Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry’s security case

1000 replies

smilesy · 28/02/2024 11:21

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
44
goldierocks · 28/02/2024 21:02

The Times has a good article covering the current court costs. There is a share token in the link.

In summary, the Home Office have said that its legal costs had reached £407,000 by October 2023. That was before the 3-day trial in December.

Harry had 4 barristers in court. Blimey - when I needed one, it cost me £950 an hour! They could easily have cost Harry over £68k, just for the 3 days.

From the article: "The loser in High Court cases normally pays both sets of bills."

Prince Harry faces £1m bill after High Court security ruling

Duke says he wants ‘justice’ after losing his claim that the Home Office was wrong to deny him and Meghan automatic police protection when they visit Britain

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9b136a29-9b90-4346-9120-8fabdad2dd6e?shareToken=d98600294dfe2d542f2b5f0f3c43102e

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:02

He's a little lord fauntleroy, except more dim, more entitled, more pouty, more duplicitous, more gullible, more aggressive. That bit about wanting the name of the official who made the final decision on the RAVEC is a thinly veiled threat. Who does he think he is?

As a NYC resident, I LOVE that the NYPD reviewed his and Meghan's security arrangements between the "near catastrophic car chase" and their next visit to Hudson Yards, by upgrading them to a SEVEN car convoy....around the block 😂. They didn't even go to the trouble of blocking off one side of the road for 3 minutes so they could be driven 200 yards the wrong way down the street 😂It was literally the cheapest and yet flashiest way to say "oh, you want securidee?? we got you! here's some securidee!" 😂

IcedPurple · 28/02/2024 21:14

sashagabadon · 28/02/2024 20:46

What also stood out for me in judgement is that Harry hadn’t even heard of RAVEC prior to some meeting he had in early 2019 with them ( presumably to discuss him and Meghan’s security or possibly Archie)
He then envisaged them as some shadowy secret organisation out to get him rather than what they are , a group of civil servants and experts in their field doing their job.
Harry had presumably never given his security and how it all worked and what it all cost any thought prior to this . I guess it all just happened for him.
I suspect that actually RAVEC knew him very well as they had been overseeing his security for 30 plus years and they clearly knew how he would react

I think it's become really clear over the past 4 years that Harry has no clue about how the royal 'business' functions, despite having been born into it.

And all this conspiratorial talk about 'them' is weird. He really thinks everyone from the press to RAVEC to various royal employees has it in for him on a personal level. Reality is, he's simply not that important. I think this is what vexes him the most.

Turtlerussell · 28/02/2024 21:15

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:02

He's a little lord fauntleroy, except more dim, more entitled, more pouty, more duplicitous, more gullible, more aggressive. That bit about wanting the name of the official who made the final decision on the RAVEC is a thinly veiled threat. Who does he think he is?

As a NYC resident, I LOVE that the NYPD reviewed his and Meghan's security arrangements between the "near catastrophic car chase" and their next visit to Hudson Yards, by upgrading them to a SEVEN car convoy....around the block 😂. They didn't even go to the trouble of blocking off one side of the road for 3 minutes so they could be driven 200 yards the wrong way down the street 😂It was literally the cheapest and yet flashiest way to say "oh, you want securidee?? we got you! here's some securidee!" 😂

Ahhhhh that’s very interesting to know regarding the upgraded security! Is it far to say, they’re spinning it a bit?

BigWillyLittleTodger · 28/02/2024 21:17

He's a little lord fauntleroy, except more dim, more entitled, more pouty, more duplicitous, more gullible, more aggressive. That bit about wanting the name of the official who made the final decision on the RAVEC is a thinly veiled threat. Who does he think he is?

I’ll see your Little Lord Fauntleroy and raise you Violet Elizabeth Bott!

Violet Elizabeth Bott: I’ll scream and scream and scream” with a lisp.

Violet Elizabeth Bott’s oft used signature

https://youtu.be/HXiZHXkG-ac

mrsmingleton · 28/02/2024 21:18

You reap what you sow. Maybe he should think before he talks. He has thrown his whole family under the bus.

Harry’s security case
Vespanest · 28/02/2024 21:18

He knew what RAVEC was by the time Spare came out, he knew his security was his own responsibility and he still decided it was a good idea to poke a stick at the Taliban and then has the nerve to use the extra threats he received as reasoning for needing the same level of security he previously had.

IcedPurple · 28/02/2024 21:20

goldierocks · 28/02/2024 21:02

The Times has a good article covering the current court costs. There is a share token in the link.

In summary, the Home Office have said that its legal costs had reached £407,000 by October 2023. That was before the 3-day trial in December.

Harry had 4 barristers in court. Blimey - when I needed one, it cost me £950 an hour! They could easily have cost Harry over £68k, just for the 3 days.

