RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

Can someone explain to me the procedure and how this works?

Very reasonable points IcedPurple, and yes I expect IPP was designed for those of a rather different profile, but frankly it's got to the stage where nothing would surprise me

As regards security. I wonder if the Duke of Windsor had security funded by the state when he lived abroad. But he was an ex Head of State. And I think he seldom returned to the UK.

I think the answer is yes - certainly a policeman called David Storrier was the main protection officer for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor until the 1950s. He was paid by the state, in large part because he was also reporting back to MI5 on what they were up to!

Anyway, on these multiple court cases, surely Harry and Meghan must be seeing that they are doing untold harm to their reputations?

Meghan’s claim for breach of copyright against ANL - we see that Harry writing an email saying they want to get information out to Omid Scobie but “we have to be able to say we have nothing to do with it”. M has to apologise “at best, misleading” the court and “forgetting” that she did get her staff to fact-check Finding Freedom and drafted memos for them to pass onto to Omid.

Harry’s claim for libel against ANL - scuppers his long-repeated complaint that Charles spitefully pulled their security and leads to a judge suggesting that ANL can argue that Harry has engaged in a. Masterclass of spinning to mislead the public.

And that’s before you get to the public money wasted defending his multiple JR claims, and him having to concede while on the stand in his hacking claim that he actually has no evidence that any of the stories he has complained about came from hacking his phone.

Even the ones they win can only be seen as pyrrhic victories.

Meghan’s claim for breach of copyright against ANL - we see that Harry writing an email saying they want to get information out to Omid Scobie but “we have to be able to say we have nothing to do with it”. M has to apologise “at best, misleading” the court and “forgetting” that she did get her staff to fact-check Finding Freedom and drafted memos for them to pass onto to Omid.

This seems a bit misleading how you've written it.

Meghan won her copyright case against ANL, which was over a personal letter to her father. ANL had argued in the privacy claim that Meghan shared the letter with Scobie and Caroline Durand, relying on Knauf's email evidence which disclosed he had shared private information with Meghan's consent, and that meant she had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The court disagreed with this argument though, and ruled they had breached her privacy.

Yes, Iwantcakeeveryday - but as I said even their victories are pyrrhic, given the immense damage they have done to their own credibility and reputations when winning.

Meghan had to apologise to the court for making a statement saying she hadn't collaborated with OS.

She won the breach of privacy claim, and was awarded £1 damages.

and was awarded £1 damages yup she didn't claim for any more than that.

M won £1 for the privacy element. 'Unspecified' amount for the copyright infringement element.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/meghan-one-pound-mail-on-sunday-privacy-invasion

he made a press statement before they broke the story about this case, key parts:

Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.

As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them.

The decision-making has been unreasonable, opaque and inconsistent. It has taken insufficient account of The Duke’s position; undiminished threats; and the impact on the UK’s reputation of a senior member of the Royal Family being harmed on UK soil.

As it stands, The Duke and Duchess’s privately funded US security team is not legally able to fully support the family when they are in the UK. While it is given more flexibility in the US, in the UK this team cannot replicate the standard of security that The Duke should receive from the State.

In the UK the threat level is particularly high; indeed higher than faced in the US, where not only can more capable private security be deployed, but law enforcement organisations are allowed to be more supportive. In the UK the controversy surrounding The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s departure from full time Royal service, and the hostility of a range of extremist groups and fixated people, makes the environment particularly risky.”

There are many people at risk from terrorists etc. Most aren't stupid enough to brag about a Taliban kill count. That has nothing to do with being in the line of succession. Salman Rushdie had police protection for years and he was still injured so no protection is guaranteed. Harry will have police protection in this country when he visits if it is warranted. If it's high profile he will get it as will his family. What this is about is he is so so important he must have armed police all the time. He thinks armed police in the UK is something he must have, despite our low level of gun crime. He probably needs armed guards in America because of their high gun crime rate.

Basically he wants his IPP status reinstated so that he gets the American government to fund his security. It is costing a fortune to have armed guards escorting Meghan on her car park pap walks.

In the UK the threat level is particularly high; indeed higher than faced in the US, where not only can more capable private security be deployed, but law enforcement organisations are allowed to be more supportive.

Can anyone unpick this bit? It seems as if two things are being (erroneously) collated.

