RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

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

Super important?

Not really.

And the show of police escorts doesn’t impress me at all. And nor does someone who thinks he is super important and keeps trying to tell us so.

Just saying. You know - just as a mere commoner. Who doesn’t feel the need to show how important I am by having men with Glock handbags around.

Err, you don't get to police my tone.

I thanked you for pointing it out.

The end

agree.

He is certainly not my King

but for the purposes of these discussions, I shall describe him as

Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.

‘The Glock Handbag’ may have been used because in New York City relevantly recent legislation has made it illegal to carry concealed weapons in certain areas.

Maybe Harry had received a credible threat that day. Who knows? We certainly don’t. We don’t know what threats Harry receives. All the nasty media written about the couple, and the pile ons this encourages in certain sections of social media, does tend to trigger crazy people as we’ve seen in the past.

RAVEC will make its decision. I’m not arguing about that. I’m just pointing out that if I’d received the sort of threats Harry has historically, I’d probably have a bloke following me with a ‘glock handbag’ too.

I don’t think he ever had the whole motorcade business but still he had his own specially trained armed police officer & chauffeur so the status gap between him and C/W got even bigger

I thought the most interesting thing about the stunt in NY was not the exaggerated story but just the way H tried to recreate the squad C/W always turn up with. Maybe that’s why he was so OTT angry, the whole landing at a Hertz pickup point, hopping out, hopping in, getting a taxi, getting stuck in traffic, I guess it ruined the pretence for him.

Obviously he's not a "nonentity" - he's very famous and was so from birth.
But he hasn't got an "important" role anymore.
I think you can be very well known without being important and he's certainly not "super" important, imo.

I don't think that anyone meant to say that "No body living in the USA is important", Myfabby, just Harry's important role was as a member of the British RF and, living in the US, he no longer has that role.

Trump, Biden and Obama are still living in the country in which they were/are important and had/have enormously more important roles than Harry; there really is no comparison.
Beyonce is very high profile and still producing excellent work. Again, I'm not sure Harry (despite producing Spare and appearing in the Netflix doc, for example) really stands up well to the comparison.

Obviously the US is bristling with important and "super important" people.
Imo, Harry isn't one of them.
It doesn't mean that he shouldn't receive appropriate protection as he is still famous (possibly edging on the notorious - just my little joke, as Nanny Ogg would say).
Not having an important role doesn't mean that lives aren't important, of course.

I'm always happy to hear from Nanny Ogg, words of wisdom indeed 😂

'He is super important'. 😂😂 Yer don't say? Er?? Why??

Hmm. I’m not sure if your reasoning is quite logical here. Not carrying a concealed weapon is not the same as carrying a visible weapon in a visible holster ready to use. A gun in a suitcase is pretty useless in an active shooter situation. Everyone could
potentially have been shot before you open the catch 🤔😆

‘The Glock Handbag’ may have been used because in New York City relevantly recent legislation has made it illegal to carry concealed weapons in certain areas.

The sensitive location legislation doesn't apply to armed security I don't think.

I don't think that anyone meant to say that "No body living in the USA is important", Myfabby

I think @Myfabby misread the post On paper he is still 5th in line but in theory he's Prince Nobody living in the USA and with a tiny part in royal events if any.

@Sisterpita
"I thought this JR was not about RAVECs decisions on the level of security provided but the make up of the decision making panel?"

yes, that's my understanding. Because RAVEC includes a member of the Royal household who Harry does not like. However, recent events has revealed that (Was it Sir Edward Young?) was supportive of continuing security, so it was a decision by the other members who over ruled.
Currently I understand that security IS provided on a case by case basis. That means NOT IPP status, which it would appear Harry wants. IPP status would give security anywhere in the world including the US, paid for by the host country.

Here is an article which covers which parts of Harry's application for JR were allowed to proceed, and which were not.

Prince Harry’s case against Home Office can proceed, high court judge rules | Prince Harry | The Guardian

"The judge said it was arguable that Ravec’s decisions were legally unreasonable and the duke should have been told about Ravec’s policy before its decision in February 2020; and it was arguable whether the duke “should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Ravec, including the opportunity to comment on other matters Ravec considered”."

"However, the judge denied permission for other parts of Harry’s claim, including that he should have been told who the members of Ravec were and that he did not have the chance to discuss the “appropriateness” of some people being involved in the committee."

