Harry suing the home office

[TooEarlyForMe]

Does he realise where the money they would have to pay him if he was successful in suing, would come from?

The British public

Thanks Harry.

Is this a new one? I can't keep up.

And. Is all this litigation linked to the acres of empty Sussex output Netflix and Spotify must be coming to regret coughing their corporate guts up for?

@Chilledchablis1

@ NellGwynne

I agree . I did wonder - and said it on a thread- what would come out of California during W and C’s tour . Oh well they are nothing if not predictable!

Yup. Also straight after it’s made known that H won’t be gracing the RF with his presence at his grandfather’s memorial service. He appears wearing a ridiculous costume to promote his next jaunt.

@NellGwynne

His full time job now is firing off lawsuits. He must trawl through the DM every day. What a way to spend your life. Why doesn’t he just ignore it and get on with his life?

He'll use what used to be called a cuttings agency, and then there will be staff who present a digest.

It really wouid be a bit warped if he were to pour over it all himself.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Well, I doubt he's doing it to fund their lifestyle ... didn't his wife get just £1 compensation for the "breach of privacy" thing?

If he was to get reclassified as a person of international importance which is the purpose of the judicial review as I understand it , then all his international security would be provided, it all comes down to money in the end . Although Ibwould have thought if him visiting your country means the taxpayers of that country having a bill then you might think twice about inviting him.

If he was to get reclassified as a person of international importance which is the purpose of the judicial review

The JR can't do that.

What it can do is assess issues such as whether RAVEC is the right body with relevant powers to make decisions on VIP and Royal protection, that it receives the right information so it can do this, membership is appropriate to the tasks required, and decision-making is timely and nor perverse

From The Guardian:

".....Justice Smith, summarised the four grounds forming the basis of the prince’s legal argument.

"He said these included an alleged “over rigid application of the policy” and a “failure” to take into account “relevant considerations”.

"The grounds also claim that conclusions reached were “unreasonable” and that “insufficient information” was provided in relation to the Ravec policy and “those involved in the Ravec decision”, the judge said"

The JR won't remake the decision, but if shortcomings were found, they will have to be corrected, and all RAVEC decisions will need to be looked at again in light of whatever is found in the JR.

That may mean that RAVEC have to reconsider protection for him (which strikes me as a bit pointless, as they've already said that they do this for each planned trip anyhow). It does not mean they will reach a different decision.

I've always been quite sympathetic to H&M. Quite like them actually.

But I work in policing and it makes me angry that if he wins, that's money we won't be able to use for really important work. I understand he wants protection for his children. But it's at the expense of other people's.

Yes and that’s the thing he appears not to understand or care about.

"It really wouid be a bit warped if he were to pour over it all himself."

If I was born famous, I would do this at some point.

Though I'd probably want the ground to swallow me up/to disappear into anonymity forever, until everyone forgot who I was.

You can't go out of your way, to be in the public eye, talk shows, interviews etc, then act astonished when the public form opinions, especially in this age of social media/comments sections. Not like back in the day, when a man could see his King without his crown, and not have a clue who he was, because he'd only ever seen his face etched on a coin before.

Remember when M & H first issued their 'leaving presentation', they said that they were 'internationally protected persons' and would always be given state protection nomatter where they were. This was quickly and quietly removed from the document, after their misunderstanding was corrected.

Must have stung - and obviously still does.

Been looking into this IPP thing and the definition on the governement website is as follows:

“a protected person” means, in relation to an alleged offence, any of the following, namely—

(a)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a Head of State, a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs and is outside the territory of the State in which he holds office;

(b)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a representative or an offical of a State or an offical or agent of an international organisation of an intergovernmental character, is entitled under international law to special protection from attack on his person, freedom or dignity and does not fall within the preceding paragraph;

(c)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a member of the family of another person mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs and—

(i)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, is accompanying him,

(ii)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, is a member of his household;

I think Section C would cover Harry if he was on official duties or on private visits to senior royals classified as IPP's but as far as any further entitlement goes it looks like he's stuffed.

It's actually Section b which interests me, Cathy, in that if he'd got the "half in half out" arrangement he wanted then presumably he'd still be an IPP because he'd be representing the RF

However he didn't get it and isn't a working member of the family any more, which I'd expect to change things

So the Royal Family and the Queen refused H&M’s half in half out proposal. I wonder if this contributed to the decision.

@TheHoptimist

He wants protecting- you cant but the protection he needs in the UK.

He was born into a society base don a monarchy where his life was at risk from the moment her was born (relatives of his were killed in IRA bombings)

He is a victim. Just look at the images of the Queen, Charles, William and George. George has been born into a life that in other contexts might be called modern slavery. He has no choice in how he will live his adult life, like his father and grandfather.

Harry opted out of that life but he is still a massive terrorism target, and even more so at the moment. He didn't choose to be born and he didn't choose to be put at constant risk by his parents and grandparents.

So his parents and grandparents should pay. They CHOOSE to be a royal family. They have chosen for centuries. Fought wars to be where they are. They should pay.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

It's actually Section b which interests me, Cathy, in that if he'd got the "half in half out" arrangement he wanted then presumably he'd still be an IPP because he'd be representing the RF

However he didn't get it and isn't a working member of the family any more, which I'd expect to change things

Yes, I agree but he's not going to be acting in any official capacity on any visits which is where I think Section C becomes relevant.