From the article: "The loser in High Court cases normally pays both sets of bills."

He's also on the hook for a few hundred grand for having to drop the libel case against ANL, isn't he?

And a million for the failed Judicial Review? Presumably more if he appeals and loses again?

Harry is rich, sure. But I don't think he's so rich that this sort of money means nothing to him, especially as he has no obvious long term income source.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 28/02/2024 21:21

mrsmingleton · 28/02/2024 21:18

You reap what you sow. Maybe he should think before he talks. He has thrown his whole family under the bus.

The cynic in me thinks Harry knew exactly what he was doing.

Turtlerussell · 28/02/2024 21:26

I agree. I think he’s a lot slyer than people realise. I think he’s actually rather good at manipulating people into getting what he wants. He throws all kinds of shade at his dad, but he had his old fashioned Pa turning a blind eye to his wild
ways and even building a den for him and his wayward friends. He even had his gran interceding the government on his behalf. I think he’s very much used to ‘what Harry wants, Harry gets!’

goldierocks · 28/02/2024 21:27

Here is the shortest version of the "near catastrophic car chase" incident I can pull together.

On 16th May 2023, Harry, Meghan and Doria attended the Ms. Foundation for Women award ceremony in New York. They were followed by paparazzi when they left the venue.

Harry & Meghan’s official statement said:
“Last night, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Ms Ragland were involved in a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi. This relentless pursuit, lasting over two hours, resulted in multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPD officers......"

Omid Scobie put out a statement that said the photographers were confronted by uniformed officers “multiple times” and "still carried out a number of traffic violations such as driving on the sidewalk, running red lights, and reversing down a one-way street."

A member of Harry & Meghan’s security team gave an account to CNN. Chris Sanchez identified himself and said: “I have never seen, experienced anything like this. What we were dealing with was very chaotic. There were about a dozen vehicles: cars, scooters and bicycles....."

On 17th May 2023, the NYPD issued the following response:
“There were numerous photographers that made their transport challenging. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at their destination and there were no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests in regard.”

Eric Adams, New York’s mayor, said: "I would find it hard to believe there was a two-hour high speed chase.”

Three separate law enforcement officials told US network NBC News that they would not describe it as a chase.

A taxi driver who picked the Duke and Duchess of Sussex up during the incident suggested it had “not been a chase” and that no one was in danger in his opinion.

28th February 2024: A letter from the Chief of Intelligence in the New York City Police Department was included in paragraph 135 of today's judgment:

.....a thorough review of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against the parties involved at the time, we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless.

The investigation had found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question. They had operated vehicles, scooters and bicycles in a manner that forced the security team, which included the NYPD lead car, to take evasive actions on several occasions and a circuitous route to avoid being struck by pursuing vehicles or trapped on side blocks. The conclusion was that there was sufficient evidence to arrest two individuals for reckless endangerment.

After the new information in today's judgment, we know the NYPD have had the evidence to make two arrests since at least 6th December 2023 (the date of the letter), but have so far not done so.

Newspaper articles at the time (May 2023) reported the Sussexes and OS's statements, plus those of the NYPD, mayor and the taxi driver. The general consensus in the press/on social media since then has been that the Sussexes exaggerated the severity of the incident. I don't think the letter included in the judgment today will substantially change this public perception ("near catastrophic" vs "reckless".)

Also from the letter we now know that the NYPD have made "....certain changes to the security posture....". This has been incorrectly reported by some media outlets as the NYPD 'upgrading its security protocol' (with regard to the Sussexes).

Personally, I think the actual wording means a change in how the NYPD will engage with the press/paps on future visits, perhaps by stepping in sooner to make arrests (when there is evidence of law breaking) rather than waiting to seeing how a situation will play out.

Abouttimeforanamechange · 28/02/2024 21:27

He's a little lord fauntleroy

That's rather insulting to Little Lord Fauntleroy. Ceddie is fairly nauseating to modern tastes, but he was a sweet tempered, well behaved little boy, who wasn't brought up to be a lord, who did as he was told and would never throw a tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted. Violet Elizabeth is a much better comparison.

Turtlerussell · 28/02/2024 21:31

goldierocks · 28/02/2024 21:27

Here is the shortest version of the "near catastrophic car chase" incident I can pull together.

On 16th May 2023, Harry, Meghan and Doria attended the Ms. Foundation for Women award ceremony in New York. They were followed by paparazzi when they left the venue.

Harry & Meghan’s official statement said:
“Last night, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Ms Ragland were involved in a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi. This relentless pursuit, lasting over two hours, resulted in multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPD officers......"

Omid Scobie put out a statement that said the photographers were confronted by uniformed officers “multiple times” and "still carried out a number of traffic violations such as driving on the sidewalk, running red lights, and reversing down a one-way street."

