https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/05/prince-harry-challenges-home-office-over-decision-to-downgrade-security
Whereas the royal racist stuff was essentially tittle tattle, this is actually a substantive issue which is fodder for republicans (of which I'm one!). This is so objectionable, it's breathtaking.
"Ravec should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on C [the claimant, Harry] would have, bearing in mind his status, background, and profile within the royal family – which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life – and his ongoing charity work and service to the public. Ravec should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on C."
These are arguments for Harry. She is suggesting that Ravec didn't take into account the UK's reputation, implying that Harry has done so, better than the Home Office or Ravec have. If this is the main tenet of the argument, it's that Harry needs protection for the good of the country. Unbelievable.
As for charity work and service to the public: actually speechless. There are people up and down the country who do charity work and devote their lives to service to the public, for a low salary, commuting by public transport, taking sick days, no privileges, limited holidays, sending their children to whatever schools they can access....has he no shame? These are the hands he used to shake when a working royal, these are the people he used to champion as a working royal. To hear him now, he deserves MORE consideration than them, when they're the ones doing the work and he was merely showing up, cutting ribbons, smiling for the photos.
“At the WellChild event, C’s car was interdicted by paparazzi. After the event, X, part of C’s private security team, reported issues with C’s security provision to [redacted], the MPS liaison officer.”
So, apparently Harry's car was intercepted/blocked at the WellChild event where we saw him take a video of the roads around him as he left. The interception was grave enough to warrant the reporting of "issues" to a liaison officer. This strikes me as neither grave nor suggestive of warranting further public funds being spent in protecting him. Let him be blocked. What right does he have to NOT being blocked? Being a prince?
“Ravec failed to follow its own clear policy, it failed to treat the claimant in the way it has treated others, it failed to tell the claimant how he was being treated and why,” Fatima told the court.
Failing to follow policy seems a fair enough argument. Who knows who the "others" are - William, Eugenie etc probably (but see below, presumably they all respect deadlines set by the Home Office). Failing to tell him how he was being treated is not an argument: the government has an absolute right to take decisions - which are open to judicial review, such as this - but there's no entitlement to reasoning or an explanation beyond whatever is given by that very government. Just ask anyone who's been turned down for citizenship, UC, even had a parking ticket imposed. You get one line, from a checklist, and that's it. It is what it is. Again, who does he think he is to be entitled to this type of preferential treatment? (And if he thinks this is bad, he has no idea how much worse it is in his adopted country).
“It is judged to be right in principle that the allocation of finite public resources which results from protective security provided by the state be allocated to individuals who are acting in the interests of the state through their public role.”
This is from the barrister for the Home Office. There's nothing anyone can argue with here. It is what it is. Harry is not acting in the interests of the state because he stopped being a working royal. He has no public role. Doing Invictus and WellChild events does not equal a public role - otherwise, every charity worker has a public role. Having your photo in the tabloids doesn't equal a public role, otherwise everybody in the Daily Mail has a public role. All that's left to distinguish him from any celebrity who does the occasional charity work is that he's a prince. That's what it boils down to.
Referring to the WellChild event, Eadie said that Ravec required requests for protective security on a case-by-case basis to be made with 28 days’ notice and only 19 days’ notice had been given in that case.
He doesn't even want to comply with the rules! He thinks he can say "jump" and the Home Office will do his bidding to his personal timetable!
I've spent too long thinking about this puffed up, arrogant, entitled, twat. I'm off to do something more meaningful - the ironing.