Andrew, his £3M per year Security and Priti Patel

[Roussette]

Well I never.

Andrew is at it again.

He lost his security last year. He enlisted the help of Priti Patel to have it reinstated. She lobbied Charles's Private Security to this purpose, and someone has leaked that.

He never gives up does he....

Well the reason he hasn't been charged or convicted of anything is because he holed himself up in Windsor Castle to avoid cooperating with the FBI. If he had cooperated he may have been found that there was no evidence against him. He was clearly set up as the fall guy by Epstein because there are more powerful men who must have slept with those girls. He is stupid and arrogant enough to think he was important.

Yes but private security is ineffective because they cannot carry guns. This is why Harry wanted to pay for met protection, because his security can't carry weapons.

I really have an issue with William and Charles being so close to deciding who gets security.

Yes, all true. I think he was stupid to avoid it and I know that this is a situation of his own making. It still makes me uneasy and I don't think it's a good look for the UK to have him hidden away. He shouldn't;t be at high profile events but he should be able to leave Windsor grounds and feel safe.

Totally agree.

I thought the whole idea of RAVEC was that it was based on need. It doesn't seem quite like that now. If members of the Royal Household are part of it. There must be influence somewhere

Of course there is. Their staff should not be on the committee. Harrys security being removed makes more sense now.

The more things that come out, the more I suspect Harry was right about his family. He is a pariah amongst his family and the press in a way Andrew isn't because he has exposed unsavoury behaviour of the Royal Household and their relationship with the press and that is the worst crime imaginable. I think Harry has behaved badly in many ways, but he has been spoilt and entitled because he is a member of the RF and its come as a shock that he's seen a bill for the first time in his life probably.

Yes @Angrycat2768 as is clear, I am not supportive of the monarchy, but I am very much opposed because of the effect it has on the people born into it. Born into a very controlled life, lacking freedom and anything close to a normal life and of course they turn out to be messed up individuals. They're like entertainment for people and it's not fair or reasonable to treat other people this way. They have privilege and power too, which at their level only corrupts.

Of course it's based on need. Andrew obviously doesn't need it as assessed by RAVEC so doesn't have it. Same as Harry. Should RAVEC assess their security risk has changed then their security needs will be altered to apply.

It seems sensible to me that there be a couple of members of the Royal Household in place - the Committee needs briefed about schedules, workload, planned visits and any issues/threats received to the Household. Civil servants are trained for roles like this.

Every Head of State has Security, it all costs money. The BRF are no different.

It seems sensible to me that there be a couple of members of the Royal Household in place - the Committee needs briefed about schedules, workload, planned visits and any issues/threats received to the Household. Civil servants are trained for roles like this.

Being briefed about schedules etc is one thing, but no staff member should have a say on who meets the risk for security because its a conflict of interest.

I agree. I feel conflicted about them though. Intrinsically I feel they should not exist, but they would be replaced with a ceremonial President as that would fit our system, but who on earth is going to go for that? Royalists all say ' but President Blair' but I would not think Tony Blair is going to want to stand around grinning and handshaking for 10 years or so. We may as well keep a family bred for grinning and handshaking. Although I think it really needs to be totally reformed. Slash the lackeys, the hangers on, the palaces, the curtseying, make them far more transparent and accountable so they can't exempt themselves from legislation, only have the Monarch and the first in line snd their spouses doing Royal work. The rest of them, from Charlotte on to go. I think the Royals have made a guilded cage for themselves. They can see what it has done to their children- Harry, Andrew, Margaret etc, what the press do to people who marry into the family but they are so terrified of losing it all that they do jothing about it. The benefits of an hereditary system is that at any point they could tell Parliament that they want a two generation transition to a Republic and thst they don't want to inflict the cage on their family anymore, but they don't. Other European nations have Royal Families that aren't so bloated and manage.

Sensible for ‘royals’ to be on the board that decides about security ?
Nonsense
Its undue influence as it always is

I mean next you’ll be telling us that it was right that Charles wasn’t questioned about the plastic carrier bags of cash that he happily took .
I am frequently asked questions every time I lodge cash or withdraw cash.
Less than 10, 000 and the bank asks.
Not millions in notes suffed into carrier bags
But but ‘royal’ ..