A member of Harry & Meghan’s security team gave an account to CNN. Chris Sanchez identified himself and said: “I have never seen, experienced anything like this. What we were dealing with was very chaotic. There were about a dozen vehicles: cars, scooters and bicycles....."

On 17th May 2023, the NYPD issued the following response:
“There were numerous photographers that made their transport challenging. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at their destination and there were no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests in regard.”

Eric Adams, New York’s mayor, said: "I would find it hard to believe there was a two-hour high speed chase.”

Three separate law enforcement officials told US network NBC News that they would not describe it as a chase.

A taxi driver who picked the Duke and Duchess of Sussex up during the incident suggested it had “not been a chase” and that no one was in danger in his opinion.

28th February 2024: A letter from the Chief of Intelligence in the New York City Police Department was included in paragraph 135 of today's judgment:

.....a thorough review of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against the parties involved at the time, we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless.

The investigation had found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question. They had operated vehicles, scooters and bicycles in a manner that forced the security team, which included the NYPD lead car, to take evasive actions on several occasions and a circuitous route to avoid being struck by pursuing vehicles or trapped on side blocks. The conclusion was that there was sufficient evidence to arrest two individuals for reckless endangerment.

After the new information in today's judgment, we know the NYPD have had the evidence to make two arrests since at least 6th December 2023 (the date of the letter), but have so far not done so.

Newspaper articles at the time (May 2023) reported the Sussexes and OS's statements, plus those of the NYPD, mayor and the taxi driver. The general consensus in the press/on social media since then has been that the Sussexes exaggerated the severity of the incident. I don't think the letter included in the judgment today will substantially change this public perception ("near catastrophic" vs "reckless".)

Also from the letter we now know that the NYPD have made "....certain changes to the security posture....". This has been incorrectly reported by some media outlets as the NYPD 'upgrading its security protocol' (with regard to the Sussexes).

Personally, I think the actual wording means a change in how the NYPD will engage with the press/paps on future visits, perhaps by stepping in sooner to make arrests (when there is evidence of law breaking) rather than waiting to seeing how a situation will play out.

Thank you so much for deciphering that!

For a bear of little brain like me, would I be right in taking away, that ultimately it’s not the u turn some are claiming it to be? That the report finds there were reckless instances, they’ll take action sooner next time, but ultimately it wasn’t really a catastrophe or a scene from fast and furious?

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:37

Turtlerussell · 28/02/2024 21:15

Ahhhhh that’s very interesting to know regarding the upgraded security! Is it far to say, they’re spinning it a bit?

Who - Harry and Meghan re the car chase? Literally nobody who has spent more than 24 hours in this city would give their story anything other than a snorting "a WHAT?".

Time is money, business is money. Uber drivers, yellow cab drivers, Lyft drivers, delivery drivers on bikes and scooters, members of the public, bus drivers, construction workers, everyone is hustling all the time and nobody is going to stop them. (If you do actually want to block off a street eg for filming (which happens a lot round my way) there's a whole permitting process which requires local residents to be given at least 5 days' notice with pink or yellow signs posted on every streetlamp and tree etc). It's organised chaos, 24/7. The idea that anyone could chase anyone in a car through any part of Manhattan is so laughable that it really made me wonder how sane both of them are. They HAD to have known how implausible the whole thing would have sounded. If they didn't, someone in their "team" would have told them. I just can't imagine how anybody could say such a thing with a straight face. Even Batman would have looked sheepish or apologetic 😂

The main thing, though, is how Harry seems to think that what happened here could be in any way relevant to his judicial review of the Home Office's refusal to provide permanent security in the UK. Like, does he think terrorists can't get into planes (especially to New York 😬)? Or that there's less of a threat in Montecito or Las Vegas or Costa Rica or Jamaica than in Kew? Does he think nobody in the UK has been to New York and realises how stupid his car chase idea was? It's like he doesn't know the internet is actually a worldwide web, or what google is!

CC49 · 28/02/2024 21:39

Vespanest · 28/02/2024 21:18

He knew what RAVEC was by the time Spare came out, he knew his security was his own responsibility and he still decided it was a good idea to poke a stick at the Taliban and then has the nerve to use the extra threats he received as reasoning for needing the same level of security he previously had.

It's like killing your parents and then begging the jury for mercy because you're an orphan.

Abouttimeforanamechange · 28/02/2024 21:41

ultimately it wasn’t really a catastrophe or a scene from fast and furious

I think people said at the time, if it was as dramatic as it was made to sound, where's all the mobile phone, dashcam and other footage that people would have been filming and uploading to Twitter etc? Surely in a two hour car chase through a busy city, someone would have filmed something?

