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?

Interestingly, one of the daughters got UK protection when she studied over here. All on the taxpayer. No-one wants an incident.

Good job King Charles didn’t then.

We have strict gun laws. Private security can’t carry guns. And we can’t pay for police services.

I dont know. Harrys entitled to tell his story.

But its a bit much to write a book slating the royal family, and then insist on having paid security because hes in the royal family.

If he had been a bit nicer and left the royal family on good terms, they probably would have given them better security.

Harry said that charles is not speaking to him at all now.

who has done that?

Its sad that harry and charles and speaking at all anymore

Security isn't based on being nice or not nice. It's assessed on need. Charles doesn't make the decision because he doesn't work for the Met or MI6.

The Secret Service have a website where they explicitly say that they provide protection for the 'immediate families' of the President.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what the Americans do. Harry has a special arrangement with RAVEC whereby his and his family's security situation is kept under review and provided he cooperate with them, they receive whatever security is deemed appropriate.

I can't see a problem here. Can you?

I won’t be answering any further questions from you after your personal attack towards me.

The precedent thing is a red herring. Anyone could successfully argue that his situation is unique. A precedent would only be set for any other very high level member of the royal family who stepped down from Royal duties.

I can’t believe anyone is so petty they would deny this request for him to pay for his own security in the U.K so that he can be sure that team have access to the intelligence that would keep his family safe. Let’s not forget, the initial request was for his own security to be given access to that information and it was denied.

It makes no difference at all to have him pay for security. It is being stopped out of spite.

I’ve just skim read the judgement- it’s very interesting and I’ll read it again in detail later. It doesn’t seem to cover his future security offering at all (which is to be expected, to be fair, that’s not what it’s for) but it is interesting.

If 'anyone could successfully' argue this, why was his case thrown out of court by 3 High Court justices?

It seems his lawyers very much failed to 'successfully argue' their case.

And obviously individuals cannot be allowed to hire the police privately! You can't possibly believe otherwise, can you?

You seem really eager to box posters into “pro harry” boxes and deride them for the views you think they have.

Harry had a very expensive and very capable Barrister. She argued his case well - I watched her, she was excellent.
She lost.

I wonder how much it would cost Harry for 24/7 365 days per year Met armed security? Any ideas? Pretty sure even Harry’s deep pockets would struggle and of course he wouldn’t expect to pay for it despite his lame throwaway claim that he would.

I simply asked a question relevant to the discussion, unlike Michelle Obama's podcast.

Harry's security arrangements seem very fair and reasonable to me. Do you not think that to be the case?

Yes, it is interesting. I watched it on the live feed. He had a very good barrister. The judges decision went against him, however. The ruling was that RAVEC acted properly, as did the Home Office, and Harry's "grievance" did not constitute a case.

to be really honest, I don’t care about the security prince Harry has on any level. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether he has full on sas or wanders around on the underground.

it’s just interesting in terms of current affairs, and the legal process.

the Michelle Obama comment was one simple comment to respond to the idea they wouldn’t put Harry in a limo and Megan in another car because that’s so outrageously ridiculous when well, it’s not outrageously ridiculous at all. However, you made it into a big thing when it wasn’t.

I can’t believe anyone is so petty they would deny this request for him to pay for his own security in the U.K so that he can be sure that team have access to the intelligence that would keep his family safe. Let’s not forget, the initial request was for his own security to be given access to that information and it was denied.

National Security is not for sale and rightly so, how about a Russian Oligarch wanting access to British intelligence when they are over in London for a jolly?

Don't football clubs pay the police for security?

Figure/estimate I saw recently (will try to find link to article later) was something along the lines of £400,000 per annum for 24/7/365 per protected individual.

On that basis, and as the article pointed out, you can very quickly get to a million p.a. if you want to provide every member of a even a small family with their own individual protection officers...

Edit to link..on a speed reread probably even more expensive than I thought:

https://www.westminstersecurity.co.uk/close-protection/royalty-and-specialist-protection/

That’s not the same security. Lots of people pay the police to attend to keep peace- carnivals , football games etc but that’s a gang of uninformed officers not close 24/7 protection against kidnap or assassination.

they’re just different services. No one can pay for the second service

It's not just the physical security, it's also about access to relevant intelligence.

Its assessed on need. But as hes said hes not a working member of the royal family, do they feel any need to give security to harry?

Harrys doing nothing for the royal family, so why would the royal family and met do anything for harry?

And im sure charles can of course influence any security decision

They contribute to the cost of policing to maintain order and crowd control on match days.

That's not at all the same thing as paying for armed specialist close protection officers with access to intelligence briefings.