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

These ones 🤔😆

eta meant to quote previous post

So not access to intelligence garnered by the security services?

In the UK, armed protection aren’t anywhere near as trigger happy as in the US. They’re not trained to neutralize first and ask questions later, unlike in the US. If his argument really is about the ability to shoot to maim or kill in the face of a threat to his or a family member’s safety and security, he’s gone over the edge. Video games, delusions of army grandeur, living in California - it’s no laughing matter.

And he had the cheek to demand the name of the civil servant who made the final, considered decision for RAVEC. Harry is the threat, not a jobbing paparazzo.

Hugh grant has settled his case in the hacking, mainly as they have offered him a huge amount, that if the judge awards less than he has been offered he is libel for both sides costs!

Sorry meant to add screen shot

Well it’s not liking it

Well, that's putting someone between a rock and a hard place, isn't it? what do you want more, day in court or money?

I have previously given less thought to the bullying investigation than I probably should have. So I've had a quick search & read.

Flippin 'eck, the BTL comments on this! (Linked.) I sympathise with the comment that of course the staff who participated in the investigation need to be protected - from the litigious Harry if nothing else. Imagine the stress of participating in a bullying investigation in good faith, at the behest of the monarch, only to then be threatened with traumatic legal action? Some of these staff were very badly affected, by the sounds of it.

On the other hand, would even Harry want to open that can of worms? I don't know.

We've seen with his behaviour in this Judicial Review, leaking to Johnny Mercer, that Harry appears to have contempt for propriety, and that this skews his judgement.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/entertainment/former-meghan-markle-aide-breaks-silence-on-bullying-allegations-claims-staff-quit-on-her/

I wonder why she's broken silence now? I'd have assumed that the staff were subject to NDAs - and if she isn't does the RF know she's broken cover? and why the NY Times, which has form for being a bit anti-British?

Edit - sorry, see it's the Post, not the NY Times.

I think she has done a general interview for the Herald in her native Australia. She mentions elsewhere that the late Queen was highly amused when things went wrong for example. The NY post must have picked up on the interview

Oh right. Those comments don't hold back, do they? (at least the ones I've read).

It's a bit tacky of Grant to make this public. I would also have thought it would be in breach of court protocol. He has settled in similar cases before, so he knows how the whole thing works. He has plenty of money so it's not like he'd be on the street if he ended up having to pay. He seems to be making some sort of preemptive 'justification' for settling, which is odd as the vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court.

So not access to intelligence garnered by the security services?

His security 'needs' are under continuous review by RAVEC, so if their intelligence suggests a real danger, he will be provided with the appropriate protection.

Even without this, the police regularly liase with elite security firms. London is known for being a very safe place for visiting VIP's and as has been mentioned, nobody wants anything to happen to the King's son on their watch.

It's just a toys from pram fit of pique. An expensive one.

Yes the original interview with Samantha Cohen took place with the Herald in Australia, and seems to be behind a paywall? I think the protocol may be that other media outlets let that paper have its exclusivity for a bit and then start cherry-picking separate bits as stories, giving the Herald credit for the original interview.

The N Y Post readership generally loathe H&M, which is at odds with the paper's pro-H&M stance.

The Queen was surrounded by guards at Balmoral: The Royal Regiment of Scotland guarded the Queen there. There is a barracks nearby that houses them every time she/the now King visit Balmoral. I imagine they keep a discreet distance but those tourists would have been in their gun sights.

...the police regularly liase with elite security firms

This is true, @IcedPurple, but the key's in "elite" and I don't imagine they'd share sensitive info with just anyone

I genuinely don't know what security firm Harry uses in the US, but some of his associations are a bit questionable and doubtless our authorities would have a view if he arrived with someone less reputable - especially if there was a risk that this too would lead to unwelcome "disclosures"

Going off topic slightly does it amaze anyone else that journalists have gone so far to get a scoop on Hugh Grant of all people! One of the most pedestrian insipid celebs going. What on Earth did they think they had on him??!

