When the stakes are this high doesn't it make more sense to hear our story from us?

[Believeinyou]

what stakes? what are they on about?

The comments on You tube are hilarious. One tear, left eye... go!

@poefaced
"It’s none of anybody’s business"

Well clearly that's not true

How is it your business if KC takes back Harry’s home? And how do you imagine Charles can ban Harry from the UK? He doesn’t have the power to ban him.

Of course King Charles can't banish H&M from the UK, but he can take back Frogmore cottage and banish them from royal palaces

I don't think well of the monarchy or the royals generally, which includes these two, but I like drama. If this is going to cause any, I might watch it.

Even if you don't like Harry, or more likely you don't like Meghan for turning him against his fambly and all the rest of us gawd bless us one and all, how can you justify a dad snatching back a present?

I know Frogmore Cottage is a big present. It's a big cottage, frankly it's not a cottage at all it's a five bedroom detached house with off-street parking. But the principle is the same. When you give something to someone you shouldn't take it back if you don't like them any more.

If on Boxing Day someone posts here about their husband doing that to his son people will take a very dim view of it.

Particularly if the present was given by the boy's nan, not his dad.

To be honest, I don''t think Meghan wants to live in Windsor anyway. I wouldn't.

Yup. But the acolytes can't accept it, she's a downtrodden victim. Cult of St Diana the Wronged Part 2

The High Court gave him leave to challenge the Home Office's refusal to fund police protection for him and Meghan while in the UK

It's rather more nuanced than that.

They have not made a refusal in those terms. They have said that full security will not automatically be provided for every trip. But that a threat assessment will be made for each one, and then action taken (or not) in light of that updated assessment. The body making the decisions is RAVEC (which does the same for all VVIPs).

Harry is not happy with that, and is challenging if decisions were correctly reached by the right people, in a suitable fashion and based on good information - ie is RAVEC the right body to be making such decisions and did it act competently in this case. The JR won't remake the decision, but if it finds it was not correctly reached, it could lead to a competent body re-examining the decision in light of the findings.

It seems Harry wants full security assigned to him and his family, for all visits irrespective of itinerary or threat assessment. But he's visited Uk at least twice under the current arrangements and it does not appear (as far as its possible to tell) that this has caused him insuperable difficulties

But Diana was bigger than the Royal Family, wasn't she? We all saw that at her funeral.

We'd have needed some senior royals to die at the same time to have made a comparison, surely. Plus, she died tragically young, leaving behind two children, and in horrible, avoidable circumstances, making it sadder still.

She still didn't bring down the Royal Family. Their popularity has peaks and troughs over time, but the majority of Brits have consistently been in favour. Usually hovering around 70%.

I bow to your superior knowledge @mpsw. But nuance apart, the High Court granted a review which might find the decision was not correctly reached and might have to be re-examined perhaps on a case by case basis. Or it might not. We'll see.

I don't care either way - not because I love Harry and Meghan and certainly not because I don't care about money. But because the High Court had reason to grant the review and whatever happens that money is unlikely to go into my local police budget, and even if it does I am unlikely to notice any improvement in policing in my area.

I suppose I should be because my local police authority, the Met, spends the largest proportion in the UK on diplomatic and royal protection and so Harry's bit will come off that. But do you what, I suspect I won't notice. I accept that, reluctantly, but I do.

I don't know why other people can't face that or bring up irrelevancies like the FBI but they do.

You might be right @ReneBumsWombats. But Diana's death was quite a big thing wasn't it and the popularity of the Royal Family really did plummet, didn't it?

You are looking at it in hindsight. They were in big trouble when Diana died and had to work hard to get us all to love them again. I expect they remembered that lesson when Charles and William dropped Lady Susan Hussey like a hot potato this week.

But nuance apart, the High Court granted a review which might find the decision was not correctly reached and might have to be re-examined perhaps on a case by case basis

If they find that RAVEC is competent to make the decision on a case by case basis, then Harry has lost (for that is the status quo that he wants reviewing).

It's looking at whether RAVEC is the appropriate body, with suitable membership, with the correct information, and acting reasonably.

It might say that RAVEC is not fit for purpose (which is rather bad news for all other VVIPs) either in terms of terms of reference or membership, or that information flows are inadequate, or there are flaws in how it conducts its business

If any of those pertain, then RAVEC (or successor body) will need to solve the concerns and then reconsider all decisions made under the flawed system (not just re Sussexes). It may or may not reach the same decision in new format.

