RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

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

So you are now changing the criteria because I pointed out that Harry is not in a “ unique” position?

And can I remind you @Sheepskinthrow that Anne was subject to an attempted kidnap yet does not have 24/7 security?

Again, I disagree, there are already many Instagram and You Tube channels focusing on Charlotte’s clothes, body language, facial expressions. It’s all very disturbing, creepy and wierd. The world has changed and it’s a much more dangerous place than it ever was if you are well known, particularly if you grow up under an intense media spotlight. There are literally you tube channels devoted to the whereabouts of members of the RF.

And no doubt highly trained professionals give briefings and decisions are made based upon those assessments but I think it’s extremely naieve to believe that an organisation such as RAVEC, which is staffed by home office officials, MPS and senior aides to the RF, is completely immune to influence from the Monarch when every member of the police force, services and judiciary literally swear allegiance to the King.

What criteria? No. Sorry genuinely don’t understand your point.

And no doubt highly trained professionals give briefings and decisions are made based upon those assessments but I think it’s extremely naieve to believe that an organisation such as RAVEC, which is staffed by home office officials, MPS and senior aides to the RF, is completely immune to influence from the Monarch when every member of the police force, services and judiciary literally swear allegiance to the King

But it’s already been established that the late Queen wrote a letter showing that she was anxious that Harry be properly protected. That clearly didn’t influence RAVEC as she was still alive when his security was discontinued

I noticed the goalpost shifting too!

If being famous is relevant, then surely Taylor Swift or Cristiano Ronaldo deserve IPP status? They are both way more famous than the 5th in line.

And if having a high profile is so damaging to his 'security', why does Harry do major interviews, book tours and Netflix 'documentaries'?

Yes I am aware of that but Anne is currently no where near as newsworthy is she?

If God forbid some nutter wanted to become notorious, they are more likely to do it focusing on H&M or their dc, simply bc of the amount of press attention they currently attract.

The late queen wanted to keep Harry's security intact. The so called Sandringham agreement has been mentioned by Harry in court papers I believe. So it is an unbiased decision.

Again, I disagree, there are already many Instagram and You Tube channels focusing on Charlotte’s clothes, body language, facial expressions. It’s all very disturbing, creepy and wierd. The world has changed and it’s a much more dangerous place than it ever was if you are well known, particularly if you grow up under an intense media spotlight. There are literally you tube channels devoted to the whereabouts of members of the RF.

I'm not sure what you're 'disagreeing' with?

It is a fact that only the 4 most senior members of the RF get guaranteed police security.

And lots of famous people have obsessed fans and face dangers. That doesn't qualify them for taxpayer funded security in a country in which they are not resident.

And no doubt highly trained professionals give briefings and decisions are made based upon those assessments but I think it’s extremely naieve to believe that an organisation such as RAVEC, which is staffed by home office officials, MPS and senior aides to the RF, is completely immune to influence from the Monarch when every member of the police force, services and judiciary literally swear allegiance to the King.

OK. We seem to be straying into Harryesque paranoia here.

RAVEC have a very good record. As a PP said, Britain is a very safe place for royals and visiting VIP's. If you're suggesting that the King is actively interfering in RAVEC's decision making process to the detriment of his own son, that frankly is so ridiculous, on a number of different levels, that I'm not even going to try to engage with you on that.

The late Queen is no longer in charge!

But the late queen was alive when this letter was written and that's what harry is relying on.

“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.”

This is what you said just over an hour ago . I pointed out that Anne and Edward were also children of a reigning monarch and now siblings of one. You then came back saying yes but they are older . So you changed the goalpost .

The fact is that Harry is increasingly irrelevant . He is just another middle- aged male member of the RF. One who does nothing apart from moan and criticise his family .
We have a new Monarch, a new Prince and Princess of Wales who , along with George , Charlotte and Louis are the future , not Harry.,

I don’t think anyone in the US pays much attention to him outside of people like me who have a morbid interest.

Seriously ? If someone wanted to be notorious they would aim much higher !

Believe me I wish we didn’t have to spend tax payer s money to protect any of them!

I’m saying that Harry is bringing a case against the establishment and the judge can only rely on the evidence brought before him.

Believe me I wish we didn’t have to spend tax payer s money to protect any of them!

I must have misread your posts then. You seemed to be very much advocating that British taxpayers fund the CHIMPO.

