If you were as fearful for your family's safety as Harry is....

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

...why would you want to have them participate in a really high-profile public bash?

Particularly one to celebrate an institution you have walked away from.

Genuinely puzzled.

@CallmeHendricks

My understanding of the "Meghan might still work" thing was that it was mentioned as something she might like to keep her hand in with as a modern working woman, rather than burn all her bridges on becoming a member of the RF. When did this become twisted into some sort of slight?

Some people can and do turn anything into a slight though don't they? They live for it. Most of us have had dealings with such people and it's exhausting.

I don't see why they couldn't come over quietly for a private visit. I don't know anything about famous people travelling, but I'm sure people jet all over the place without the rest of us knowing about it. Only those who want the attention alert the paps.

Excellent research, Roussette!!

So if that's correct (as in not superseded or anything) it should be problem over - though it still leaves the question of why Harry would say he's not allowed to pay if it's permissible?

I don't know why people are twisting this to have been a suggestion. That is not what H&M said. They were being told this. They themselves seemed to not believe it to be true, with Harry saying that is when he realised that things are going to be difficult. They stayed, regardless, because they did not believe this to be so.

It seems to me that some CF was just chancing it with H&M.

Just as they tried to chance it with Archie by saying that the rules will be changed for him regarding being a prince in the future.

I suspect that if H&M had laid down and agreed to whatever they were being told, these rules would have been changed. Someone was trying it. Just wanted to see how they would react. If they were meek, I suspect all these would probably have been implemented.

Hairy it's just the fact it says 'any person'.

Not 'any club' or 'any organisation'
but 'any person'

It is a grey area to me. Even a Sue Grey area perhaps

So if that's correct (as in not superseded or anything) it should be problem over - though it still leaves the question of why Harry would say he's not allowed to pay if it's permissible?

Because 'may' does not mean 'must' and when there is a finite resource then priorities have to be decided, and that is done by threat assessment. That policy, and whether it has been correctly implemented appears to be the subject of the judicial review

Puzzled

I will admit to lifting it off a thread elsewhere, where there is outrage he can't pay for this, and this Policing document is linked numerous times!

On Harry saying he's not allowed to pay, there was a tweet from an ex Supreme Court judge saying that he's been told he is not allowed to do this by the RF. I obviously have no idea how true that is. I put it on this or the other thread, cannae remember where!

Only those who want the attention alert the paps

Do you honestly honestly think that's what he does?! He hates them. The likes of the Assoc.Press write godawful stories about him, his wife and family. He'd hardly be alerting them to chase him around!!

@CallmeHendricks

My understanding of the "Meghan might still work" thing was that it was mentioned as something she might like to keep her hand in with as a modern working woman, rather than burn all her bridges on becoming a member of the RF. When did this become twisted into some sort of slight?

That is not what they said, they said there is no budget for her. It does not sound like they were giving her a choice, per ser. It's just that H&M recognised the BS in this.

Also, what they would be suggesting is not practical. Harry was a senior working royal, they just got married, she is American with her credentials in Canada and US. They want to start a family. So what? Harry goes on his official duties in Australia and Africa etc. while she what? goes acting in Canada/US? A long distance marriage for newlyweds? In the meantime Archie is being denied security, most likely he stays with MM. So no security for both of them? The palace knew they were proposing nonsense.

It works for Harry's cousin because he works in the US - not as a senior royal, so his wife can work there as an actress. I am referring too Freddie.

'may' does not mean 'must' and when there is a finite resource then priorities have to be decided, and that is done by threat assessment

Quite right, mpsw, though I was thinking more of Harry allegedly being told he couldn't do it

And now we have a judge (thanks, Roussette) who's also saying what Harry's been told, whether on the say so of the palace or Harry himself who knows
It really is turning into he said/she said isn't it??

@Roussette

Only those who want the attention alert the paps

Do you honestly honestly think that's what he does?! He hates them. The likes of the Assoc.Press write godawful stories about him, his wife and family. He'd hardly be alerting them to chase him around!!

He alerts the paps, then goes and sues them. Doubt the paps and press would not expose him for that Headlines : Harry pretends to hate the press, but calls us for pap shots. That would make a lot of money.

😂

@ANameChangeAgain

Our police service are not there for his private use. This is what private security is for. He doesn't work for this country by choice, so he need to dig into his own enormous pockets to fund security for his family. He is a celebrity now, not a working royal.

