PH lost bid to challenge for right to pay Home Office for his security

[Mumsnut]

I've probably garbled that, but that's the gist of it.

Advocating for the king to override parliament is quite unusual in 2023. Do you also believe in the divine right of kings?

@MrsFinkelstein

Snap.

Charles paid private security. At one point Kate had the same.

Harry is just angry at the security bill. They gave him quotes and refused to pay it. Nearly destroyed him getting a quote of 4 million. Plus got a sting getting your IPP removed. Truth is Harry would have lost security as time went on. His aunt and uncle only have security when on jobs. Only ones with round the clock are C and C, W and K and kids.

The issue here is there are so many many unhinged people baying to literally lynch prince Harry and Princess Meghan, I mean you can tell even just by the shocking and crazy comments on places like mumsnet and even people like Jeremy Clarkson just threatening to do harm to her and him. So all prince Harry wants is a protection squad that can carry guns whenever his family and he are in this country. Not out of the tax payers pocket but his own. The police also have information that his security would not be privy to. If people like prince Andrew a non working royal and the consort Camilla when she was actually not royal at all but just a mistress had police protection then prince Harry and his family should also have it! People tend to forget he is in the line of succession

The public should not pay for it.

he should not be able to hire. Public body for private use.

and ultimately that is it.

Who said the public will pay, prince Harry will!

Ultimately, I hope they can appeal perhaps to the supreme Court or whoever and that good sense will eventually prevail over spite!

My prayers are with prince Harry and his family

He should not be able,e to hire a public body for private us. It would set a precedent in law.

@Ellaelle

You can’t buy the U.K. equivalent of the US secret services or demand it - and that’s what Harry wants.

I don’t think you can buy it in the US either ?

OK so if he shouldn't be able to hire them then are you saying this should be provided to him via the tax payer?

You do realise he is the current King's son, not only that he has fought in some war or other, not to mention the crazies who want to lynch his wife. They do deserve proper armed security.

It is quite sad that they are not allowed proper security paid for or otherwise. Anyhow good luck to all concerned

@Ellaelle

That’s for telling us he’s the current Kings son, clearly none of us realised that 🙄

He’s not high enough in the line of succession to warrant paid police security around the world 24 / 7.

This claim of yours that so many many unhinged people baying to literally lynch harry and Meghan is the equivalent of the statement the Sussexes have put out about their ‘near catastrophic’ car ‘chase’. Their risk level is constantly being assessed and if the relevant authorities deem their risk level to be high enough, they will get protection for free. As they haven't granted him this round the clock protection, it stands to reason that their assessment doesn't show harry or Meghan to be at higher risk than other high profile celebrities out there.

The problem is, Harry feels entitled to the protection he once enjoyed, and isn't taking no as answer and therefore is continuing to waste the court’s time with his nonsense.

We are not a guns country, hardly anybody has access to a gun and certainly not to carry one around on the street and threaten the public with it. Harry shouldn’t get an exemption, all superrich will want hired guns. He hates the press anyway, and armed police officers don’t shoot photographers

So much for Harry and his fans’ claim that he doesn't want to impose on the UK tax payers. He doesn't even want to pay $8,000 for the legal costs the government have incurred fighting his frivolous claim. And some wonder why so many find Harry so detestable:

Harry’s lawyers also plan to ­challenge an application for him to pay for the Government’s costs defending last week’s case — thought to be at least £8,000.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22457150/prince-harry-armed-police-bid-taxpayers/amp/

@MamoruHisaishi sounds about right… also the judge, the court, etc… all public time and money

the consort Camilla when she was actually not royal at all but just a mistress

It doesn't seem to matter how many times the accurate version is pointed out, this myth will not go away.

Before her engagement to (then) Prince Charles, Camilla's security was provided by ex (not current) police officers. Those who had recently retired. Paid for privately by Charles. Unarmed. Same access to threat assessments as individuals concerned or their representatives. Exactly what Harry could choose to buy for himself and his family.

There's also some confusion about the difference between sharing the underlying intelligence (never happens, but for some reason PH wants unprecedented access) and the sharing of threat assessments - routine, already happens, can happen for him

@Serenster @Howsimplywonderful @MrsFinkelstein

In May 2002, The Guardian carried a report claiming that Prince Charles privately paid for two full-time police protection officers for his then-longterm mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles. -daily express

Selective reading eh??

They definitely need armed protection especially princess Meghan.

Prince Andrew has it countess forfar has it, also travelling in a speeding convoy unnecessarily so prince Harry and his family 6th in line to the throne must have this protection.

And the person who said police do not carry arms in the streets you clearly haven't been to London eg Kensington or Heathrow Airport

What’s that link for to do with anything?

*got. It’s just info on the then Prince Charles. It’s not even from the Guardian

Very selective reading.

Here's the article

Charles pays for extra Camilla security guards | UK news | The Guardian

He is indeed paying for protection officers - not police protection officers.

They were not however serving Met Police officers, and she received no entitlement to official personal protection.

Both were retired officers.

There is absolutely no reason why Harry could not buy that type of security.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551143/prince-harry-meghan-markle-news-sussexes-police-protection-prince-charles-camilla-security/amp

Sorry the end bit of my previous post just attached itself.

@mpsw no they where NOT retired officers! They where police protection officers. At the time king Charles was a Prince and the consort just a mistress so Prince Harry should get protection for his family

Read the Guardian report, which I have linked.

Not the (inaccurate) Express account of it some 2 decades later.

As you will see from the actual source, he paid for protection officers. Not serving police protection.

As I said before, this myth just won't go away!!

Harry can buy exactly that kind of security now.

The kind of protection the Prince of Wales hired was a trusted retired Personal Protection Officer (PPO).

The above is quoted from the bottom of the article you have linked here. You have not read it accurately. Like @mpsw has said, a retired officer. Available to hire. Not current protection officer. Not available to hire

Yes! Now H & M have to pay for their own security.

@Ellaelle - you are engaging in whatabouttery, which is a logical fallacy. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, please engage with the facts.

Where's the article its behind a pay wall?