RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

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

A quick Google shows that Edward Young was one of the senior staff given a nickname in Spare, along with comments such as 'middle-aged white men who’d managed to consolidate power through a series of bold Machiavellian manoeuvres',

“I disliked these men,” Harry writes, just in case readers had not worked that out for themselves, “and they didn’t have any use for me. They considered me irrelevant at best, stupid at worst.”

What Prince Harry really owes to Sir Edward Young, Simon Case and Sir Clive Alderton (telegraph.co.uk)

I am not a Telegraph reader, but it popped up and isn't behind a paywall, and seems factual.

I thnk what he put in Spare could be described as 'public abuse' of people for doing their job - in Young's case as private secretary to QE2

No, but this thread is about Harry's JR with Ravec, not the RF board in general.

Harry just comes across as an absolute liar now. From hearing about the QM's death, to his criticism of Edward Young. It's as though he's in a topsy turvy world, where the opposite of the truth/reality is 'his truth'. I think he has real problems with comprehension and perception.

Like many others working for the royal household, Edward Young worked for members of the conservative party, as Michael Portillo's advisor, and then William Hague, and then in media as head of Comms for ITV. He was present at the 'Sandringham meeting' where Harry offered to pay for his security, but did not notify anyone else of the offer.

Harry just comes across as an absolute liar now. @SidekickSylvia since this is about the Ravec decision, what lie are you referring to? We know the former Queen and current King are liars, so maybe he learnt it from them, but I'd like the details.

public abuse

Words have meanings. I am a victim of actual abuse. Someone saying publicly they dislike me is not abuse. Otherwise there would be a lot of abusers on this board.

Well said. And let's not forget Simon Case. Head of the Civil Service who conveniently is too ill to attend the Covid Enquiry but has been seen at meetings whilst off on sick leave.

That's a very interesting link, @parksandrecs - thank you.

You were there, were you? How interesting! Do tell us exactly what established truth spinner Prince Harry said, please. I’m sure we’d all like to know…

Oh come on, Serenster, they worked for the Conservatives, FGS. Morally equivalent to selling their soul to the devil. What further proof do you need of their evil intent?

I’ve been publicly castigated by people just for doing my job and had no ability to defend myself. I have quite strong feelings about people who abuse their power and position to do so. Meghan, Harry and Omid all have indulged in this in the last few years.

Obviously thats what he is saying in court documents. You're not present for any of this either but you do love to share your opinions. Please let me share mine without being condescending. The whole board is full of opinions about the royals based entirely of tabloid gossip, so don't start on me.

I am getting confused now - all these court cases.

Isn't the DM libel-for-saying-Harry-didn't-initially-offer-to-pay case going to trial because the DM has a reasonable prospect of showing that Harry, in fact, didn't initially offer to pay?

1. Following the Sandringham meeting, on 31 January 2020, Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, to report on what had been agreed at the meeting. It included the following:

“Location and activity ... During their time in the UK, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex expect to attend public-facing engagements representing the charities and causes which remain dear to them. These engagements would no longer be formally undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty but, given the profile of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, we would expect they would still attract public attention... In regard to their Commonwealth patronages, although The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not be formally representing Her Majesty, they will be undertaking work that is closely associated with Her Majesty and which may appear to the public eye to be very similar to now. Of course, a number of these patronages have been granted to them by Her Majesty, and which they will continue actively to fulfil. Her Majesty may from time to time invite The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to attend national Royal occasions in their private capacity, and Her Majesty is likely to invite The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to participate in family events in keeping with other non-Working members of the Family. Security You will understand well that ensuring that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family. Given TheDuke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, hismilitary service, The Duchess’s own independent profile and the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided with effective security. And, of course, the family is mindful of tragic incidents of the past. The discussions to date, including with [the former Chairman of RAVEC], have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the RAVEC process are well understood. Of course, Her Majesty and her family recognise that these are independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security are for the UK Government, the Government of Canada and any other host Government...”

