Harry’s security case

[smilesy]

The judgment is in Harry loses High Court challenge over UK security protection www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68421992 See here

Excellent news.

Angela Levin -

www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-security-row-angela-levin-home-office-latest

She is right and if he had won today it would have opened the floodgates for all sorts demanding protection!

Currently on the ARO Thread 2 ...

Didn't he also lose a libel case about supposedly 'offering' to pay' for policy security? That will cost him too

That was the case against the Mail, @IcedPurple, and I'm pretty sure Harry withdrew that one rather than actually losing it in court - though perhaps the reason for the withdrawal was because he knew he'd lose?

Here you go: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68034322

Yes, I think you're right. He withdrew it. But he'll still be on the hook for his own and his opponents' legal fees. More money down the drain. Or into David Sherborne's investment portfolio. Schillings really saw him coming.

Schillings really saw him coming

They certainly did ...

Ooh. The judge was not impressed. This from the Telegraph

harry has also had to apologised for sharing confidential material with Johnny Mercer according to the telegraph

@smilesy I fail to see why he thinks he is entitled to any free security when he is in uk if his brother has the ability to wander into the pub without security! harry and his awful entitled wife think they should have everything provided for them without them having to put their hands into their own pockets!!!

Let's hope that's the end of it

I wouldn’t bet on it !

I’m wondering where this leaves him in relation to his visit for the Invictus anniversary service. He’s going to look a bit silly rocking up if he thinks that security should be provided and it isn’t. Does that mean he can manage perfectly well without it? So what would be the point in appealing to have the decision changed. Does he think he is safe but his family isn’t if they come over. It gives Meghan the perfect reason for not coming and bringing the children I suppose 🤷‍♀️

She will carry on with the ‘frightened for their lives’ routine for ever and ever. It gets her off the hook.

it’s reported he had to fund his own security in Germany. I’d say he’s at more risk there, at least the UK provides him with some security

Did he fund it? Or did Invictus?

Not sure why Meghan would need to be there as she has nothing to do with Invictus, however much she likes to insert herself into it when it suits her.

RAVEC did say that Harry and his family's security needs are under constant review, so if he is deemed to require security, it will be provided. Which is very fair and reasonable. This whole thing has been a bit of a farce. Not only has it used scarce public resources, it's going to end up costing him a vast amount. Also, it has really drawn attention to his security, or lack thereof. That's a really dumb move. There's a reason why security matters are considered confidential and not a matter for public discussion.

Well that a whole different debate

So, multi-millionaire Harry gets 10% off legal costs, to be paid for by us plebs?

The very least he could have done is pay it out of the estimated £700k or so saving he made on the Frog Cott rental deal (and that doesn't take into account the missing eighteen months rent the refurb payment came to include) that also left the plebs severely out of pocket.

Imagine Harry’s conversations with his legal team, comprehensively lost and frankly hopeless are not terms you’d want after paying through the nose for the best of the best

She will carry on with the ‘frightened for their lives’ routine for ever and ever.

And what will the children learn from that. They'll end up just as paranoid and resentful as their parents.

One thing that always pissed me off about the Oprah interview was the obtuse “They said Archie wouldn’t have security when he’s born”.

What kind of extra security does a newborn need when his parents have 24/7 security? What did they expect - someone to stand over his cot?

She’s an actress, she’d want a stunt baby for dangerous situations.

What the hell did he expect? I don't want to be part of the royal family but I will take all the benefits

I always asked the same question. What special 'security' does a baby need?

And for people so concerned about their children's security, they don't seem to mind leaving them several time zones away. Didn't they leave 8 month old Archie in Canada when they went to London for their big flounce?

Not only that but it seems he breeched security during the trial. Again from the Telegraph article

edited typo

One thing that always pissed me off about the Oprah interview....

Only one thing? 😁😁😁

There are many things that pissed me off about that interview but that lie was one of the worst. If they were so worried about the lack of security for Archie, why had they left him behind in Canada at the beginning of 2020? Either he had sufficient security or they weren't that concerned 🤔.