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.

I did not say RAVEC does not include the police, where did I say that. I said the press seem to try and exclude the role of the RF in all this, which is important.

Harry is 6th in line, with Archie and Lili 7th and 8th. At that point they are close to the crown.

The RF play a deplomatic role each time they represent the crown to other countries etc.

You cannot call past ambassadors ' Madam Ambassador' etc.,because there will be a current, new ambassador in place, but you can address them as 'Your Excellency' still after they left their official role, as that is for life.

There are several 'diplomats' playing different roles. Some of them are actually civill servant specialists working within the embassy. I know this one as I know a former diplomat and asked for some clarity (she was working as a specialist in the ITU and was based in Geneva at that point). She is not protected herself.

As I said, Harry is the only one who has had 4 senior terrorist arrested on his behalf, so not sure where they get that he is not threatened. Yet, I don't know much arrests about anyone else who is still protected (even when stopping duties).

@ rubicscubicle

“I did not say RAVEC does not include the police, where did I say that. I said the press seem to try and exclude the role of the RF in all this, which is important. “
I didn’t say you did ! However your omission of the police members suggested - to me anyway- that you were distancing the police from the decision making process !

OK, so I misspelled 'solely', but I also said 'as well'. So all inclusive.

rubics. you are ignoring the optics of the cost of providing police protection and hence the RF do not have the final say in who receives protection. Beatrice and Eugenie, grandchildren of the Queen, had their protection fully removed on the basis of cost and that they were not likely to be working royals. A quick google shows that the cost of their protection was highlighted after Eugenie had full protection on her gap year abroad, estimated to be £100k. Issues such as who receives protection probably just jogs along until something like the cost of Eugenie's protection hits the media - at which point both the public and RF looked at who got protection and at what it costs in great detail. Curtailing who benefited from royal police protection was, in my view, the right thing to do.

but you can address them as 'Your Excellency' still after they left their official role, as that is for life

Some countries do that, but not Britain

I'm quite sure it applies to the UK.

UK is one of the countries where (as per last sentence of that extract from Wiki) it is held only for the duration of office.

Sorry, I missed that, can you link it please.

Sorry , can't, because it's based on personal knowledge.

Perhaps you can link the contrary if you're trying to prove me wrong?

But it's all a sideshow anyhow, because it's sevung and retired ambassadors only get security when threat assessments indicate need. They don't get it as part of the pay and rations!

As I said, Harry is the only one who has had 4 senior terrorist arrested on his behalf, so not sure where they get that he is not threatened.

Can we be very clear about the charges against those neo-nazi terrorists. They were charged and jailed for for promoting and encouraging vile acts of racism, misogny, anti-semitism and terrorism.

The two teen neo-nazis were arrested for terrorism arising from promoting online , via blogs and other online media, the rape, torture and murder of women who had non white partners, they encouraged lone acts of violence from members of the public on non-white and Jewish targets and others, Prince Harry being one of the others. They promoted the murder of babies, and encouraged Isis style terrorist acts on politicians and the general public. They idolised Brevik who slaughtered 70+ teenagers in Norway.

As horrific as it was for PH to be included in their propaganda, I think we can safely say, that of all the people and groups who were targeted for violence, Harry would have been the one whose safety was the most secure and the least accessible for a random act of terrorism.

The little black kid at the bus stop, the bi-racial family, the jews on their way to the synagogue, refugees, politicians, innocent kids at a concert, on a summer camp etc. don't have the kind of security to protect them from the lunatics who believe in this kind of hatred. We are easy pickings if someone really wants to follow through on their hate.

That is why they were arrested, charged and jailed.

Ironically, they had styled themselves on, and were affiliated to, an extreme US based neo-nazi group. Thank god, AK47s aren't so easy to come by here in the UK, or who knows what might happen.

My thoughts are, and apologies if it's been done to death upthread, that M&H have always known this would be a non-starter but it helps them play the victim-card - he won't be able to bring his children to the UK because we're all so beastly about their security. Ask for security, offer to pay for said security and, when it's refused, accept the decision gracefully. Enough with going to court all the time - their legal team must be coining it in.

