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

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.

But that's never been the case, has it?

The principle is not privy to the intelligence information about them. And given that Harry is extremely indiscreet and seems barely able to function in the real world, no way would anyone want him to get anywhere near sensitive information.

Yes, I think Harry is away with the faeries on this. And hypocritical.

The 28 day notice is only for specialist close protection that he wants the UK taxpayer to fund.

He can come over and pay for private security with as little notice as he wants.

Employment law states that employers need to give at least 14 days notice if leave is to be cancelled, so the 28 day figure may be to allow the Met to comply legally?

If there is criminal wrong doing it needs to be heard in the criminal court.

As a tax payer, who is paying for the court costs of civil disputes, i would encourage settlement without going to court.

I think there should be a second look at whether there should be criminal charges on the hacking issues. But i do support civil cases being a last resort when offers of financial reparation are inadequate, not to settle scores.

Why not? Sometimes things don't happen the way we want. It's a choice he's made to live in the USA. Not for the UK taxpayers to accommodate with no consideration.

Doesn’t it typically take 3 weeks to get a US visa? Is that unfair to people wanting to travel from UK to US? I don’t think planning a month ahead is a huge burden.

Close protection officers are highly trained and in high demand. They're not sitting around twiddling their thumbs on the off chance the CHIMPO might pay a visit, whatever Harry might like to think.

It's fascinating how he whines about how the 'grey men' were out to get him. When they were running the show, Harry was one of the most popular royals, perceived as being so much more approachable and down to earth than his more aloof brother. Yet now it seems obvious he's completely out of touch and contemptuous of 'ordinary' people'. Maybe the 'grey men' knew what they were doing.

I think that 28 days notice and assessing each visit on its merits is very reasonable. I think that the right decision has been made each time eg security at funeral but not for his court case.

Sporting fixtures are announced ahead of time so I have no sympathy there and he has made trips to the UK without the media being aware eg he made a fleeting visit to see Queen Elizabeth on the way to Invictus. Harry and his friends also have the money to meet in the US or third location if the UK was truly that dangerous.

I think that he doesn’t like the principle of giving notice because he thinks that everyone should jump when he says so. I’m willing to bet that William and Catherine’s itineraries are set years ahead because it’s not straight forward to plan these things.

I’d imagine that he’s very bitter about having to pay for his security so the motorcades and protection that he’s had on visits to the UK. Hasn’t Charles sent his security to meet Harry when he’s come to visit the family ? That’s reasonable on a personal and practical level. You can’t have protection only working like 30 random days a year just in case Harry pops back.

I see elsewhere that Harry has listed the US as his primary residence for the first time. Does this mean he will stop expecting security from the UK 🤷‍♀️😆

I think it's unlikely! He seems determined to get the UK taxpayers to fund security as and when.

I wonder if that Mail story may be over-egging the pud somewhat. The filing was for Travelyst dated 29/6/23 and simply states Prince Harry Charles Albert David Dule of Sussex is 'usually resident' in the US, which is objectively true. It may however be the 'first time' the Mail has noticed it.

Edited to say: Also that story contains a couple of inaccuracies, eg the face-value statement that he 'offered to pay' for the security he wants himself - erm, it's a tad more complicated than that and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

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.

He will have signed a settlement agreement which would have, I’m sure, included confidentiality provisions - but he’s not disclosed how much he was paid, so presumably hasn’t breached anything there. What he has done is talked about the mechanics of why he accepted a settlement offer, which is a different topic. And it would have been clear he must have settled when he discontinued his case, so explaining that decision seems fair enough to me.

I understand the views about the justice system only favouring the wealthy, but think that’s just how it’s played out in this particular example. This “make a specific type of settlement offer to put the other side at risk of costs” (it’s called a Part 36 offer, after the relevant part of the civil procedure rules that set it out) is just a tactic, that can be, and is, used by both parties in litigation.

It’s equally often used by law firms representing small individuals to drive up settlement offers from the big firms (banks/utility companies etc) that they are claiming against. Lose £2,500 and make a claim for amount and you might be offered £1000 to go away. Make a (possibly slightly spurious) claim for £30,000 and the company will likely defend it. Once they do, you can make a Part 36 offer for £3000 and they may well say yes because they don’t want the risk of you being awarded £3001 and then they have to pay your costs as well…

Well put.

I haven’t seen any comment about whether Mr Grant put in his own, low, Part 36 offer to cover his costs ass. Or whether he had ATE insurance and was obliged to accept the other side’s offer by the threat of withdrawal of indemnity.

I wonder if that Mail story may be over-egging the pud somewhat. The filing was for Travelyst dated 29/6/23 and simply states Prince Harry Charles Albert David Dule of Sussex is 'usually resident' in the US, which is objectively true. It may however be the 'first time' the Mail has noticed it.

It's interesting that as you say the filing is dated for getting on for a year ago yet it was only uploaded on 15th April.

I'm starting to wonder why all this sudden flurry of activity round the previously near comatose Travalyst. Odd.

April 15th is tax day in the US. Would that possibly be significant?

Or whether he had ATE insurance and was obliged to accept the other side’s offer by the threat of withdrawal of indemnity

Ha, yes- it hadn’t occurred to me that Grant may not have been paying his own legal bills. But yes, it’s quite likely he would have done it on a no win no fees basis - everybody would have known Murdoch would have wanted to settle this case along with all the other historic claims.

Prince Harry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex

This is rather unfortunate without a comma in between David and Duke.

David Duke is an ignominious name here in US.

Luke Duke, Bo Duke and Daisy Duke weren’t so bad. Boss Hogg was a wrong ‘un though.

I don't know.

Last (limited) accounts filed in February this year. Next accounts (made up to June 2024) aren't due until March 2025. Henry's vocal about all sorts until he isn't

Why not voluntarily fill the plebs in when he wants us to buy in?

Thank you. It's fascinating.

Interestingly at 19.37 (after I posted), and as I was wondering what had been uploaded in previous years, the Mail updated that Harry's 'usual residence' on the Travelyst filings used to say United Kingdom.

Is someone cleaning up their act regarding tax liabilities, charitable/non-profit status, H's visa requirements, or something else?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Kind of interesting that's it's all getting a hurried makeover since it was raised by moi here.

Who's reading?!

I'm pretty sure Sarah Vine is on here!

Offhand I would say the IRS. His taxes must be very complicated. I hope he has a good accountant.

I've just seen on another website (anyone else who's on it will know which one I mean, and I absolutely don't vouch for the accuracy of the extract posted) that the property tax exemption for their home hasn't been applied for. It's not insubstantial, would easily pay for some nice clothes. The only reason you wouldn't do that is because it's not your primary residence. It could be a second home, it could be a place of work that you spend some time in, anything really. But suffice it to say, if the Montecito home isn't the primary residence, and Harry's not resident in the UK, I wonder where his primary residence actually is 🤔. And if this Montecito house IS is primary residence, why wouldn't you apply for a readily available tax exemption?

According to the Express ( so not gospel ) Harry will probably not attend the Invictus event in London due to security concerns .