RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

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

It may be worth pointing out, yet again, that Harry was never one of those royals who would always be guaranteed full police protection. So even had he remained as a working royal, it's likely that his arrangements would have changed at some point, as they have done for other members of the family.

It seems absurd to demand that highly trained, in demand security specialists be on standby just in case the CHIMPO decides to pop over for a visit. Comparing the 5th in line to former PM's is equally ridiculous. Harry's security needs will be kept under review and any protection deemed necessary will be provided. I'm baffled as to how anyone could consider that anything less than fair and reasonable.

This is the same security apparatus that provides cover to the Obama kids for instance when they come on their private visits. And would provide security for Archie and Lilibet and her parents. Whether Kate made Meghan cry or whether she speculated on the colour of Archie’s skin is irrelevant to how the Home Office determines threat levels to individuals.

Funny, these two self important people have caused heartache in their whining and made up stories about the Royal Family to make ££££. Yet they want to be accepted back as all was sweetness and light. It is not.

They wanted to be treated specially, why? Ginge should have kept quiet about his drug use and was foolish to talk about the people he killed.

I really can't see what his issue is unless it's an attempt to get full IPP status again despite not being a working royal. He can bring his own security although they cannot carry guns as they (presumably) do in America. Met security would probably be given if there was a threat level. He can hire ex met police (no guns) for added protection.

Does he actually remember his mother wasn't shot but involved in a car accident? What's with the demands for armed protection? He moved to a country where people kill their colleagues because of a minor grievance and kids shoot up schools. He is being ridiculous. He gets security. Frankly if he and his family never set foot here again that would suit me and a lot of people down to the ground. Especially if he stops wasting taxpayers money on court cases like this.

It was OK, I think, to talk about his operational tour, including those who died.

He did that in 2013, and did not attract criticism. However the key difference between that interview and the later account is the choice of language (there was neither a number, nor a reference to chess pieces)

I think he was poorly advised for the second version.

Oh come on! It’s highly naieve to believe that the reigning monarch doesn’t have any influence at all or at least a nod or a nay over how individual members of their family are protected? That a member of the senior household doesn’t have the ear of a civil servant or senior policemen? Come on! Now the evidence of the late Queen’s letter has emerged, we know for sure that they are allowed to have some input. The problem for Harry is that the reigning monarch and his heir are not particularly sympathetic to his requirements.

The King and the PoW are not sympathetic to Harry's security requirements? Where does it say that?

Well allow me to rephrase Maireas let’s just say I doubt they are particularly open to supporting Harry’s case with the people who matter.

It’s highly naieve to believe that the reigning monarch doesn’t have any influence at all or at least a nod or a nay over how individual members of their family are protected

The documents revealed in Prince Harry’s court case disprove that, though. The Queen made it quite clear what her wishes were, but also made it clear that she knew the decision lay with RAVEC. And the committee did not act in line with the Queen’s wishes.

Committees that are tasked with being independent decision makers are quite able of fulfilling that function, generally. More easily than an individual decision-maker would be, in fact.

I am sure that is how it works on the surface Serenster

@Sheepskinthrow These are very serious allegations btw. Do you think Elizabeth II’s personal view of him affected the security Donald Trump was given?
Or the fact that her husband said some eye wateringly racist things affected the security given to African heads of state?

I think you are being breathtakingly naive if you think the Police and the Home Office protect senior dignitaries based on the feelings of Prince Charles towards them. That they would let their professional reputation be besmirched because of this.

And since you raised this before. Harry has plenty of money. Surely he could buy a place in the UK? Rather than relying on Daddy loaning one out? That must be the very definition of financial independence.

It's curious that suddenly them no longer being working royals means the threat is downgraded, don't you think?

The security afforded to Charles and co comes with the job. Security being assessed on a case by case basis doesn't imply anything about a change in the level of threat.

It’s highly naieve to believe that the reigning monarch doesn’t have any influence at all or at least a nod or a nay over how individual members of their family are protected?

My understanding is that the late Queen's letter shows exactly that - they didn't follow what she suggested, did they?

So you can’t have it both ways:

• Queen wanted more security for Harry. RAVEC’s independent assessment differed. So the monarch doesn’t get a say and RAVEC is independent.
• PC is happy with RAVEC’s assessment. This shows the monarch interferes in Home Office security arrangements and RAVEC is not neutral.

Both of these can’t be simultaneously true.

Why do you say that? They may be frustrated and annoyed with his behaviour, but I'm sure they wouldn't want harm to come to him. Goodness me.