@milveycrohn I know he wants IPP status, but honestly does he really expect the US to provide it? I sincerely doubt the US will want to provide it which could lead to interesting questions.

@mpsw thanks - there is so much going on it’s hard to keep track.

The judge said it was arguable that Ravec’s decisions were legally unreasonable and the duke should have been told about Ravec’s policy

Didn't the Duke ask? If it was that important to him, you'd think it would be something he thought about, and took into account, before deciding to move abroad.

I posted a link to the UN convention on IPP status either on this or a previous thread, It's a big deal, dating back to the 1970s when diplomats were getting kidnapped. Harry isn't a diplomat or official of any sort. Countries can't just 'provide' IPP status to a non citizen who holds no official role. Signatory nations have several obligations towards those granted this status, so it's not 'provided' to just anyone. I'm not convinced he had IPP status even when a working royal, and he certainly doesn't now.

I think the whole IPP thing is a bit overblown on these threads, probably due to the silliness in the Sussex 'manifesto' when they claimed they were IPP's, before quickly deleting it.

I think Harry and whoever was advising him as he was stepping down from his official royal role misunderstood the IPP status application to individuals.

As you mentioned it's to mutally protect the signatory nations' diplomatic representatives and their families mainly.

A diplomat is an IPP because of their position not their person. So once they remove themselves from the position they don't qualify for the same protection UNLESS their level of access, knowledge and importance could put the nation in danger - which is why former PMs can qualify as their kidnap or death could be destabilising in some way.

Harry had only known overseas travel being a minor child of an IPP as son of the heir, and then during his time as an official royal representing the nation on behalf of the head of state.

Attacking him as a representative of the head of state of the UK would be an attack on the UK.

Attacking a person who happens to be related to the head of state doesn't threaten the UK in any diplomatic way - it's terrible if it happens but on a personal tragedy scale.

I would have thought Harry had a greater claim for more security as son of the King now, as opposed to before when he was just one of eight grandchildren of the Queen. But on the other hand the King's political power and influence is not large enough for his peril to be a way to destabilise the UK government.

It's really a private family issue at this point.

UK security is reviewed on a case-by-case situation and provided when needed according to intelligence reports.

Overseas security is provided privately - just like hundreds of other famous and infamous people do - how that gets paid for is a personal matter between Harry and anyone who might want to bung him some cash, like his father - foreign governments shouldn't be bothering themselves with just another high profile person.

Sorry a super long post to say I think Harry misunderstood that the IPP status was about what you were doing and who you were representing and not about him as an individual.

Attacking him as a representative of the head of state of the UK would be an attack on the UK.

Attacking a person who happens to be related to the head of state doesn't threaten the UK in any diplomatic way - it's terrible if it happens but on a personal tragedy scale.

Yes, and the court filings for Harry's case say something very similar to this. Security assessments are made on the basis of both the probability of an attack, and of the potential impact of such an attack on national security. So while Harry's status as the son of the King does mean that he's not just anyone, the fact that he no longer represents the monarchy and holds no military patronages also significantly downgrades his importance to the British nation.

I really think he simply doesn't understand the consequences of his choices however.

while Harry's status as the son of the King does mean that he's not just anyone, the fact that he no longer represents the monarchy and holds no military patronages also significantly downgrades his importance to the British nation.

And also, unlike a head of state, prime minister or diplomat, he will not be privy to highly sensitive information which would have to be considered compromised if anyone who knew it was kidnapped, which is another reason for giving someone high level security.

I read American presidents get life long protection. But does their family? And do they get it if they decide to upsticks and move abroad. Harry moved to another country and no longer represents this country in any official way. Can't see why he merits paid for security.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why former PM's and other heads of state get security for life. It's quite amusing how Harry's statement seemed to suggest he was in that category!

Former PM's also get lifelong security, though currently with 7 living former PM's, some of them relatively young, I do wonder if that policy may be up for review.

I very much doubt their security also covers adult offspring living as private citizens on another continent.

I can't imagine Liz Truss had time to learn anything particularly significant!

Or that anyone would want to kidnap her!

And no one wants to get saddled with Boris - the UK would be all "sure, keep him"

I believe the children of US Presidents only get it while they are in office and only then if they are not yet adults.