Harry to sue UK governmdnt

[Viviennemary]

This is according to the DM. Over the withdrawal of his security funding.

Not to mention that his mother was literally murdered by the paparazzi. It is a very real and valid fear for him

No she wasn't murdered. She died in a car crash because she got in a car with a driver who was pissed, drove recklessly and far too fast, and she didn't wear her seatbelt.

The actions of the paparazzi were undoubtedly a contributory factor, but a sober driver wouldn't have gone through that tunnel at more than double the speed limit. They probably wouldn't have clipped the wall. But if they had, and the speed had been lower, the car may not have rebounded into the pillar. If it had, the impact speed would have been much less and the injuries of those in the back of the car less severe. Wearing a seat belt would also have reduced the severity of the injuries.

I can't believe this nonsense is still being spouted.

It is a strange concept that someone should be totally ostracised and banished forever
If that really was the Royal Families opinion, I would be very unimpressed

Well, they did it with Edward VII and there are more recent parallels with the way Fergie was treated and Diana was airbrushed out, but then as I've said repeatedly I'm not impressed with any of them

Far from somehow singling Harry out I'd say he's behaving with the kind of entitlement and petulance they all show, but he's made his choices and will have to live with them

@Puzzledandpissedoff You have very black and white thinking. Fallouts in families are incredibly common, most families still love each other.
Charles has heavily criticised the Queen as a mother. I am sure they both still love each other.
I do agree they appear a totally dysfunctional family who routinely treat each other poorly.

Interested to know, when KM and William gallop off to their numerous holidays, do they change their security completely and get in a private company. Considering they are not performing royal duties then, just having a jolly.

Kate and Williams security is entirely different. First William is in direct line to the throne. Secondly he is a working member of the firm. Harry has left the firm and now has another job or is self employed. You dont usually retain the perks once you have left your job. Nice try Harry.

@rubicscubicle

Interested to know, when KM and William gallop off to their numerous holidays, do they change their security completely and get in a private company. Considering they are not performing royal duties then, just having a jolly.

He is second in line to the throne, and has not stepped away from public duties.

You are making up things as you go along @rubicscubicle. Security swept Pippa's book launch back in 2012 - can't you find anything more recent? Did W & K attend the launch? If so, it was understandable. Also, remember at the time Pippa had quite a high profile - it was only the year after the wedding, when she created quite a stir. Maybe the Police knew of a threat? You can create a dialogue to go along with any story you wish - doesn't make it true though.

You think the Palace told the Police not to give Harry protection. You thinking it, doesn't make it right.

The truth is none of us know, so shouldn't spout our thoughts as fact.

Of course they dont @rubicscubicle
And we are still paying for Andrews security.
This rule only applies to Harry and Meghan.

I doubt the royal family blame Harry entirely , I suspect they think he’s under Meghan’s influence. She won’t ever be back to the UK and I’m sure they can manage Harry alone in small doses but they will be aware he might report back what they say to Meghan.

You are making up things as you go along @rubicscubicle. Security swept Pippa's book launch back in 2012 - can't you find anything more recent?

What has the date got anything to with it, it happened.
And as you had read on my link, No one from the rf went, it even goes not to say this was informed in advance that Kate is not attending.

Harry is still the grandson of a monarch, the son of Charles and brother of William, wether he works or not.

Either you say it's based on work or not. If they are not working, why are we paying for security.

And also, yes, people have privately paid for the police before. Nothing new.

You can create a dialogue to go along with any story you wish - doesn't make it true though

Beautifully put, and not just about any one post but overall

As ever, the mental gymnastics on here to support a "preferred personaility" get a bit much, but at least there are still plenty who distinguish between fact and belief

It's not mental gymnastics when I post screenshots of events that took place.

Works both ways Puzzled! I've seen the most incredible metal gymnastics used to knock Harry and Meghan this morning. I'm still getting over it!

And also, yes, people have privately paid for the police before. Nothing new

Not Special Protection armed police though. And the organisers probably argued that any sort of crowds coming to watch the wedding may have caused disruption. Not necessarily there because of any “threat”.

As I wrote on the other thread where you posted that link as a couple of others:

What's not clear from those links is why the police took the action. Was it because they were asked to because the 'target' didn't feel safe, or because they were acting in a threat assessment, which they would of course do regardless of who was the target?

Because counter examples would be Madonnas wedding - where police advised but a private security firm did the actual task) - and presumable the difference is the nature of the anticipated threat. For some, it is rightly not a police matter and therefore the business of the target's own security.

Police will routinely share threat assessments with a target (and/or their security team) and will act when there is a need for them rather than private arrangements. They don't provide security as a matter of course to private individuals other than via those channels.

It's not mental gymnastics when I post screenshots of events that took place.

PP have already agreed that extra policing can be paid for for specific events. Like football matches or events where there could be disruption to everyday life.

@smilesy

And also, yes, people have privately paid for the police before. Nothing new

Not Special Protection armed police though. And the organisers probably argued that any sort of crowds coming to watch the wedding may have caused disruption. Not necessarily there because of any “threat”.

More than just argued. Any request like this has be accompanied by a full risk assessment of the event in question by the organiser, and then agreed with the Chief Constable, who will take into account any other pressures on the force at the time. They may also need to consult the relevant local authority and explain why private security staff aren't adequate. That's just for regular public order policing, not specialist staff.

What's not clear from those links is why the police took the action. Was it because they were asked to because the 'target' didn't feel safe, or because they were acting in a threat assessment, which they would of course do regardless of who was the target?

If they are acting on a specific threat, as just protecting the public, why are they getting paid ?

Because organisers of events which consume a great deal of police resources for whatever reason routinely do so. Ask any organiser of a major sports event.

@smilesy

It's not mental gymnastics when I post screenshots of events that took place.

PP have already agreed that extra policing can be paid for for specific events. Like football matches or events where there could be disruption to everyday life.

This is a wedding of an individual, not a sport, charity or any public event.

Fully agree, Roussette - in fact I mentioned the "applies to all/works both ways" thing in an earlier post on something slightly different

Thing is, some who want to defend the RF as everything that's wonderful slate Harry and the same in reverse, perhaps forgetting that they're ALL capable of behaving extremely badly (and do)

@rubicscubicle that policing was for the event, crowd and traffic control for a wedding with tons of celebrities which could potentially cause a public order situation.

Harry wants police close protection officers. Entirely different skill set, and small numbers of them in any police force.

If the police get intel to suggest a credible, tangible threat they will deploy as necessary as they would to any such threat. If Harry wants police minders for his book tour, then no. That is not a policing purpose, he is the same as anyone else related to the RF now.

This is a wedding of an individual, not a sport, charity or any public event

Nature of the event isn't the key thing, though, it is that the event leads to a threat which requires mitigation.

If Harry is not happy with a threat-led approach to the provision of official security, and will only be content with blanket coverage, then it is better for him that he does not come.

This is a wedding of an individual, not a sport, charity or any public event.

It's an event - it doesn't need to a public event. It doesn't matter what the nature of the event is, as you'll need to strongly justify your request on risk grounds. All protection is offered on risk grounds.