In the UK the threat level is particularly high; indeed higher than faced in the US, where not only can more capable private security be deployed, but law enforcement organisations are allowed to be more supportive. In the UK the controversy surrounding The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s departure from full time Royal service, and the hostility of a range of extremist groups and fixated people, makes the environment particularly risky.”

On what are they basing this claim? Are they saying that they have more evidence
of threats than the security services do? It has always been maintained that if there were established current threats to their safety ( yes I know there have been threats that have been dealt with, but that does not mean they are still in danger) then security would be provided Surely if extremist groups wish to target them, then geography is no obstacle anyway? . And what does that mean that law enforcement are “allowed to be more supportive”?

I suspect I’m more in danger walking down the street in many US cities than anyone ever could be in England.

No, but his original expectation was to have what you described the York women wanting.

I mean, who cares. But totally the same thing.

I think he's put himself at risk in the US too by criticising the American right to free speech. Trying to gag the internet and provoke extreme right wing fanatics in a country where so many people own guns, is just beyond crazy.

I think that statement is very reasonable Iwantcakeveryday

It’s not about how many rungs Harry is away from the throne; it’s about his familial relationship with the monarch, as son or brother, and you can’t shake that off ever. That does put him uniquely at risk.

Also, as a pp said, they need to sort this issue out properly, as Louie and Charlotte will be in the same position one day.

In the UK the controversy surrounding The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s departure from full time Royal service, and the hostility of a range of extremist groups and fixated people, makes the environment particularly risky.

^^ And the British tabloids having whipped up such a storm around H&M with endless virulent articles about them in the press every single day for months and months, and misogynistic bullies like Piers Morgan spouting off about Meghan on the tv and radio virtually every chance he could get to an unhinged degree, creates a risk all of its own I imagine.

Remember the horrific murder of Jo Cox MP RIP, which came about when mental instability met tabloid rhetoric.

Wonder why they didn't hack and bug Andrew, might have helped with the whole Epstein connection....

Maybe because the sheer number of contact details Epstein had for him were too much to keep up with...

I think I'm missing something.

Blue light escort, outriders and the scattering of peasants for the presence, maybe?

@Sheepskinthrow
“It’s not about how many rungs Harry is away from the throne; it’s about his familial relationship with the monarch, as son or brother, and you can’t shake that off ever. That does put him uniquely at risk.”

But Anne and Edward were children of a reigning Monarch and are now siblings of one so surely they are in the same situation as Harry ?
He is not “ uniquely at risk” ..

It’s not about how many rungs Harry is away from the throne; it’s about his familial relationship with the monarch, as son or brother, and you can’t shake that off ever. That does put him uniquely at risk.

But how can anyone other highly trained professionals, with access to intelligence briefings, possibly know how 'at risk' an individual might be? Siblings or children of a monarch are not automatically given security simply due to that fact. Especially not if they have chosen to take up residence abroad as private citizens.

Also, as a pp said, they need to sort this issue out properly, as Louie and Charlotte will be in the same position one day.

There is no issue.

Only the monarch, consort and Prince and Princess of Wales are guaranteed police protection because of their role. For all other members of the royal family, protection is provided depending on security assessments. Harry falls into that category, as do several other family members. The only difference is that he is demanding privileges he is not entitled to.

You don't see Princess Anne making this fuss. And she genuinely did face danger.

I disagree. Anne and Edward are much older, and they grew up without the intense press attention that Harry and Wills endured as the sons of Diana.

Harry is much more well known internationally and nationally than either of them.

Anne gets protection when on royal duties I think I read. You don't see her foot stamping and demanding to be an IPP. Shame Harry hasn't got some of her common sense and realisation of status in the royal hierarchy. He is looking a complete twit.

Why do we have to pay for any of their security? So many people struggling in this country to look after their own families, why do we have to pay for this greedy useless bunch?

What has the fact that Anne and Edward are much older got to do with it? Are you saying they are expendable because of this?And there certainly was a lot of press coverage of them when they were younger. Before his marriage. Harry was only occasionally in the papers of there was something to report about him. The same was true of Anne and Edward. Charles and Andrew too come to think of it. And as pp have said, the Princess Royal has actually faced a kidnap attempt. She doesn’t get extra security though.

edited for typo