I bow to your superior knowledge @mpsw. But nuance apart, the High Court granted a review which might find the decision was not correctly reached and might have to be re-examined perhaps on a case by case basis. Or it might not. We'll see.

I'm very much open to correction here, but my understanding is that the threshold required to start a judicial review is not terribly high.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, when giving permission for the review to proceed, the judge said something along the lines of 'just because permission for review has been granted, it by no means implies it will be successful'.

Harry will obviously hope he is successful, because if he loses, he will be on the hook for the legal costs, which will be substantial. The Home Office lawyer made a point of saying that they fully intend to pursue him for their costs if the review is unsuccessful. I think it's yet another of those things which Harry didn't really think through, to put it mildly.

@mpsw as I said, I don't care if Harry wins or loses. I neither like nor dislike him or Meghan. I was pointing out to someone, admittedly in an inexpert manner, that he might be considered for special treatment but whether he was, that the question of FBI involvement wasn't relevant to this review and unwelcome.

I didn't realise the review might mean bad news for other VVIPs. Thanks for explaining that. As my local police authority spends a large amount on diplomatic and royal protection which might include VVIPs, I am quietly cheered about a clear out.

I'm still not hopeful that the savings will be passed on to me or my community in terms of greater policing for us. Or that the armed officers who stand around self importantly or tear about in their red cars will be redeployed to helping old ladies cross the street or catching burglars. But I live in hope.

@IcedPurple I don't know whether you are a lawyer. I'm not. But the fact is that Harry has been granted a review into his entitlement to protection in the UK and it is trundling on expensively.

I don't care whether he wins or loses .I don't care whether the Home Office (or some other public body) wins or loses. It's just happening and it's separate from what the FBI does which another poster whose name I've forgotten was worked up about.

It's not my money. Well, it is but as I've already explained I am unlikely to see it translated into better policing in my area which is the area where Harry and Meghan spend time when they come to the UK. I am cheered to learn that if Harry loses his action the bill for diplomatic and royal protection might go down because other VVIPs might get lopped off. But if they do I bet I won't notice the difference.

Obviously if he does lose he will face an enormous bill. That's up to him. I agree with you that Harry makes unwise decisions. But I neither celebrate or mourn them and I don't understand why people do.

When he and Meghan are not banging on about boring stuff they are entertaining and of negligible cost. I understand they annoy some people but they should just ignore them and let the rest of us enjoy it.

I think I'll give it a miss 😂

No, he has been granted a review into the way decisions about his entitlement to protection in the UK are made.

That is not the same as a review of whether the decision is correct. I'm sorry you can't understand the difference - but there is a difference.

For example - your child's GCSE grades are decided by spinning a wheel, versus decided by a clear marking scheme with marks checked by a moderating system that reviews the way the people awarding marks are working.

Your child may get the same result under each system, but the way in which the result is arrived at matters.

But the fact is that Harry has been granted a review into his entitlement to protection in the UK and it is trundling on expensively.

That isn't a fact.

The legal action is concerned with whether the correct procedures were followed in reaching the decision, not with the decision itself.

Even if the review is successful, the most that can happen is that Harry's case will be reassessed, but the relevant bodies may well come to the same decision all over again. So Harry will potentially have wasted months, even years, and tens of thousands of pounds for nothing.

Basically Harry is saying that, no matter what the evidence, he and his family are ALWAYS at so much risk they must be provided with personal protection.

And the Home Office is saying they will review the level of threat each time and provide an appropriate level of security.

Harry is challenging the way the Home Office have decided to review his security needs each time he comes to the UK, and (from what I understand) whether the people involved in making those decisions are acting in a biased/prejudiced way.

None of this relates to any specific decision about his security needs on any specific visit. He has visited at least twice under this approach, with whatever level of security has been offered as needed.

@IcedPurple and @Sigma33 is there or is there not currently a review which concerns in some way Harry's entitlement to security protection in the UK?

So, if you wouldn't be happy to have your child's GCSE results decided by spinning a wheel, that's the same as appealing a specific result based on a marking system which checks the quality of the marking?

To me there is a substantial difference between a system that can overall be trusted to make a rational decision (with the option to challenge specific decisions) and a system that is fundamentally unfair.

An fundamentally unfair system is a concern for all of us. A fair system that pi**es off people with unreasonable expectations doesn't bother me at all/

As I said, if you can't see the difference then that says more about you than those of us trying to explain the difference.

@Sigma33 I didn''t ask about GCSEs. I asked if there was currently a review concerning in some way Harry's entitlement to security protection in the UK.