The letter did not refer to the Sandringham offer. On 10 February 2020, the Claimant emailed Sir Mark Sedwill to raise his concerns about removal of State security. It did not contain an offer by the Claimant to pay for State security or refer to the Sandringham offer. However, the Claimant’s case is that the offer to pay was repeated by the Claimant in a meeting he had with Sir Mark Sedwill on 3 February 2020 and was referred to in his email to Sir Edward Young of 16 April 2020 (see §§12.1.2 and 12.2.4 Reply).

_

I don't see why it would have been Young's role to notify anyone - that was an offer only Harry could make.

And it has been thrown out anyhow - official close protection is not available because of willingness to pay, it is because of need. Harry attempted to take that to JR but it was thrown out.

Young's role was to represent the Queen, who wanted - from the letter - to ensure Harry had effective security, but she wasn't telling anyone how to do it. Looking at the representations made on her behalf, I'm left a little perplexed about what Harry things was not said on his behalf (part of his case was that he should have had the chance to make representations himself). I am wondering if the (possibly unprecedented) intervention on behalf of ER II led to the (unique) bespoke deal

Even though it is a cost to the taxpayer, it is absolutely right that Harry, like anyone else, exercises the right to JR. It is an important way that the administration is held to proper standards.

He actively chose to live outside the United Kingdom and give up his official role. Obviously his security arrangements would change to reflect that

Do keep up @IcedPurple - he was forced to leave remember?
So in victim mode he may easily feel that, since it wasn't what he'd have chosen, it's up to others to continue to provide security - which as you rightly said he'll get anyway if it's deemed necessary

As for whether he realises this is just a review of RAVEC's processes I couldn't say, but if it doesn't go his way I'm waiting to see if he'll try to sue the courts themselves

Yup, understood its been thrown out, its in relation to his libel case. he did make the offer, he clearly expected a member of Ravec present when he made it, to pass that on.

But why would they pass it on, when it was irrelevant to RAVEC's decision?

Which was that security would be provided, without charge, if the threat level warrented it.

Of course, Her Majesty and her family recognise that these are independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security are for the UK Government, the Government of Canada and any other host Government...”

This s the key part of that memo - the late Queen made her feelings known clearly, but also openly recognised that the decision was out of her hands. And it was out of Charles’ too. So all the allegations that Charles abruptly “pulled” Harry’s security in 2020 are flat wrong.

Important to remember this one from May.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65609209

If that was his intent, he should have ensured that someone had it as an action point

It was his offer and the buck stops with him to either make it himself or ensure it has been made

Also The discussions to date, including with [the former Chairman of RAVEC], have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the RAVEC process are well understood
The Palaces had done their homework and I would expect them to have known by this point (if not before) that official close protection is not something available on a purchase basis, and that it would therefore be wrong of them to be requesting it. Harry making the offer for himself is a different kettle of fish

I think all the lies, mistruths, their own 'story', Loss of staff rapidly, changing PR forms, lack of support from the Hollywood A-Z listers speaks volumes!! I can hear it from his horrible jabs at people in interviews and his stance, physically and in the sound of his own self importance too - toxic and vile certainly springs to mind most of the time IMO

And just a reminder, it is Harry’s account that he “made an offer”. No one actually knows what was said or in what context. It could range from “this is paramount to me and my family - please ensure RAVEC knows I am prepared to pay for it personally” to “so I’ll effing pay for it myself then” said in a huff.

Until we get up the full trial, all we know is what Harry says. And we also know well that Harry spins what he says to put himself in a good light.

I don't understand this. What do you expectt A listers to do? Come out fighting on H&M's behalf?! It means nothing, they have to think of themselves as does anyone in thepublic eye.

If you want to talk 'loss of staff', I believe that could be applied to W&K too

Also Harry’s legal team tried to make this a “single issue” claim - I.e. if they prove that Harry did make an offer to pay at the Sandringham summit, they automatically win the libel case. The judge did not agree that the case would stand or fall on that point alone.

Yes, I have had colleagues in that position. It is truly unpleasant to be the subject of that sort of public comment and - for professional reasons - not be able to respond. When people with a grudge can say anything about you and there are absolutely no consequences for lies and distortions.

They don't have the luxury of telling the world what they think of Harry - which might well be less than complimentary. If they give 'their truth' their career will be over, rather than getting a $20 million book deal.

It's just bullying.