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.

Harry is the son of the King of England

Have we gone back 420 years, before the Union of the Crowns???

or do you think the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish want to forget Harry?

Possibly they do want to deny responsibility!

He doesn't deserve it just because he's the son of the king. Anne doesn't get full time met security, Edward doesn't get it either, and Andrew doesn't have it anymore. In fact, the only royals who have full time met security are the monarch and the heir and his own family, and Charlotte and Louis will probably lose that security too when they're adults.

Harry is treated exactly like other non working non relevant royal family members. As he should be.

I think it's a shame that he and Meghan have played their cards a bit badly

Completely agree although not "a bit".

Imagine if they had gone to the USA without the bitterness and then did a talk show where they spoke of the lovely times in the RF. What if their follow up series featured charity work in Africa and Harry continued to support veterans.

Had they taken this approach they would still have star value in the USA and be thought of warmly in the UK. I imagine KC would have done whatever he could to ensure they travelled back to the UK safely.

Instead they took a scorched earth approach which has been destructive for everyone. Court cases cause irreparable damage as the bitterness becomes more ingrained so I really hope PH can find some peace.

*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’*

Whether there is or not, it doesn't change the fact that senior members of the military and intelligence services said his remarks were ill judged, and they are generally pretty knowledgable about matters to do with war and terrorism.

People are writing that Harry is looking to have his IPP status restored but I don't see that is possible.
a) he no longer represents the country
b) he is no longer in the household of someone who is an IPP (ie, Charles)
c) he no longer accompanies an IPP (ie, Charles) on his duties.
This list of who can qualify for IPP status is defined by the UN and all countries that sign up to it, incorporate those definitions into their law so there us no difference between states.

I think he's just looking for armed protection in this country only because of the history he and Meghan have had here.

I think it's a shame that he and Meghan have played their cards a bit badly

There are so many better potential outcomes they could have had.

Sophie today in Iraq supporting women affected by sexual violence in conflict - that's just the kind of thing I think Meghan imagined herself doing when she got engaged.
And I think we all did too and thought she'd be great.

Instead her time now seems to be spent getting awards at glamorous events for no clear reason. It's vacuousness with a lot of emotional virtuous words attached.

She could be doing so much more, and being really good at it.
It is a shame.

If harrys police protection was reinstated, he could then use it as a platform to launch an appeal to be reinstated as an IPP. He may not represent the crown any longer, but as the son of a king he could argue a case. If he attends an official function with his family I'm sure he would get protection, but not if he's just popping over as a private citizen to pursue legal cases. This whole mess has exposed harry as not a cheeky, happy teenager, but a jeolous, entitled, snarky man/child

And anyone who thinks that all that Harry is asking for is a police officer with a gun is kidding themselves. U.K. police officers are usually unarmed. Police protection officers are of course armed, but they rely heavily on intelligence to do their jobs. The U.K. police are going through a very bad spell on the PR front, especially the Met, but it has never been their mandate to shoot first and ask questions later (hence why the De Menenzes case was so high profile). In the U.K., the gun is absolutely a last resort.

@Flopsythebunny
I hope they boosted it to the extra 'any legal insurance cover for whatever and whomever i want to have a pop at' .... rather than the usual ' because I need it'

And yes @StrawberryWasp, Meghan would have been great at that. I think if they'd instead taken a couple of years off towing the line at the odd public event, having kids and just working out what they wanted to do to launch themselves as part of the royal family they could have got some really amazing gigs!

@Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious - he get security in any royal issues here because he's under the umbrella of the royal family.
Fuck that that he should be allowed armed guard - he's stepped away from his royal job, I can't purchase armed support in the UK because he's not deemed to be eligible - he wants it because he's an entitled toddler throwing his toys out of the pram - he can bugger off - he's making a really spiked bed for himself, as is his 🤡 wife ... they swallow it and deal with the outcomes or get heavy security privately probably at a huge amount over what they want to pay - but
Tough they've made that bed themselves

Harry Windsor chose not to be Prince Harry. He knew his job as William's wingman and chose to follow a different path, fair enough, but do it quietly.
No need to emulate a Jilly Cooper novel.

If Andrew is having his security paid for, it will be private security anyway. Harry wants met special protection and access to any intelligence the met have.

Yes, unless Andrew is subject to credible threats to his life from anti-paedo vigilantes as a result of his Epstein issues. Which is not impossible I guess, he’s definitely a hate figure to many. In which case RAVEC might have decided that the threat to him is serious enough to warrant protection services.

(I don’t think this is terribly likely, but it’s obviously a possibility)

It had to be the outcome. But it is not true that our security forces can never be hired. They are.

@bigbabycooker I think Meghan was never going to be happy spending her days doing grooming and gym and the very occasional appearance. That is what a very low key royal life means in practice.
It also was not enough for Diana or Sarah. It is not enough for most women.

Would they have been able to afford the monticito mansion though? $100K for Netflix, then Oprah then the Spotify deals, plus the odd Archwell foundation must surely have paid for it all The inheritance from Diana is apparently being saved for the children. Meghan didn't want a Manhattan apartment and Harry is used to a castle, so a mansion was their only option.

Harry lost because his entire case had no points that were even arguable

But again, his lawyers would know what's arguable and what's not and would presumably have advised him about this, so what was the point in presenting these arguments in the first place?

I realise of course that they're paid to represent their clients and have to follow their instructions up to a point, but surely there's a question of reputational damage for them here? Or is it a case of "nice one mate - you bagged a royal client so make sure the bill's impressive"?

@Puzzledandpissedoff I think they just take clients and advise them but as you say, they have to represent to the best of their ability even if it's a lost cause. I'm not cynical so I'm sure it's nothing to do with the enormous fee.

@rattymol see my post above from page 4 of this thread. Special protection is not for hire

Such a shame. When consort Camilla was just a mistress, king Charles funded her police protection with tax payers funds and yet he won't allow his own son to pay for his own protection when he's in the UK. Too too bad for shame!

But again, his lawyers would know what's arguable and what's not and would presumably have advised him about this, so what was the point in presenting these arguments in the first place?

The timing make me go hmmmm here. The fact that Harry didn’t make the offer to pay until after he’d already filed his first judicial review against the Home Office to challenge their decision not to provide him with security as of right. And then after that he filed the second judicial review trying to establish he was entitled to be provided security if he paid for it (surely always a very, very long shot).

It’s perfectly possible the whole judicial review about paying was entirely designed to try and make him look better. “Harry sues government to demand taxpayer funded security for himself” and “Harry is so desperate for security that he wants to pay himself and is prepared to go to court to confirm this” are quite different narratives. The timeline shows that wasn’t quite the real story, though.

@Ellaelle

Harry doesn’t want private security like the ones Camila had (retired police) - He wants U.K. police protection in the U.K.

He may then try to use this to leverage free US security as an IPP

You are comparing apples with oranges. Charles was paying for private security for Camilla - Harry is perfectly free to do this for himself, and probably already does.

Charles was not paying the Met to provide Camilla with the services of the Royal Protection Squad because (a) as we now know, that’s not possible and (b) he has no say in who gets that.

I believe Charles paid for private security for Camilla, it wasn't specialised Police Protection.

Anyone with money can pay for private security. Police Protection is granted under very specific circumstances that are determined by an independent panel.

No one can pay for Police Protection.