesn’t feel safe without armed security which he and his family won’t be guaranteed unless a threat has been identified…

Just like all the other royals apart from Charles, Camilla the Wales family and considering he is a non working royal unlike Princess Ann and The Edinburgh’s he should count himself lucky.

IcedPurple · 03/05/2025 22:46

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:40

Have just read a bit about this. So if he gives 28 days notice he will ge given security depending on a threat assessment. So if no threat apparent he presumably won’t get armed security. I can kind of see Harry’s point because there may be no intelligence on a potential attack on him. So if it happens, all he has is his own unarmed security. He doesn’t feel safe without armed security which he and his family won’t be guaranteed unless a threat has been identified…

It doesn't matter how he 'feels'. Security is not allocated on the basis of 'feelings' but on specialist threat assessments.

If no threat is identified why should he get full police protection? He seems to manage fine without it in California.

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:44

I suppose people / celebs like the backhams don’t get armed security when in Uk I wonder if visiting royals would . Or the pope .

JorgyPorgy · 03/05/2025 22:40

Have just read a bit about this. So if he gives 28 days notice he will ge given security depending on a threat assessment. So if no threat apparent he presumably won’t get armed security. I can kind of see Harry’s point because there may be no intelligence on a potential attack on him. So if it happens, all he has is his own unarmed security. He doesn’t feel safe without armed security which he and his family won’t be guaranteed unless a threat has been identified…

KeepTalkingBeth · 03/05/2025 22:22

Kinkyroots · 03/05/2025 20:13

No. Councils contribute to the cost of policing football matches. The clubs contribute nothing. Ergo, the clubs keep the revenue they make and the taxpayer funds the policing.

Show quote history

That was in reply to this post

KeepTalkingBeth · 03/05/2025 22:18

Incorrect

Currently, the legal position on the extent to which police can charge clubs for match costs is based on an October 2017 Court of Appeal ruling that went in favour of Ipswich Town and against Suffolk police. The ruling in that case was that the police could recover only the costs of policing the stadium itself—not even the immediate surroundings, let alone the wider area

Mark Roberts, the football policing lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, has put the cost of policing professional football matches in England and Wales at over £48 million a year, of which police are able to claim back only around £5.5 million from clubs

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-04/debates/7FBCA7DA-C3B1-4CC1-8C3C-FFC9F31115E2/CostOfPolicingFootball

I would see it as something positive if football clubs paid more towards the cost of policing their very lucrative events.

I would see it as something positive if Harry paid towards the cost of police security in the event of a visit.