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

Harry wasn’t wrong to ask. I’ve never said that, and nor do i think has anyone else?

He was wrong, in my opinion, to use his question to try and mislead the public to make himself look better by claiming he’d offered to pay at the outset when as we now know he had only made his offer after he’d actually already sued the Home Office to try and get taxpayer funded security. And wrong to waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money and tie up Home office resources in defending litigation just to make himself look better.

And if QEII had told him she’d already asked about paying and been told the answer was no, then he’s even more wrong.

I think he will always be given security because of who he is but they don't want to commit to it or set a precedent that police security can be bought. It's unthinkable that the king's who is 5th in line to the throne wouldn't be protected.

I'd bet a quid the name is Prince William

Protection will be, and has been, provided on a case by case basis according to risk assessments. It won't be provided as a matter of course however. Just being 5th in line to the throne is not itself a sufficient condition for guaranteed round the clock security of the type given to Prime Ministers or the Head of State.

I wonder whose name was repeatedly redacted??

Doubtless we'll find out in Scobie's next book - except after the failure of the last one hasn't he said he's no longer doing the royal reporting?

Why derail this thread? Start your own. I don’t care what happens in the US. And even if they are now backtracking and saying some people did break laws, it still doesn’t explain why Harry oh so fearful goes out into situations he can easily avoid.

We’ve all gathered to discuss the court case - so be fair 😉 fair is fair!

It's unthinkable that the king's who is 5th in line to the throne wouldn't be protected.

It's not unthinkable; it's standard practice. Only the monarch and spouse and the direct heir, the heir's wife and their children get around-the-clock protection. Even Anne, the former monarch's daughter and the current monarch's sister - who was the subject of an attempted kidnapping during which her bodyguard was shot - receives receives protection when she is carrying out official duties.

The late queen paid for protection for family members out of her own pocket. If Charles wishes to do so for Harry he is free to do so.

I find the reporting a bit confusing, but I don't think that they are continuously monitored, I think it's when Harry gives them 28 days notice, then RAVEC will decide if he gets security on his visit or not. But Harry wants protection automatically (without the need for 28 days notice?), I'm not even sure how either would work.

I was reading the BBC article provided, but from what I understand there's supposed to be a specific type.of assessment, but the judge says he's not entitled to that?

Another shout out of thanks to @Serenster and @goldierocks for wading through the judgment.

This!

Seconded (or thirded or whatever!!)

Regarding costs to the taxpayer. I am pretty sure one of the tabloids FOI'd the costs this time last year (so before the hearing) and it was already in the region of £300k. The Independent were reporting in December it would be £1m.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-high-court-battle-cost-b2458896.html

Sorry to lower the tone, but according to Page 6, CHIMPO means "penis" in Japanese. Page 6 of course is never wrong about anything 😜

Why is it unthinkable? Edward , Anne and families don’t receive f/t protection . Harry is currently 5th in the LOS however as the Wales children have their own families , he will slide further and further down . The way it has always worked .,

@goldierocks I also, hope you get well soon!

Why would be need to when America has the 2nd Amendment? I don't think the issue is who is paying for security, but the ability to have armed security and intelligence.

His personal US security would have to surrender/not bring their weapons and don't have access to intelligence, those things are what Harry wants

@goldierocks @Serenster

Thank you both for these explanations

That's very kind, thank you!

Strangely enough, I'm currently off work recovering from non-cancer related bowel surgery, and will need another op in the coming months. I’m staying off certain royal health related threads

Very wise. Hope you feel better soon 💐

Oh @goldierocks I am so sorry to hear that. Keep well, and yes, best to stay off those awful threads. There are so many ghouls on this board at the moment. Take care x 💐

But his private security guards in California don't have 'access to intelligence' either, do they?

And even if armed, they are still private citizens and have no special rights under the law. The same is not true for official police security. By contrast, employees of a private security firm have no privileges above those of any private citizen with a gun.

So my questions remains as to why Harry does not request official security from the State of California, his place of residence. I believe the answer is that this is much less about security than it is about status, more specifically, Harry's largely self inflicted loss thereof.

Thanks to @Serenster too. I saw the judgment but was a bit daunted by 52 pages 😆

There's a thread on it, and it's being reported on (mostly in the US it seems)

Oh I don't know, I think it is important because it will set a precedent for future royal and other people covered by RAVEC if/when they do the same

Regarding the car 'chase' in New York, I imagine Ravec aren't there to prevent traffic violations or intrusion from paparazzi for celebrities. I think that has been mentioned in the judgement, but not sure.

Anyway, it happened in his current country of residence and not in the UK, so it seems almost futile using traffic violations and aggressive paps in the US as justification for him getting UK tax funded armed police protection