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?

Exactly.

Do people seriously believe that anyone in 'high places', regardless of their personal opinions of Harry, would want any harm to come to the King's son or grandchildren?

And nobody can tell me just what is wrong with Harry's current security arrangements.

If they wouldn't for the queen why would they listen to Charles?

The ones that are on a case by case basis therefore we don’t know what they will be?

Where do they get the officers from to cover him? How do they protect any intelligence shared?

This is why.

the King is unable to speak to his son about the legal dispute because Charles is the ‘fountain of justice’ in the UK - all legal authority and power ultimately stems from the monarch's courts.

With King Charles III as the ceremonial figurehead of the legal system - and the row over Harry's security effectively taking place in his courts - any intervention from the monarch may have been deemed as improper

Under our legal system the monarch is the source of justice. It's why when you go into the courts there's the King's coat of arms above the judge.

'The monarch is the basis of justice in our system. You can't have the head of the judiciary getting involved in a court case. It's as simple as that.

Oh I don’t know, probably because it is not exactly the same people in exactly same situation? 🤔

No I’m not naive , I happen to understand the rules and position of the monarchy in the U.K. .
and if the queen’s request was denied how on earth do you think Charles could change their minds!
and whatever your opinion of him as a father he has never demonstrated anything but love for Harry .
conspiracy theory is annoying at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Of course we don't know!

Security arrangements are highly sensitive and confidential, as everyone other than Harry understands. Do you expect RAVEC to maintain a live blog or what?

Given their excellent record, why do you think RAVEC would be incapable of adequately managing the safety of the 5th in line, provided of course he gives them all the relevant information with sufficient notice?

Baffling isn’t it.

So how do you know the security arrangements are sufficient/ don’t have anything “wrong” with them?

No-one can tell you what’s wrong with them because they don’t know what they are.

you’re challenging people to answer an impossible question.

As he and his consort are now so unpopular in the UK, and possibly elsewhere, what kudos is there for any international terrorist organisation in killing them?
10 years ago, in Harry's case, this would have been a very different matter.
He should never have left the army.

Also coronations have absolutely loads of notice. Months.

I am 😱 that anyone thought Charles has been a loving father. He’s barely even been present.
I’ve nothing against the bloke and there is clearly a huge amount of generational trauma in the royal family which would’ve made loving parenting very hard but he’s nothing like what I consider to be a loving father

Absolutely. So no problem.
The thing is - it's security - it's secret! We don't know the ins and outs, but I listened to the live feed of the case and it's clear that a) Harry gets an appropriate level of security, thoroughly assessed and b) the decisions have nothing to do with the King.

I think MM is on the thread

This thread has now demonstrated the damage Harry’s thoughtless and false words have on our country, I’m amazed that so many people have no idea about the basic workings of our government, our parliament and our monarchy.
although lack of knowledge in these areas is not a failing as it does not matter in day to day lives, it does when people are making false statements and claims about things they know nothing about.

You have no idea whether a precedent would be set only for other members of the royal family who stepped down, and no basis to claim it. It is something you have pulled out of your arse.

As the assessment would be made about risk, it would be open to anyone to argue that they faced the same level of risk as Harry. It's nonsensical to claim that this could never happen, which is why it is very much not a red herring or even remotely close to one.

Yeah that’s reallly likely. What with Mumsnet being so fundamental to every person around the world and all.

We do have a general idea what they are, as outlined in previous court documents.

Harry's security needs are kept under continual review, and provided he cooperate, any protection deemed necessary is provided on a case by case basis. Obviously we can't know what might happen in hypothetical situations, but Harry has been to the country several times over the past few years, without incident.

What more can he reasonably ask? He doesn't even live in the country and has no official role, so the current arrangements seem very fair and I've not seen anyone provide any reasons to the contrary.

I don't know. However, do you think for a moment KC would want actual harm to come to him?
Plus, in Spare, Harry does recount some very tender and loving episodes with his dad. Who knows, it's just so complex, but I cannot believe he'd want Harry harmed.

Quite, particularly as they've been known to fall out of windows and the Russian security services have murdered people on UK soil.

You said:
”no one can tell me what’s wrong with Harry’s security arrangements”

Presumably as some kind of flex to prove how unreasonable Harry is.

but how could anyone do so?

Charitably, I wonder if they all understand quite what they're advocating for.

Totally agree.

I dont think KC wants any harm to come to him. I think it’s more likely he barely gives him a thought. Just an irritant he wishes he could forget about.