Thats it. That’s the justification for being able to ignore the law that applies to the rest of us

None so blind as those who will not see

And PS if Chatles is paying for Andrew , WE are paying for Andrew .

For me @Angrycat2768 the issue would still be you are forcing them into the role, from birth. That is so unfair to me I will never be on board with monarchy no matter how we change the little details. The role of head of state should be voluntarily made as an adult and decided by the people.

Why are members of the Royal Household sitting on Ravec? I agree @Iwantcakeeveryday This is very dubious. Shouldn't they be independent.

In governance terms, a wholly independent comittee tends to be a bad decision-maker as they lack essential context to make good decisions. You want a mix of independent members, and people who actually know the relevant content. This is why any Board is required to have both independent and non-independent people on it.

This point was in any event challenged by Harry in the first round of his judicial review - he said it meant the Committee were biased. The court did not agree, and threw this ground of challenge out.

@Angrycat2768

A President would not simply replicate what the ‘royals’ currently do

The hand shaking and performative grins for a carefully curated ‘crowd’ is how the Windsors are currently attempting to justify the billions they have cost us .

Inbred benefit- scrounging parasitic leeches.
Cant the royal chief-nonce ask the Porchester side of his parentage to pay this?

Yesterday you said that Harry is a part of the RF and yet he comments on politics in the UK. Is it OK for him to do so then?

This point was in any event challenged by Harry in the first round of his judicial review - he said it meant the Committee were biased. The court did not agree, and threw this ground of challenge out.

I can;t imagine the court telling the Monarch sending their staff to sit Iona. committee made it biased! So not surprising they agreed. It's the fact that they work for the King and Heir that makes it so difficult. They should advise, but not sit on the committee.

I wonder if Simon Case was ever on ravec? Don;t trust that bastard.

@Serenster
Are you new here ??

‘No case to answer ‘ - are you saying that becasue that was the announcement it means that it was right that Charles wasn’t questioned once during a two year investigation??

You are pointing at what currently happens and saying ‘ it happens like this so it happens like this ‘

We can do better

You and all royalist are saying - leave it alone , Epstein on the throne , bags of cash, the queen making sure she’s above the law etc etc - all the corruption and feudal nonsense
Just leave it as it is because. Just because it’s always done like that .

The other reason why it makes good sense for Royal Household Representatives to attend RAVEC is that is it likely that its meetings are where they will find out the intelligence about the actual threat level about individual family members, which is highly relevant for them to do their jobs. (Most Committees aren’t just there to make decisions, they are also for information exchange and to ensure all relevant people have sight of issues).

There should of course be communication between the royal staff and officials where it is relevant, they do not need to be on a decision making committee. At all. I don't care if thats the way its always been, it isn't right IMO and shoudl change.

You are pointing at what currently happens and saying ‘ it happens like this so it happens like this ‘

I am pointing at years of academic and practical study about best practice in governance and decision-making structure actually, Novella4. Codified in law and corporate governance codes world-wide.

You may not be aware of it, but it exists. The fact that it doesn’t fit your own political views means you think it should be thrown out the window here is laughable.

I must admit I don't know what a ceremonial President ( I.e the Irish President) does. I assumed it was the charity visits and meeting dignitaries. But you make a good point about the decision being made voluntarily by an adult. Thing is, I don't think the Royals will ever go of their own accord, no matter how guilded the cage.

@Iwantcakeeveryday

Exactly my point !

The court days so it’s right .
Good for the short sightedness

But keep it up royalists . Your determination to never challenge the corrupt status quo will be the downfall of the house of Saxe Coburg Gotha Windsor

Christ, its too early for sniping surely.

Of course it's based on need. Andrew obviously doesn't need it as assessed by RAVEC so doesn't have it. Same as Harry. Should RAVEC assess their security risk has changed then their security needs will be altered to apply.

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

This point was in any event challenged by Harry in the first round of his judicial review - he said it meant the Committee were biased. The court did not agree, and threw this ground of challenge out

Course they did