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

[jennylamb1]

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?

They can’t actually. All this talk of ‘private security’ is a red herring. Yes you can pay bodyguards who will attempt to intervene in the moment of an attack, but private security cannot gather intelligence - or their powers to do so are very very restricted. So while they could pay some guards to stand about and intervene if there’s an issue, they couldn’t be alerted to a planned attack or similar without the intelligence services investigating this.

I think PP comment about nobody choosing their parents/family is very enlightening, I hadn’t thought of it like that.

would help the boy feel a little happier and less bitter

He is a 40 year old man. A middle-aged man. More than two decades beyond the point it would be reasonable to call him a ‘boy’. Just three years younger than David Cameron was when he became prime minister. Calling Harry a ‘boy’ removes responsibility from him for his actions. He is a grown man who is facing the fallout of his own actions and it is well past time he grew up and accepted his responsibility.

Slight tangent, but I find it interesting how the very wealthy & privileged are perfectly happy for taxpayers to fund their security but baulk at paying adequate tax for the NHS & state schools...

I think you will find they feel they do pay adequate tax.

As always people read his words or listen and don’t really think or understand what they say!
he has never taken responsibility for his own actions, they are always someone else fault , he’s never sorry for what’s he’s done , only sorry he was caught .
he wants to do as he pleases, he doesn’t want us to know about it.

Oh for goodness sake 🙄

Either I should have clarified #NotAllRichPeople or you're making the point that they & I disagree on what adequate tax is

(And when I refer to the wealthy, I mean the super rich)

Well because I know the FACTS and I have seen what he says and they are totally different things.

I am making the point that you and they will disagree on what adequately tax is.

It does cover his family. The risk assesmentvdone before each visit takes account of threats.

This. I don't know why people infantilise him.

I watched the interview in full and thought that Harry did have a couple of valid points, which I think, given the constant spotlight on this issue, it's in the public interest to have independently clarified:

• RAVEC consulted with the Royal Household on Harry's security arrangements before making its decision - and before they consulted with them the RH his security was to be maintained, which implies the RH influenced the decision. He specifically said that members of the RH actually sit on RAVEC.

From what Harry said, the Royal Household would appear to refer to courtiers and not family members, but regardless the RH shouldn't be influencing the RAVEC decision.

• Harry claimed he'd not had a risk management assessment since the first decision in 2020 when standard practice is that they happen yearly. Unless each visit is subjected to one under another name, then he should be getting regular risk management assessments as per established protocols.

• Harry also claimed that the bespoke security arrangements were actually this: if he's invited by the Royal family to the UK, he gets full security, without an invite he doesn't. This would appear to be the determining factor in the case-by-case assessments.

This fits with full security being provided for Royal duties only, which I think most would agree with but I also suspect its the only way the Royal family have of controlling meghan and Harry's activities. No doubt there'd be far more stepping on Royal toes if they felt able to come over as freely as they wish.

He didn't specify how this fits with his threat level being assessed with each visit, one would expect that it wouldn't overrule any such assessment. Hopefully,this is simply Harry misinterpreting & feeling stung by the process but we don't know for certain.

Given the appeal result, we could assume these points are all misunderstandings on Harry's part but it isn't wrong for the public to question whether there has been any undue influence from courtiers.

Quite right :)

@Leafy3 there needs to be coordination from the royal household about diaries. Where and when the principals will be undertaking engagements.
The Royal Family do not "control" Harry and Meghan's activities! That's his paranoia.
It's not up to Harry or "the public" to put their viewpoint in. This was a judicial review. There are points of law.
Do you disagree with the judges?.
Harry relies on supposition and poorly informed guesswork. I would prefer to listen to the experts and respect the outcome of the judicial review.

Of course RAVEC would have consulted the royal household before making an assessment of security arrangements. Did you expect them to make decisions based on newspaper reports of Harry’s change in role and status? They would have needed official information on what Harry’s agreed new position was, what his stated plans were, and how this related to the rest of the royal household, before proceeding.

It's bizarre that Harry (and some on here) think that they are better informed than the Met Police, MI5, and the Home Office, and more wise to the law than judges.

I know!!
the blind leading the blind.

I never said I disagreed with the judges, that's some inference given that I specifically said those points could be Harry's interpretation of the facts.

I did make the point that having Meghan & Harry (feel) unable to come to the UK freely for their commercial interests benefits the Royal Family. I didn't say that I sided with either party.

I believe it's in the public interest to have some clarity on these points and that this could easily be achieved with a simple statement which doesn't affect the security of process or individuals. I am wise enough to know this is unlikely to happen.

It doesn't matter what they "feel".
Security isn't about "feelings".
It has been clarified in a court of law. Harry had a capable Barrister. She lost the case.
The judge has ruled that RAVEC was not in the wrong and Harry's "grievance" is not a factor in a judicial decision.
How much clarity do you want?

At no point have my posts implied greater knowledge than the security services or courts, don't be ridiculous.

To anyone concerned I'm an ardent fan of Harry & Meghan: I'm an anti monarchist in favour of the judgement of the existing security arrangements. I do not believe there's an anti-Harry & Meghan conspiracy at play.

I'm also educated enough to know that it's worth asking questions, balanced enough to appreciate that bias exists on both sides and experienced enough to know that our courts, as much as I respect them, are fallible.

Yes to the above

I believe the Windsors want to stop Harry visiting the UK as his presence is somehow a threat to the remaining Windsors .
Harry buzzing around doing lots of visits will raise questions about the value for money we are getting from the official Windsor representatives.
I think Harry made good points in his interview . Yes he was emotional - I’m sure he remains damaged by the manner of his mothers death- and he’s concerned for his young children . I know the MET confirmed their were serious threats to his life and that of his family

If you look behind you, you'll see my point that flew over your head.

There was a judgement in a court of law. Harry lost. Courts are fallible? Doesn't that mean that if they have made an error,it could go to the Supreme Court?
He is making no further legal claim. He must have been informed by his legal team that he will not win. Therefore, the court - however "fallible" must have been correct on the points of law.
Either we rely on the law, or we kowtow to the whims of a royal prince. I know which route I favour.

This. He just wants the full bells and whistles that full time working royals get, without being a full time working royal…

With respect to your own talents, what do you do for a living?
are you a protection specialist?
Are you a judge or solicitor?
are you a member of mi5?

because without inside knowledge or understanding of these things most people would not be able to understand the meaning or specialist intelligence that has to be gathered to make these important decisions.