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

You can't just 'get' IPP status.

The status dates back to the 1970s when there was a spate of diplomats being kidnapped. IPP status means that not only are host countries legally obliged to protect you, they are similarly obliged to prosecute anyone who tries to act against you. It's reserved for diplomats and family members who live with them. Not a CHIMPO and aspiring Netflix producer who happens to be the adult son of a King who lives on another continent.

More likely such-and-such a member of Ravec "never liked me" and was "plotting behind my back"

In fact didn't he already complain because "someone from the palace" was on it, apparently not considering Ravec would need their input to understand what was required?

To be fair to Harry, I don't think he is alone in not understanding life outside the Royal Family/upper class bubble
Which is exactly why KC, then PC, apparently tried to get him to stop and think about what a life outside the RF would involve but H flounced off.

I'm also no legal expert but I wouldn't be surprised if his request for appeal is rejected. You could tell from reading between the lines of legalese that the judge was highly sceptical of his 'case' all along.

I wonder why he hasn't made a case for taxpayer funded security from the government of California? After all, that's the residence of him and his family, 3 of whom are American citizens. He has spent a grand total of a few weeks in Britain over the past 4 years, and yet has gone to all this trouble and expense. I really do think this is all about status for him. I don't think he has come to grips with his loss thereof, even though it was entirely down to his own choices.

The same prestige that was on shown a couple of weeks ago when Harry traveled from Heathrow to see his father under the current arrangement . The royal police protection do not walk around with guns on show

I wonder why he hasn't made a case for taxpayer funded security from the government of California?

On what grounds? He's not a US citizen.

No, but he is a resident, presumably paying tax there.

And his wife and children are American citizens.

Why does he think he 'deserves' taxpayer funded security in a country he rarely visits, but not in his place of residence?

Also hasn’t it been said that the Duchess does not want to ever come to the UK. I don’t know how true that is ,but if it were, what is the point in all this?

@IcedPurple if RAVEC made him an IPP then the US would have to fund his security.

Harry is facing the reality of his choices and is struggling to understand his new place in the world.

I don't understand why his US security team are perfectly sufficient everywhere, US and International, except in the UK.

He is just back from Jamaica, which has a travel warning, and attended events in a public cinema. He has been to Costa Rica, somewhere else in the Caribbean, Canada, Singapore for his polo, who knows where else he has been.

Again, he just wants what William has, irrespective of whether he is entitled to it or not.

Like I said, you can't just be 'made an IPP'. You have to have senior diplomatic status. Harry does not.

Not a CHIMPO

I know it's cruel but that makes me laugh every time. Someone really didn't think that one through, did they?

Also, if you read the court documents, they specifically say that the case is about 'security for the Duke of Sussex'. No mention of his family.

I don't understand why his US security team are perfectly sufficient everywhere, US and International, except in the UK

Can't carry guns in the UK. Not even in a natty little holdall that says GLOCK.

I’m sure he would try and argue that it was short for “Glockenspiel” as his minder is off to play in a concert after his duties are finished 😆

Wouldn't that be the case everywhere outside of the United States? His bodyguards are just private citizens with no special rights. Whatever gun licence they hold wouldn't be valid outside the jurisdiction.

I may be wrong but I think I read that the US government was not prepared to pay for round the clock protection, Likewise the Canadian government when it was mooted that H&M may settle there.
My understanding is that if Harry is in the UK in the company of the senior Royals he will be protected in the same manner. If he is in the UK on a private visit he will not be protected. He may bring his own security but they are forbidden to bear arms.
Quite correct IMHO, the British taxpayer will not be required to protect someone swanning around the country with a netflix crew in tow 😉

The only angle that I can see from this is that if he can argue and win that he needs the same protection as he previously had when he visits, he can then argue that he needs the same protection as he had at the beginning in Canada.

Regarding the appeal. He keeps demonstrating he thinks he’s above laws and regulations. I’m shocked any ‘republican’ can support someone that flaunts his elite status in this way. He’s acting more entitled than the king. And how can he pretend to advocate for the marginalised and less privledged in society when he is literally the problem

Oh, of course, I forgot about the guns, duh !

Anyway, there is an easy solution, just don't come to the UK for a jolly, awards, commercial work etc. When he does come to see his father, he should refrain from making a public announcement in advance and benefit from his fathers round the clock security.

Exactly - and take it easy with all the holidays abroad

I think he would still be given protection if there were a relevant threat to his life under this circumstance. Maybe I’m wrong?

He may bring his own security but they are forbidden to bear arms.

And won't have access to the secret intelligence used by the police when making decisions about royal protection.

I think he would still be given protection if there were a relevant threat to his life under this circumstance.

He would, but he'd have to do what he was told if he had official protection because of a specific threat. And they might tell him it was too risky to go swanning around with a Netflix crew.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/harry-meghan-sussex-security-b2503976.html

Readying the actual judgment is illuminating.

Just to recap, Harry had suggested in Oprah that the loss of his security came as a surprise while they were in Canada:

Harry: The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed…
Oprah: So, what security did you have at the time that was going to be removed?
Harry: We had our UK security.
Oprah: So you got word from overseas?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?
Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family

And then, in Spare, he wrote that had promised Meghan before they left that security would never be removed. When it was, he said the Palace had gone back on its “implicit promise”.

The judgement however shows this is Harry spinning the story yet again to present the Palace as the bad guys and himself as the victim. He and Meghan had it made perfectly clear to them in January 2020 by the Cabinet Secretary, not the Palace, not only that their security could be removed, it was highly likely it would be.

Harry also didn’t mention that the Palace had actually said it would lobby on his behalf - and actually offered to pay! - but recognised that it was not their decision to make.

(I’ll post the judgement extracts in another post to stop this being too lengthy)