More Divine Brown-esque shenanigans no doubt.

I am seriously intrigued by the bullying accusations.

Ive lives in the USA. The workplace culture is very different to ours and there’s almost a disdain for those who want to have a work/life balance. There’s no minimum legal holiday entitlement and maternity leave is practically non existent. Very different to Brits. I’m guessing no one told Meghan that it’s not the norm to work 18 hours days here - many hours without pay - and that we also don’t accept being spoken to like a piece of crap in workplaces in the UK over minor issues (something that alarmed me greatly in the US).

I have had to use the civil court, the first words of advice from my solicitor was to forget about right and wrong and remember you are here to settle a dispute and certainly do not rely on winning to cover costs (I was under insurance). The wanting there day in court is looked down upon, so much is made of settlement/mediation that even if you are completely right there is a pressure to compromise. I had to show mediation had took part which helped me win my case.

I think he makes a fair point. There is lots to admire and emulate about the English legal system but the topic of costs is highly problematic, imo.

Compared to where I'm from, the same civil suit will generate 5-10 times higher costs (making legal redress unaffordable for anyone without rather deep pockets or a successful go-fund-me) and the way costs are awarded also seems highly unfair. Here, if you win on all counts, the other side will have to pay all your costs (although lawyers' fees are capped so if you want an extremely expensive lawyer, you'll have to pay some of their fees yourself). The English system on the other hand is extremely focused on not letting an issue get to court in the first place (hence the very drawn out pre-action protocol) and strongly encouraging the parties to settle. If you refuse to settle because you'd like the other side's ugly behaviour exposed to the world, you will be penalised in the cost department. Consequently, only the rich can afford to have their day in court and even a wealthy person will understandably baulk at the ludicrously high costs associated with a large lawsuit. It is of course a legitimate aim to not want to over-burden the courts with unnecessary lawsuits, but forcing a claimant to settle and stay quiet when the other party has behaved very badly or even criminally is not great.

I'd be surprised if what Grant posted is breaking court protocol as it's really just a fairly general description of how the system works. Just musing as an outsider looking in, so I could easily be wrong about this.

All of this, Vespanest put it much more succinctly than I did!

In my many years of unabashed NY Post reading, the commenters usually display wonderful bullshit detectors ( with the odd crazy). I think the articles are written to get people to comment. In the past year commenters have been supportive of Will and Catherine and think they are wonderful parents.

We do have various forms of paid leave in the US:
https://paidfamilyleave.ny.gov/paid-family-leave-and-other-benefits

People in labor unions also have a level of protection.

I get the impression that Harry wants 'intelligence' from the UK security services to be fed directly to him and that then he will decide what needs to be done about it.

I'd imagine that after his leaking of information about security matters to Conservative Minister Johnny Mercer, despite being duty-bound by the High Court not to do so, Harry has made his position even more untenable.

I doubt that Mercer appreciates being dragged into this either, negotiating as he currently is a delicate and controversial matter involving army whistle-blowing and very, very serious allegations against the SAS in Afghanistan.

Harry, former senior royal and former army captain, is acting like a monarch-in-waiting, military general and president-for-life all wrapped up in one. Utterly delusional.

@Mylovelygreendress
"I wonder if this is the start of the drip, drip of information?"

To be fair, we have already had some drip drip drip of information;
That M supposedly threw a cup of tea at a member of the staff while in Australia;
That she was reprimanded by the late Queen for the way she spoke to staff;
That she sent emails at 5.00 am and expected them to be dealt with at the time.
That staff were reduced to tears (that was Harry's words in his book Spare, etc).
I am sure there will be more forthcoming.
Yes, it caused BP some problems; their HR was meant to deal with bullying from senior staff, not actual members of the RF.

To another poster; yes, the working conditions are much better in the UK than in the US. My DS worked in the US for 2 years (same company as in the UK), but the terms were not as good as UK. He mentioned especially the 2 weeks annual holiday which is standard in the US.