Absolutely not, well I hope they wouldn’t! But I can see them not fully understanding the nature of the racist threat.

I'm not convinced that the queen did actually want more security for Harry. The phrase 'effective security' is quite vague. You could definitely argue that the current arrangements, whereby Harry's security needs are under constant review and protection will be provided if deemed necessary, are very effective.

The queen saw several of her own children and grandchildren have their full time security arrangements downgraded, so she must have been well aware that the same might happen for Harry, and that she would leave the decisions up to the experts in the field. A shame Harry refuses to do the same.

Why do you say that? They may be frustrated and annoyed with his behaviour, but I'm sure they wouldn't want harm to come to him. Goodness me.

Quite. Remember these are real people behind these arguments, who know very well that their family members have been shot at and confronted by attackers in the past. I am quite sure that any member of the Royal family wants all possible security for their children, and will naturally advocate for that (as the Queen did for Harry and Andrew allegedly did for his daughters too). But taxpayer funded security is a scarce resource and it’s not the family’s call.

(Oh, and blown up too in the past, of course…)

And I say this as a non royalist. Let’s say all this is true:

• William was favoured and got more attention
• PC is a meanie who took Frogmore away
• Members of his family were horrible to Meghan (entirely likely).

That doesn’t prove anything OTHER than the fact that the RF is dysfunctional like many others.

And that the institution of the monarchy is desperately outdated. And built on fortunes often acquired in dubious ways.

But what Harry wants to say is the whole ‘my family are meanies’ bit without the substantial institutional and historical bit because that brings into question his status, his sources of wealth, his privilege, his titles and his entitlement.

So what he’s saying is ‘I am entitled to more as a member of this monarchy but they are not giving it because they have never faced racism like my family. But let’s make it clear that what happened with Hussey wasn’t racist. Just what happened to my wife. And I would like all these privileges of my birth and more but my father and brother with those same privileges are trapped. And I escaped. In fact I escaped so far away that now I want to come back and I am demanding more security than the UK govt (RF) will provide. But London is a trigger. And the UK was racist to my wife. And the press is horrendous (true) but I am a member of a privileged family here so I demand I be allowed to enter and exit with the security I demand on my own terms. And my dad is a meanie for taking back a house I and my wife disparaged.’

Its this breathtaking mix of arrogance, the occasional nugget of truth combined with total historical ignorance and a lack of understanding of privilege that makes even people like me who would be considered pretty ‘woke’ by MN standards roll their eyes at Harry.

What a ridiculousl thing to say. A security threat is a security threat whether it’s racially motivated or something else. Are you seriously saying that a security threat would be seen as less serious by RAVEC because it was racist in nature?

edited for typo

Why would they not understand racist threats? Do you think they only defend white people?!

In fact the Met Police is on record for saying they knew about these threats and investigated them.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/prince-harry-and-meghan-faced-credible-threats-by-far-right-extremists-says-met-polices-ex-counterterror-chief-neil-basu-12758496

Which I have seen used on MN to argue against anyone who said Meghan didn’t face racism.

So isn’t this proof that the UK security apparatus IS in fact fully capable of protecting Harry???

And what about the very highly regarded experts who make decisions on such matters? Did they not understand it either? Or is this something only Harry and his internet supporters understand?

Could you explain to me exactly why you consider the current arrangements regarding Harry's security to be inadequate? Do you feel the relevant experts are incompetent, despite their excellent record? Nobody else has been able to explain exactly what is wrong about having security deployed on the basis of risk assessment, but maybe you can?

Ha! Yes! Very good points both 😀

But everyone seems to be forgetting the hugely influential “in-built” soft power wielded by the Monarch within the very organisations that are making these decisions and judging upon it. It’s the elephant in the room surely?

Sure the committee can make an opposing decision. But equally, are people really saying that if KC had a word in a senior aide’s ear and asked him to get the message across in no uncertain terms to those that matter that Harry needed more protection, then that wouldn’t make any difference at all to the outcome?

But that isn’t happening bc KC and PW probably don’t believe, or are not inclined to, believe Harry right now or take him seriously atm. And so the racist nature of the threats are, if not entirely ignored, not given enough weight.

< Apologies for taking so long to reply to posts. Whenever I click on this thread, I keep being taken back to a post I wrote many days ago, and I can’t scroll back very effectively on this device.>

Forgive e me, I believe I have partly answered this in the post above Icedpurple.

To put it more emphatically, the majority of civil servants, MPs, policemen and experts making this decision are white men.