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.

He gave an interview about a decade ago, which was totally uncontroversial. Possibly because he referred neither to the number nor to chess pieces. I think the quality of advice he received back then was considerably better than for the more recent version

The military very much does not do this in this country. I have a family member who is currently training and he said that this is absolutely discouraged.

Lucky he married a lawyer isn’t it? Well, he obviously thought she was a real one since she was so convincing in the part.

I may be wrong but I think you can only be awarded costs if the case goes to trial and you lose. I believe this was just a review to see if the case could go ahead, in which case (being a no) there would be no award of costs to the claimant? Could be wrong though!

I was just about to write that I hadn't thought of that, polkadotdalmation, but now I see Serenster's explained that Harry may have to pay costs after all

I guess he'd better hope that the other cases are "wins", because failing that he'll be on the hook for a hell of a lot - and this time I wouldn't want to assume the RF would stick their oar in to influence things in his favour

If you actually read that part of the book, he is talking about how it can be difficult to come to terms with killing another human being and you actually can’t do it if you think of them as human beings. The military trains you to ‘other-ize’ them and view them as chess pieces on a board, so that you can do the job.

I don't think you can sensibly defend the Taliban remarks, unless you are claiming to be better informed than the senior military and intelligence personnel who criticised them?

I have no opinion on or knowledge of how the military train their soldiers. I was merely pointing out that that quote about chess pieces is not so controversial when read in context. It’s a good reminder that the media do have a habit of taking things out of context to make them look worse.

Ok, but the context was incorrect so it wouldn’t have made any difference in this case 🤷‍♀️

You'd think he had nothing better to do.

Serenster, so does this mean the Judicial Review that is still pending, is likely to be unsuccessful if a key part of that was the process for refusing him Royal protection which has now been agreed he isn't entitled to?

I may be wrong but I think you can only be awarded costs if the case goes to trial and you lose. I believe this was just a review to see if the case could go ahead, in which case (being a no) there would be no award of costs to the claimant? Could be wrong though!

If you lose anything in the court process, you are liable to pay the other sides’ costs. They aren’t always calculated and ordered to be paid at the time, as the court is able to make a file note that they need to be picked up at a later date, but they almost always will be calculated at the end of a major event, like the failure of the application here.

Let him pay for his own bloody security!
The recent farce in New York showed him and his wife to be publicity hungry .

They are fast becoming a histrionic joke.

I sincerely hope that none of us in USA or UK should be made to pay his security.

Why the heck were they getting into a taxi with un~tinted windows?
Maybe more photo ops?

Can't not be seen in our new dress, can we!

@Serenster , I have re read it, one review is that he is claiming he should have royal protection, the 2nd one which he lost is him claiming he should be allowed to pay for it, although it was rejected in the first instance.

Serenster, so does this mean the Judicial Review that is still pending, is likely to be unsuccessful if a key part of that was the process for refusing him Royal protection which has now been agreed he isn't entitled to?

No, is the short answer.

The one still pending is claiming that RAVEC was wrong to decide he doesn’t fall into the small category of people that gets permanent personal protection from the Met because of their role/position. The court is still able to determine that. Today’s decision has taken out his fallback position - that even if they were right on that, he should be able to demand it if he pays for it himself.

Your relative is training now. PH joined the military in 2005. Perhaps times have changed? I wouldn’t know but there’s enough of a grey area to make unfair for people to keep quoting it to make him sound like some murdering psychopath

The JR won't remake the decision on his protection or that of any other individual

It will review the workings of RAVEC and decide if it is a competent body with sound processes. If it finds it is not, then changes will need to be made to it (or a successor body formed to replace it) which meet the standards required. All decisions will then have to be reviewed in line with the new competency. That does not however mean that a different outcome will emerge for any particular individual

You don’t think there’s a difference between:

‘I killed these people like they were chess pieces’

and

’It was necessary to think of these people as chess pieces in order to kill then and that’s what the military trained me to do’

I think he anticipated and wanted this outcome. As then he can go straight to the request for publicly paid security - and if he gets it he can say 'well I offered to pay for it, but was refused' (to the inevitable outcry that the tax payer is funding it).

I think this was a deliberate strategy on his part.

Sorry I don’t want to get in to a backwards and forwards over this, but as mpsw said earlier, he gave an interview previously and managed not to mention chess pieces or numbers. He should probably have stuck to this position. I don’t think it makes him sound like a murdering psychopath, but it gives an incorrect view of the military and it wasn’t necessary.

He's already requested and been denied public paid security.

He gets it when he's with the royal family as they get it anyway.

But he hasn't and won't get personal security just because he wants it.

He's already requested and been denied public paid security.

Agreed, just pointing out that he nonetheless would still receive it if RAVEC considered the level of threat to him warranted it. Currently, they don’t - but that view could change in future.

Wise ex. Servicemen don't go mentioning their ''Kill'' number.
It was very ill advised.

@00100001 I know but he has been granted Judicial Review of that decision. So if he is successful in that Judicial review - he gets publicly paid security. There will be an inevitable outcry about tax payer expense to which he will have a legitimate reply that he made every effort to try and pay for such security himself (exhausted all legal avenues) but was refused.

I am certain it is a strategy. They knew this leg would be refused.

No speedy convoys in cool cars, bypassing traffic into London with exciting police outriders complete with flashing lights either 😁

Yes, This is very likely what the plan is.

I hope to goodness he doesn't get publicly funded security.

That is what he really wants.
Not to have to be crawling along in traffic like the rest of us.