Turtlerussell · 28/02/2024 21:45

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:37

Who - Harry and Meghan re the car chase? Literally nobody who has spent more than 24 hours in this city would give their story anything other than a snorting "a WHAT?".

Time is money, business is money. Uber drivers, yellow cab drivers, Lyft drivers, delivery drivers on bikes and scooters, members of the public, bus drivers, construction workers, everyone is hustling all the time and nobody is going to stop them. (If you do actually want to block off a street eg for filming (which happens a lot round my way) there's a whole permitting process which requires local residents to be given at least 5 days' notice with pink or yellow signs posted on every streetlamp and tree etc). It's organised chaos, 24/7. The idea that anyone could chase anyone in a car through any part of Manhattan is so laughable that it really made me wonder how sane both of them are. They HAD to have known how implausible the whole thing would have sounded. If they didn't, someone in their "team" would have told them. I just can't imagine how anybody could say such a thing with a straight face. Even Batman would have looked sheepish or apologetic 😂

The main thing, though, is how Harry seems to think that what happened here could be in any way relevant to his judicial review of the Home Office's refusal to provide permanent security in the UK. Like, does he think terrorists can't get into planes (especially to New York 😬)? Or that there's less of a threat in Montecito or Las Vegas or Costa Rica or Jamaica than in Kew? Does he think nobody in the UK has been to New York and realises how stupid his car chase idea was? It's like he doesn't know the internet is actually a worldwide web, or what google is!

Haha thank you, your post made me laugh 😆

even Batman would have looked sheepish 😂😂😂

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:47

The investigation had found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws

I have to say, this is me and pretty much every driver in Manhattan, every day! The roads are far too congested (we have a congestion charge coming in soon), people park wherever they like, delivery drivers are insane (they're the leading source of head trauma cases in the ER), and pedestrians are glued to their phones and not looking up. EVERYBODY disregards vehicle and traffic laws all the time, you can't not. Recklessness is subjective: if you're the NYPD and under the spotlight, of course you're doing to say any and all disregards are reckless!

and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question.

Again, "dangerous" and "unacceptable" (I can't think of a more toothless adjective for the NYPD than unacceptable 😂- it's borderline pisstake!) are subjective. Frankly, most cops walking around with guns on their belts could be classified as "dangerous"....

TheSnowyOwl · 28/02/2024 21:53

MsForgetful · 28/02/2024 17:20

Yup got that. I am making the point he was criticised for even offering to pay and thinking he could, and now we learn the Queen did too. Was she wrong to ask to pay, or just Harry?
.

I don’t think she was wrong to ask, just like Harry wasn’t wrong to ask. It’s the refusal to accept when told no that is wrong, especially when the expectation is for the taxpayer to foot the bill!

smilesy · 28/02/2024 21:53

delivery drivers are insane (they're the leading source of head trauma cases in the ER

My mind is currently boggling as to what the delivery drivers do to earn this classification 😱😂

OP posts:
shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:59

smilesy · 28/02/2024 21:53

delivery drivers are insane (they're the leading source of head trauma cases in the ER

My mind is currently boggling as to what the delivery drivers do to earn this classification 😱😂

😀

They take risks on the road that no sane person would ever take! And no bike helmets, ever! They're crazy. But, if you want to have a jar of passata and a block of parmesan delivered to your door in 6 minutes' times....

AnneElliott · 28/02/2024 22:00

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/02/2024 17:34

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?

I think the redacted name was Prince Andrew. No one can seriously suggest that the heir to the throne shouldn't have full time protection. However the Duke of York is more similar to Harry - no longer a working royal but until recently at least did get protection when he went out and about.

smilesy · 28/02/2024 22:05

shenandoahvalley · 28/02/2024 21:59

😀

They take risks on the road that no sane person would ever take! And no bike helmets, ever! They're crazy. But, if you want to have a jar of passata and a block of parmesan delivered to your door in 6 minutes' times....

Oh now I get it. They are on bikes. I was thinking of UPS van drivers 😂😂😂

OP posts:
themessygarden · 28/02/2024 22:17

I think the redacted name was Prince Andrew.

I don't think Andrew has tax payer funded police protection anymore.

I read it, although I could he wrong, that he is not saying the 'redacted' named person should not have protection, he is saying that he should have the same protection as the 'redacted' person. I think he is referring to William.

DuchessOfPort · 28/02/2024 22:29

This was always likely to be the result. The thing I was relieved about was that he couldn’t pay for it. That was the thing he gave no consideration to; rich people living in any nation, able to demand the intelligence our services provide on the provision of a cheque. He is too stupid to think beyond the consequences of his own selfishness and narcissism.

if he just stopped telling Backgrid every fucking movement he’d be ok. So much cheaper than all this bollocks.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread