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.

@Reallycantbesarsed

I agree with Harry. He should be protected in the uk .

He's a private citizen now though.

I would like to have police protection when I walk home at night. Perhaps I should go to court for my rights too.

I know MN sniffs at the DM but

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10526793/amp/Prince-Harry-begins-High-Court-legal-battle-against-Home-Office.html

@StartupRepair

I think Charles setting up trust funds for his DSC was a way of acknowledging the impact on their lives of the whole sorry mess and showing Camilla that he would be generous to her family.

They were not a 'blended family'. This was before marriage, when Camilla was his mistress turned girlfriend. They were also grown up children with their own independence, that did not stop Charles from taking care of them.

Archie is not covered, if he was CH would have announced it, instead of mumbling about Harry's inheritances - which have nothing to do with them.

@givethatbabyaname

Apparently the crux of his argument is that he doesn’t “feel safe” coming back to England, which he considers his home.

Yet more breathtaking entitlement from a Royal.

Don’t feel safe? Don’t come. Easy.

I live abroad. It’d be like me wishing to rent the NHS privately because I have health anxiety caused by factors peculiar to the U.K. when I visit. I could pay for private health insurance. But no, I consider the private sector won’t do as good a job as I consider I need. So, I’m going to sue the Dept of Health for not letting me pay to hire the NHS - depriving local people of its use while I’m using it - whenever I choose to visit the U.K. because it’s my home and I fancy visiting my family or friends or doing some work.

They can all just fuck off. The whole lot of them.

He does not 'feel safe' because he has threats from 'Neo Nazis' !

There is a private section of the NHS, so yes, you can pay. You will even be seen faster than others too. I know, I have used it.

@IcedPurple

According to the Home Office, he only 'offered to pay' after the story was leaked last month. However, in their 'statement' it was said that he 'offered' to pay the costs of police protection in January 2020 at Sandringham. That would appear to be an untruth, let's put it that way.

In any case, it's a total red herring, as armed police protection is not available for purchase.

It is not an assertion from MN, it was what was in Harry' statement.

Since when does Home Office leak about the royals now. Did your Fail show you that documentation ? Or are they just saying.
Also, Harry does not need to pay, he probably offered because he thought he was meeting them halfway

RAVEC has the rf representatives on the committee, if they say Harry dose not need security, I do not see how the Met can force it. I suspect that is what Harry is fighting. If you tell the Met you are fine and safe, surely they do not force protection to your house do they?

Once again, I was clearly disputing the blanket statement that ' you cannot buy the Met'. This is not true, as per examples of Kate Moss and Blair. It is clearly a case by case. All Harry has to do is prove that he is under threat, and I don't think that would be hard, and he would not have to pay for it in the end.

He's a private citizen now though.

I would like to have police protection when I walk home at night. Perhaps I should go to court for my rights too.

You should if you are in danger.

He does not 'feel safe' because he has threats from 'Neo Nazis' !

If you read the reports of what was said at the hearing today, it is made clear that security would be provided if there was a current and credible threat. This has also been mentioned by previous posters who have knowledge of security issues. Here is part of what was said today:

“But in his submissions, Mr Palmer told the court that his “form of exceptional status” meant that the Duke is already considered for personal police protection when he returns “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain”.

It suggests that were he attending on official business, rather than in a personal capacity, the Duke would likely receive police protection”

Mr Palmer is the QC for the Home Office

It is not an assertion from MN, it was what was in Harry' statement.

Not sure what you mean by 'an assertion from MN' but as I pointed out, Harry's 'statement' appears to be untrue.

Since when does Home Office leak about the royals now.

Are you following the case at all?

See the post from @smilesy above. The defence lawyers said Harry never 'offered' to pay until after the story got leaked last month, in other words, 2 years later than he claimed.

Also, Harry does not need to pay, he probably offered because he thought he was meeting them halfway

But he didn't 'offer' until last month. And in any case, the defence lawyers dismissed any such 'offer' as 'irrelevant' because armed protection officers are unavailable for purchase. This was explicitly said in the hearing today.

Once again, I was clearly disputing the blanket statement that ' you cannot buy the Met'. This is not true, as per examples of Kate Moss and Blair. It is clearly a case by case.

Your argument must be incredibly poor if you need to keep bringing up the same examples, when you've been told numerous times that they are irrelevant.

Give me one example of an individual purchasing armed Met Police bodyguards. Just one.

Can you please link the official report from court today please @smilesy

As for posters 'knowledge of security', just because you name change, does not make you an expect. (not you, but the posters you think are knowledgeable because they claim so ( I also usually believe, but rf security is rather niche, sorry).

The QC, will of course try to defend the HO, as this is a Harry V HO case. It really does not mean that is the rule. Himself, he does not dispute this to be the rule. As the case goes on, that will be established. Harry, may the say, h is still under threat when not performing royals duties (which he will not be anyway). What is this 'official business' do they want him to be protected under?

@IcedPurple
It does not matter when Harry offered. He did not need to offer. In fact, if he wins, the rules may likely say, he does not need to pay at all.

You are not coming up with cases of others rejected of paying privately yourself, I have already given you 3 names including Camilla herself as examplesl. I am not combing the Internet for you. Maybe you come up with names of those who have been rejected. Just because a defence lawyer says something, does not make it so. The judge will decide based on evidence. If I can come up with 3 names, then Harry lawyers will know more.

@notanotheroneagain

He's a private citizen now though.

I would like to have police protection when I walk home at night. Perhaps I should go to court for my rights too.

You should if you are in danger.

The QC, will of course try to defend the HO, as this is a Harry V HO case. It really does not mean that is the rule. Himself, he does not dispute this to be the rule. As the case goes on, that will be established. Harry, may the say, h is still under threat when not performing royals duties (which he will not be anyway). What is this 'official business' do they want him to be protected under?