I think he misread the terms, threw his toys out of the pram and was then forced to retract the Archewell whinge when it was pointed out to him he'd got it wrong.

Lolling at the thought of the current and future members of the Royal family being victims of modern slavery.
But then I remember real victims and the remark isn’t funny at all. Just deeply offensive to real victims.

@Whatafustercluck

I've always been quite sympathetic to H&M. Quite like them actually.

But I work in policing and it makes me angry that if he wins, that's money we won't be able to use for really important work. I understand he wants protection for his children. But it's at the expense of other people's.

Do you feel angry when the Duke of Kent goes on a visit somewhere, and the police have to fund that, just because he's some woman's cousin? Or when Prince Edward's kids want to go somewhere, does that piss you off as well? And the money comes either directly or indirectly from the public purse? Or do you feel angry when your colleagues in the Met steal drugs and cash from the evidence room (or whatever it's called) as the latest report into police corruption published yesterday found? Or do you only get angry when it's Harry and Meghan?

Prince Edward's kids don't get protection, so why should anyone be angry?

I believe this is today

To be fair the Duke of Kent, whatever my views on monarchy, seems a dutiful sort of royal cousin.
Prince Harry has opted out of the UK / Commonwealth royal family . I understand that tbh. Don't understand the desire to leverage his inherited position in the USA of all places. The least monarchical place I can imagine.

BBC account of what happened in court today: it only covered the redaction of documents and did not decide anything about the claim against the Home Office or whether it can go ahead (nothing in the article about possible timelines for that)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60860357

Confirmation that parts will not be made public (both sides had requested this, and it's granted on the basis that there are elements of providing VIP and Royal security that have to remain private)

Also The Duke of Sussex's legal team was criticised by the judge for breaking the information embargo by emailing it to someone who was not a lawyer, against court rules - calling this "entirely unacceptable"

From that BBC article: "After the judgment was made public, Mr Justice Swift criticised Prince Harry's legal team for breaking the embargo on the document"
"Mr Justice Swift said a copy of Thursday's ruling had been emailed to someone who was not a lawyer, against court rules, calling this "entirely unacceptable""

Didn't take long did it?

news.sky.com/story/amp/prince-harrys-lawyer-criticised-as-parts-of-police-protection-claim-against-home-office-to-be-kept-secret-12574161

Prince Harry's legal team slammed

Mr Justice Swift later criticised Prince Harry's legal team for making the ruling public before it was due to be officially published.

Drafts of High Court judgments are typically provided to lawyers before their publication.

Shaheed Fatima QC, who represents Prince Harry, said she and her team had not been sure if emailing the ruling to someone who was not a lawyer last week would break the rules.

She reported it to the judge yesterday - but Mr Justice Swift questioned why she hadn't done so earlier and slammed the "entirely unacceptable" move that was a "clear breach" of court rules.

"It is also unacceptable that you come without an apology to the court," he said.

Ms Fatima said she took full responsibility and then apologised "for the fact that I didn't think fully before the emails were sent".

I would expect a QC to be very familiar with court rules and what constituted a breach, especially if they are top end and charging you ££££ .

@PierresPotato

To be fair the Duke of Kent, whatever my views on monarchy, seems a dutiful sort of royal cousin. Prince Harry has opted out of the UK / Commonwealth royal family . I understand that tbh. Don't understand the desire to leverage his inherited position in the USA of all places. The least monarchical place I can imagine.

According to a quick google search, so may be out by a million or two:

'He's worth about $10 million according to the blog Royal Splendor, including receiving $400,000 a year from the Queen for fulfilling his royal duties and a stipend from his time in the British Army.'

So that's eight million odd quid that could be funding drugs for cancer on the NHS, like this one:
'The appraisal committee looked at new data showing people taking Kadcyla could live up to 9 months longer than those taking the alternative, lapatinib plus capecitabine' BUT UNFORTUNATELY....the reality is that the price of Kadcyla is currently too high in relation to the benefits it gives for it to be recommended for routine commissioning in the NHS, even taking into account the end‑of‑life criteria and the patient access scheme.”

I'd rather taxes went on funding drugs like this one so that cancer sufferers could live even a little longer as opposed to spending millions so one family has a life of luxury in exchange for turning up some events and cutting a ribbon. I realise that I'm in the minority in that view on this site.

I would expect a QC to be very familiar with court rules and what constituted a breach, especially if they are top end and charging you ££££

You'd think so wouldn't you - or at least that they'd take the trouble to find out?

Then again, if this is the calibre of the people Harry's surrounding himself with, it's perhaps easy to see why his own PPOs are allegedly disallowed access to the Home Office's security information

@ajandjjmum

Prince Edward's kids don't get protection, so why should anyone be angry?

This took 30 seconds on google to find.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6514450/prince-edward-blows-5000-of-taxpayers-cash-on-private-jet-for-130-mile-trip-though-train-would-have-cost-just-60/
Of course him and his family are directly funded by the taxes we pay.
In Germany the state funds the church through income taxation (or did when my parents lived there for a while when I was a kid) and you could opt in. A much fairer system- if you want to fund the Windsors' opulent lifestyle, you could tick a box and you'd pay more income tax than those who don't. It worked just fine in Germany- my parents opted out.