I’m saying that Harry is bringing a case against the establishment and the judge can only rely on the evidence brought before him.

Interesting choice of words. "Harry is bringing a case against the establishment."

You don't think Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is part of the establishment?

And what 'evidence' has Harry brought, exactly? Do you really think this 'case' is going to bring about the result he wants?

I don’t know how you can argue that Harry is irrelevant when the coffers of virtually every newspaper, radio and television station have been heavily bolstered by endless reporting on him for the past two years.

Princess Anne attracts possibly a twentieth of the coverage if that.

And I am not changing goalposts. His familial relationships, as Diana’s and Charlie’s son, and brother to a future monarch AND his current level of fame, thanks to tabloid annihilation and Piers Morgan’s ranting, all make him and his family vulnerable to nutters!

Really? I am surprised 🙄
if you read what I said properly I said that the late Queen asked for Harry to have security but it was discontinued while she was still in charge. So swearing allegiance to the monarch did not on any way influence RAVEC’s decision. This would rather undermine your claim that RAVEC cannot be immune to the influence of the monarch “because they swear allegiance to the King.” You do understand that the Queen was monarch as is Charles ? Being King is not different to being Queen

I am about to have a late supper so for the sake of clarity… I am a republican.

But I also happen to think that Harry has a reasonable case and warrants more protection now that the tabloids and rabid Piers have incited such hatred and racism against him and his wife!

“I don’t know how you can argue that Harry is irrelevant when the coffers of virtually every newspaper, radio and television station have been heavily bolstered by endless reporting on him for the past two years.”

Because most people ( including me!) love a bit of gossip . And Harry has certainly provided gossip fodder over the past few years BUT many, many people are growing tired of this manchild who is richer than most of us can dream of , has a loving wife and lovely DC , a fabulous house, access to private jets etc etc yet still thinks he is hard done by .
As the Wales DC grow up and have families , Harry will slip further and further down the LOS and the next generation will say Harry who like they do with minor royals .

I am about to have a late supper so for the sake of clarity… I am a republican.

An actual republican or a Mumsnet republican? Because the latter tend to be rather 'idosyncratic' in their 'republicanism'.

But I also happen to think that Harry has a reasonable case and warrants more protection now that the tabloids and rabid Piers have incited such hatred and racism against him and his wife!

So you've completely misunderstood the 'case'. It's not about whether Harry 'warrants more protection'. It's about whether or not RAVEC followed the correct procedures in arriving at their decision. Even if successful, this 'case' won't influence the decision itself.

And if he 'warrants more protection' why isn't he bringing a case for security to be funded by the taxpayers of California, his place of residence? No 'nutters' there?

The Queen wanted Harry to have effective security, but she didn't say what that should be. The bespoke arrangement based on reassessment for each visit meets that concern

This goes to an important point - the risk to an individual is not static. It can (and does) change over time.

Anne was at a high risk in the 1970s and 80s when she had a very high profile as the Queen’s daughter and an Olympic athlete. She had armed security and faced a kidnap attempt. Currently however, as a woman in her 70s, the threat is less. The fact that she has protection on her engagements, but not otherwise, is key here - the threat to her is when she is out representing the royal family and not otherwise.

No-one would deny that there were times in the past when the level of threat towards Harry and Meghan was deemed high, and they had 24/7 security. But they have stepped down as working royals and have moved out of the UK, and we can assume, this has meant the level of threat towards them have reduced.

If RAVEC felt the level of threat towards them was such that Harry needed 24/7 security whenever and wherever he was in the UK, he would have it. He doesn’t though So clearly, the level of risk is lower now he’s no longer a working royal. The fact that he and Meghan generate a lot of newspaper comment isn’t what matters here - newspaper attention obviously does not equate to security risk.

Good points, @Serenster .
I remember the attempted kidnapping of Anne on The Mall - at gunpoint.
"Not bloody likely!"

Anne was at a high risk in the 1970s and 80s when she had a very high profile as the Queen’s daughter and an Olympic athlete. She had armed security and faced a kidnap attempt.

The 1970s were also a time when high profile figures were at risk of kidnap by various militant organisations. The IPP convention dates to that period.

Also, the IRA and other Irish republican groups were much more active then and specifically had the royals in their sights.

To say that Anne didn't need security because Piers Morgan wasn't ranting about her shows a complete ignorance of recent history.