I'm not sure why you are pointing out black kids, refugees etc. as if this government cares if these people die or not. Even the media will not cover them when they die. Bibaa and Nicole died before Sarah, and they never even got one ounce of coverage till Sarah died.
My point is that Harry is what would be considered a 'high value' target because of his profile.

As for Harry just slinking away. It's not gonna happen. During the Sundringham meeting it was agreed that he would keep his security, they can't just go back on their word.

During the Sundringham meeting it was agreed that he would keep his security, they can't just go back on their word.

In the OW interview, he said they knew that security would be removed

It was while they were in Vancouver, Harry said in the interview, that they were told on “short notice” that their royal security detail would be cut off—even as they were still in the process of finalizing their exit, with the intention of continuing to serve the queen.

The above from an article in Vanity Fair. It doesn’t sound as though there was an agreement in place that allowed for their change of status, even if Harry still thought he was at risk. This seems to be his problem.

www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/03/prince-harry-meghan-markle-security

As for Harry just slinking away. It's not gonna happen. During the Sundringham meeting it was agreed that he would keep his security, they can't just go back on their word.

Really? And you know this how? I’m sure if it had been agreed Harry would have said so at the OW interview. He said it was taken away at short notice but not that it was agreed at the Sandringham meeting to keep his security and that the palace had gone back on the agreement. Presumably the Queen has kept the receipts of what was agreed.

Even the media will not cover them when they die. Bibaa and Nicole died before Sarah, and they never even got one ounce of coverage till Sarah died

This isn't true I am afraid. Bibaa and Nicole were noted missing and found within 24 hours. Sarah Everard was reported missing but the police only commenced an official and encompassing search after three days at which time her disappearance was made widely public. Up till that point it was mainly her friends searching for her and raising awareness she was missing. This isn't to say that once the searches started they may have played out differently in the media, but there was no chance for any discrepancies to be noted as Bibaa and Nicole were found so quickly - by Nicole's boyfriend I believe.

@SallyLockheart

As for Harry just slinking away. It's not gonna happen. During the Sundringham meeting it was agreed that he would keep his security, they can't just go back on their word.

Really? And you know this how? I’m sure if it had been agreed Harry would have said so at the OW interview. He said it was taken away at short notice but not that it was agreed at the Sandringham meeting to keep his security and that the palace had gone back on the agreement. Presumably the Queen has kept the receipts of what was agreed.

They posted that (which I have screenshot right on this thread before) he would continue to have security on Sussex Royal website. They posted that right after the Sandringham meeting, where they listed what was agreed at the meeting.
The palace (nor their 'sources') ever disputed it.

In the OW interview, he said they knew that security would be removed

They never said that. If anything they seemed to have been shocked it happened. Infact Harry seemed to have specifically mentioned it because that was not the agreement .

It was not just about the bodies missing, it was also about how heinous the crimes were. Even Bibaa's mum said her children never got coverage, and it was only because of Sarah that any attention was paid. This is true, because after that Sabina was also widely covered. It was some time before the police found Bibaa and Nicole's murderer, which meant their death should have been plastered all over, and that never happened.

No matter how much you try to deny it, black boys die every day from killings, and no one gives a hoot. An occasional story makes it. That is fact !

@rubicscubicle

I'm not sure why you are pointing out black kids, refugees etc. as if this government cares if these people die or not. Even the media will not cover them when they die. Bibaa and Nicole died before Sarah, and they never even got one ounce of coverage till Sarah died. My point is that Harry is what would be considered a 'high value' target because of his profile.

As for Harry just slinking away. It's not gonna happen. During the Sundringham meeting it was agreed that he would keep his security, they can't just go back on their word.

I am pointing out the reason they were arrested and prosecuted was because of the misogynist, anti-semitic, racist threats they made to the general public.