What's a poor prince of the realm to do eh? Everyone is ganging up on the poor wee thing.

And the 'case' is a judicial review. The aim is not to decide whether or not Harry is entitled to armed police security, but to investigate whether the correct judicial procedures were followed. Even if the court rules in Harry's favour, all that will happen is that the HO will have to review his request again. They may very well come to the same conclusion, or even decide that the special status granted to him no longer applies. All of which is using up precious state resources and costing the taxpayer money.

It does not matter when Harry offered

So you're saying it does not matter if he lied?

In fact, if he wins, the rules may likely say, he does not need to pay at all.

See my post above. That is not what this 'case' is about.

You are not coming up with cases of others rejected of paying privately yourself, I have already given you 3 names including Camilla herself as examples

You have not given me a single example of a private individual paying for bespoke armed Met Police protection. Not one.

Maybe you come up with names of those who have been rejected.

In order to do that, I'd have to be able to think of someone else who took the HO to court to challenge such a judgement. Funnily enough, I can't think of anyone who has.

Are the Daily Mail saying he lied. .

Can you please link the official report from court today please

I'm nit sure one is available. Here's the BBC report

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60438739

It says that RAVEC do consider his needs, which means if they decide that he needs personal protection, it will be made available.

This judicial review will be examining whether RAVEC is the correct body to be making that decision, and if its decision making procedures are sound, and were properly applied. It won't be remaking the decision - rather seeking to establish that the decision was made by the appropriate people in an appropriate way.

BBC quotes court papers as saying that after he went to live in US 'Ravec placed him in an "exceptional category", meaning his future police protection in the UK would depend on the specific circumstances of each visit"

That must mean there is no blanket ruling saying he will not receive any protection ever.

They are also considering how much if the case will be made public, because personal protection procedures have aspects which need to remain secret (don't want to put operational information into the public domain where it could be discovered by those who wish harm)

The QC for the Home Office also "said the offer to pay for the police's protection was irrelevant because personal protective security by the police "is not available on a privately financed basis"

The court is yet to rule on what parts of the case will become public, before a subsequent decision on whether the claim will be heard in full.

When did he lie?
You say yourself that he offered.

So you have no one then.

I gave you Camilla, for whom Charles paid for proper RF protection.
I gave you Blair, who paid extra when travelling overseas, while his family remained protected at home in the UK.
I gave you KM, who paid for the plebs to be protected for her wedding.

You gave me nothing !

Kate Moss did not receive personal protection.

There was venue security for the large event of her wedding. That is akin to a football match, where police are involved with crowd security and traffic management. That is not the same thing as personal protection

I'm nit sure one is available

I couldn’t find a court report, but there are reports from plenty of sources quoting what was said during the hearing.

@notanotheroneagain

When did he lie? You say yourself that he offered.

So you have no one then.

I gave you Camilla, for whom Charles paid for proper RF protection.
I gave you Blair, who paid extra when travelling overseas, while his family remained protected at home in the UK.
I gave you KM, who paid for the plebs to be protected for her wedding.

You gave me nothing !

I'm not sure if there's any point discussing this further with you, as it seems you don't bother reading what people say. Repeatedly.

Reread my posts. Harry's 'offer' to pay for security was made 2 years later than he claimed in his 'statement'.

None of the 3 people you have mentioned over and over again paid for bespoke armed Met police security. You know that, as you've been told over and over again.

Have you got any actual relevant arguments to make?

@notanotheroneagain

Do you want Harry to be provided with police protection when he’s in the U.K., in the way he’s demanding and had expected?

On Blair, it seems he receives the protection RAVEC have assessed he needs when in UK and elsewhere. But because of the cost he pays a contribution to overseas costs.

He does not receive it overseas because he offers to pay for it. He receives it because RAVEC say the threat warrants it. If he moved overseas permanently, then it is likely a new arrangement wouid be needed.

If Harry was UK resident, and RAVEC endorsed a need, he wouid also receive it, just as he did when still UK resident and a working royal, but temporarily in Canada (with some of the resource coming from the Canadian government)

He is no longer UK resident, and funds his own security where he lives. He will receive it here, depending on the circumstances of individual trips, but will not be getting it as a blanket arrangemt. Offering to pay does not mean he can have anything beyond what RAVEC assesses, because it's not for sale.

@mpsw

Kate Moss did not receive personal protection.

There was venue security for the large event of her wedding. That is akin to a football match, where police are involved with crowd security and traffic management. That is not the same thing as personal protection

This was in the statement that ' you cannot pay for the Met'.

Are you now saying that Tony Blair, Camilla and even Pippa Middleton are the same as stadium protection.

As had been screengrabbed and linked on this thread. All the above had been protected ( but I don't think Pippa paid, just protected by RF security to her relative proximity).

And re Camilla, what I've been able to glean is that Charles paid for two retired PPOs to improve her security - on his payroll but from his funds not the public purse.

If that's correct, there wouid be no reason whatsoever that would mean Harry could not do the same

He is no longer UK resident, and funds his own security where he lives.

Can we just be clear on here, that we don't know what Harry's residential status is. He is only reported when he goes about for charity etc. We have no idea if after covid, he comes back every 3months or whatever the required time is. His work means, he does not need to be anchored to just one place.

@mpsw

And re Camilla, what I've been able to glean is that Charles paid for two retired PPOs to improve her security - on his payroll but from his funds not the public purse.

If that's correct, there wouid be no reason whatsoever that would mean Harry could not do the same

Camilla was under one of the palace protections. It's already been linked on here.

Pippa Middleton has never had her own personal armed police escort.