I agree with this. Is there a reason he isn't just paying for private security? It's not like he doesn't have the funds. I understand (read) that his US team doesn't have jurisdiction, but I don't see why he can't hire a separate team while in the UK. The police force seems stretched enough.

And yes, former PMs should have to do the same tbh.

@Roussette

Only those who want the attention alert the paps

Do you honestly honestly think that's what he does?! He hates them. The likes of the Assoc.Press write godawful stories about him, his wife and family. He'd hardly be alerting them to chase him around!!

Of course Harry isn't going to alert the paps, I'm just saying that some B-list celebs do that to get attention.

That's my point - if they wanted to quietly travel to the UK to visit family, they could. They would be in a royal residence covered by the usual security before anyone realized they were here.

Yes, Harry's sixth in line to the throne, but I wonder whether he's fully realized how much things have moved on since they left two years ago. They're not really relevant in the UK now and will become less relevant with every passing year.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Excellent research, Roussette!!

So if that's correct (as in not superseded or anything) it should be problem over - though it still leaves the question of why Harry would say he's not allowed to pay if it's permissible?

Because policing at something like a sporting event, is just uniform officers showing a presence. Protection officers are very different. Its a highly trained job and I doubt Harry, but I might be wrong, is saying I'll just have a protection officer for two hours on a Thursday afternoon. I'm guessing, again I don't know, that he will want his entire family to have protection for the entire visit. Which is very expensive and draining on the supply of protection officers.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Excellent research, Roussette!!

So if that's correct (as in not superseded or anything) it should be problem over - though it still leaves the question of why Harry would say he's not allowed to pay if it's permissible?

I guess that is the whole point of the judicial, review to clarify why he is being refused.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Excellent research, Roussette!!

So if that's correct (as in not superseded or anything) it should be problem over - though it still leaves the question of why Harry would say he's not allowed to pay if it's permissible?

If you read the full guidance rather than a snapshot it looks like the only police you can pay for are general PC's, British Transport Police and Immigration, HMP Officers.

Not Royal Protection Officers.

Further down in the summary it's all based on policing of large events for public safety. Nowhere does it say you can hire a PC for a day for personal protection. not gonna lie I'd be tempted just for fun if that were the case 🤣

So say Harry was doing a Invictus event and public safety was a concern he could then hire extra police to police the event. Or like a royal wedding...hence the hefty security bills for these because the royal family need to hire extra police to line the streets for the carriage ride.

So the police are for hire, when a public safety concern can arise from the event host. So the host needs to pay for the extra police to safeguard the event is what I get from reading the summary.

Looks like the police can just decline the request. So say Man City wanted 200+ officers they can say no. Regardless of how much they want to pay for it.

Looks like the police can just decline the request. So say Man City wanted 200+ officers they can say no. Regardless of how much they want to pay for it.

Presumably they would do this if they do not have the personnel available. So this could equally apply to Special Protection.

@ANameChangeAgain

Our police service are not there for his private use. This is what private security is for. He doesn't work for this country by choice, so he need to dig into his own enormous pockets to fund security for his family. He is a celebrity now, not a working royal.

You can actually hire the Police and pay them to work a particular function.

I think he does want to pay for it himself but he’s being told that he can’t. I think that’s what the case is about.

Personally I’d rather him and his crazy wife stay away rather than come and detract attention away from the queen and her celebration year. To be fair though, he’s probably damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

I've no idea! Just confused why it would say 'a person'.

@Roussette

I've no idea! Just confused why it would say 'a person'.

And why does it not say 'a representative of an organisation' for example.

I am aware that this Section has been used mostly by event organisers, but I was not aware of it being exclusively for events.

@Roussette

I've no idea! Just confused why it would say 'a person'.

Any person can request, so say "head of supporter safety at Manchester United" Carol who holds this position can make the request "she's the a person" But the request must then meet the mandatory requirements for the Special Policing. If it does not they can decline.

Looks also like the Police Crime Commissioner has a sway in releasing the manforce required to staff the event.

But the entire policy is around safeguarding events on private and public land. Not the protection of a sole person as far as I can see.

Hence why the original statement released was "this is not like hiring the police to man an event" (not a direct quote just paraphrasing)

Because...

Section 25 of the 1996 Police Act (as amended) applies to the policing of events.

Personally (and this will not go down well) they should just allow it... it will be so infrequent anyway, maybe a trip back to an airport, or whatever....
To me (again an unpopular view to some) it just sounds petty.