I am pointing this out , so that you can see the narrative you presented when mentioning this case, i.e. that they were arrested due to threats solely to Harry, is not inaccurate

I am pointing out that the easy targets for these kind of terrorists,, are us, Joe Public and the high value targets with 24hour elite security have less of a risk of being a victim of a random opportunistic terrorist attack.

@rubicscubicle

It was not just about the bodies missing, it was also about how heinous the crimes were. Even Bibaa's mum said her children never got coverage, and it was only because of Sarah that any attention was paid. This is true, because after that Sabina was also widely covered. It was some time before the police found Bibaa and Nicole's murderer, which meant their death should have been plastered all over, and that never happened.

No matter how much you try to deny it, black boys die every day from killings, and no one gives a hoot. An occasional story makes it. That is fact !

I saw huge amounts of coverage. I'm in London and fairly nearby though. But it was definitely in the national press. That's where I first saw it. I'm not saying there aren't discrepancies in coverage but missing people as opposed to found deceased people always get more coverage and the police pretty much ignored Sarah's disappearance for three days.

And we know that everything on Sussex Royal was accurate ??
Acknowledging that they needed security is not the same as saying it would be provided .
Oh and I am in North Scotland and there was a lot in the press U.K. here about the murdered sisters .

Rubics. That message was on Sussex Royal website - the palace did not confirm or deny security agreements in line with security protocols. Doesn’t mean Harry and Meghan’s message is true. They have been banging out that tune from the start - initially they were ‘IPPs’ - and they tried to hang on to paid security for grim life and been very peeved when they failed to do so.

In the OW interview, he said they knew that security would be removed

They never said that. If anything they seemed to have been shocked it happened. Infact Harry seemed to have specifically mentioned it because that was not the agreement .

The article in Vanity Fair quotes from the interview where he says that they were told “security would be removed at whet notice”. I meant that he was told it would be removed then. He never contradicted this by saying that there was an agreement in place not to remove security at all, which he would surely have done if it were the case, as pp have said. He said they were still finalising the exit. He didn’t say they already had an agreement.

I never said, they were 'solely' targeting Harry. They belong to an already formed group after all.

My point was that the group and the individuals are serious enough to be found guilty by the court of law.
I am sure Harry and other people get lots of threats, but for 4 people who belong to organised groups seen as serious enough to be convicted is a serious threat.,

What you said 4 senior terrorist arrested on his behalf

Just pointing out that is not true.

By making it about him you are totally undermining and minimising the misogynist, anti-jewish and racist reasons they were arrested, charged and jailed in the first place.

@themessygarden

As I said, Harry is the only one who has had 4 senior terrorist arrested on his behalf, so not sure where they get that he is not threatened.

Can we be very clear about the charges against those neo-nazi terrorists. They were charged and jailed for for promoting and encouraging vile acts of racism, misogny, anti-semitism and terrorism.

The two teen neo-nazis were arrested for terrorism arising from promoting online , via blogs and other online media, the rape, torture and murder of women who had non white partners, they encouraged lone acts of violence from members of the public on non-white and Jewish targets and others, Prince Harry being one of the others. They promoted the murder of babies, and encouraged Isis style terrorist acts on politicians and the general public. They idolised Brevik who slaughtered 70+ teenagers in Norway.

As horrific as it was for PH to be included in their propaganda, I think we can safely say, that of all the people and groups who were targeted for violence, Harry would have been the one whose safety was the most secure and the least accessible for a random act of terrorism.

The little black kid at the bus stop, the bi-racial family, the jews on their way to the synagogue, refugees, politicians, innocent kids at a concert, on a summer camp etc. don't have the kind of security to protect them from the lunatics who believe in this kind of hatred. We are easy pickings if someone really wants to follow through on their hate.

That is why they were arrested, charged and jailed.

Ironically, they had styled themselves on, and were affiliated to, an extreme US based neo-nazi group. Thank god, AK47s aren't so easy to come by here in the UK, or who knows what might happen.

I had no idea about this. It's always been implied this was a direct and focussed threat on H & M. How awful for all involved.