Harry and RAVEC - claims he was trapped by RF

[smilesy]

Okay. So first of all thanks to everyone on the last thread for a really civilised discussion about Harry and his security. The Telegraph has an exclusive article where Harry claims that his security was removed to “trap” him in the RF. I’m really sorry but for some reason I am unable to archive Telegraph articles at the moment. Could anyone help?

Why is she diverting attention from Harry's trip to Ukraine?

A PP asked what the statement the Sussexes had made about being IPP - it was on their ‘leaving website’ I think on the page describing their financial situation.

It was removed within 24 hours of publication but that was picked up by the papers.

www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/controversial-claim-quietly-deleted-from-sussex-website/LOC3MXF54UBUTXKBQMAV5TIXHQ/

@Serenster

if Harry starts blabbing about what was said in a closed court would there be any repercussions?

"“Regardless of the outcome, the Duke will hope that by drawing attention to the way the committee operates, the system might change and become more transparent.” .

Well albeit as one of those not afforded protection by Ravec - I think this is a very difficult argument to put forward. How far can security become transparent without compromising the security it's trying to uphold. I for one am quite happy I do not know the ins and outs of what people who have to deal with security threats to the nation do , which I suppose needs trust on my part that people are doing their job properly. I'm inclined to think that those few who get Ravec protection are also happy for it not to be completely transparent. I'm not sure what more transparency he wants.

Maybe I am too trusting / naive. (added in edit)

Ahh - just revisited the page on sussexroyal.com about their plan for their funding.

It’s very interesting reading in the light of everything that has gone on in the last few years!

I think the IPP claim was removed from the final FAQ on the page which talks about security.

One of the funniest sections is talking about how they always try to use commercial travel or local trains to be environmentally friendly!

And littered all the way through is how they are giving up the Sovereign Grant money - how they will not be using tax payer money from now on but then they keep saying how that’s five percent of their costs. Not explicitly said but it’s implied that they fully expected the 95% of their budget which came from Charles to keep coming.

sussexroyal.com/funding/

I so, so, so hope he loses. I’d love it if he also had to pay costs but it’s unlikely.

”swords down” is a posh boy phrase so definitely came from him. The arrogance is breathtaking!

IMO, in an ideal world:

Harry loses his case & has to pay costs (with an apology to the UK taxpayers)
Harry fucks off back to Monteshitshow and stays there
The King & UK government remove his and Meghan’s titles
The King & UK government remove Harry from the line of succession
The UK government & FCDO tell them absolutely no more faux royal tours
They STFU for once & for all & we can all forget about them

I’m sick of both of them. They’re an embarrassment to Britain, frankly.

@BasiliskStare Exactly. This is one of those processes that demonstrably shouldn't be transparent if by transparent one means 'public'. Seems to me that they bent over backwards to try and accommodate H&M until it became absolutely clear that it was impractical and unaffordable.

Also the idea that Charles could intervene - as it has been widely reported H wants - is precisely what Charles cannot do. As soon as the dispute hit the courts Charles couldn't go near it. The Queen tried her best before Ravec made their decision but the wise old Queen knew that was as far as she could go.

Thanks @wordler. I think that article explains quite clearly what an IPP is and why Harry and Meghan don’t qualify

One question - if Harry wins and RAVEC have to re-make their decision using the procedure they use for all other VIPs isn't there a chance he will come out of it with less security than before? I mean, he has been gone 5 years now and his links to the Royal family are pretty frayed now.

Yes. Several posters have already speculated that this might be the case. There would seem no reason not to think this is possible 🤷‍♀️

He'll definitely have to pay costs if he loses but taxpayers won't recover all the costs incurred. Although the court might order full costs if it finds Harry has been unreasonable in pursuing this.

I think if he wins on a procedural technicality and RAVEC has to redo the review then he’ll get exactly the same deal he gets now - a case by case evaluation of each UK visit. We won’t be told any more than that.

But it’s the reality of the situation that is already reducing his security and he’s clearly feeling it. The intelligence is showing he doesn’t need the bells and whistles security in the UK. And that will continue. By the time William is on the throne and the Wales kids have had a couple of kids themselves, he probably won’t need any armed protection at all.

I don’t think it’s really about the security it’s more about that he sees this is a slight against him

We are still a long way from the wales DCs having their own DCs so it’s still a point that needs to be addressed as to how they travel and really should no longer travel together.

Harry has proven himself to be unreliable & unable to keep secrets so really he can’t be a head of state. Then there are the issues of his DCs, don’t live here so remove from the LOS, Andrew well that’s a whole other can of worms & also needs to be dealt with.

Harry is lucky he wasn’t born in the Middle Ages, he’d have been drowned in a vat of wine like George Duke of Clarence by now.

It's not about security. It's about status.
He thinks he's equivalent to William, and Meghan is the same as Diana.

A question for a legally informed person ref. a potential downgrade. Are the three judges considering the evidence confined to considering only the points of law debated in the court last week or can they make those considerations in the context of circumstantial evidence? If the latter, the circumstantial evidence since the 'freedom flight' doesn't stack up well for H: voluntary trips to Columbia, Nigeria and Ukraine; the level of protection provided in the UK has proved adequate on the few visits they have made here; ruptures with family, current law suits drawing to a close and resignation as patron of Sentebale suggest even fewer visits to the UK in the future.

Not explicitly said but it’s implied that they fully expected the 95% of their budget which came from Charles to keep coming

In fairness we can't know whether or not it IS still coming, since Harry's claims aren't to be relied on and Charles also has private money for the times he can't find a way to charge something to us

As for claims that Charles couldn't possibly horn in on the case - why not?
I'm not saying he'd necessarily want to, but being quite literally above the law, exempt from the FoI Act, with his correspondence sealed and so much redacted in court records, who would ever know?

It's an appeal of a judicial review, so it's only concerned with the rather dry procedural details of how RAVEC came to their decision, not the decision itself. The courts have no authority to decide about security arrangements.

Interestingly, before his attendance at court, Harry said that the UK was his home and that his children were British.
How does he reconcile this with how they live?

As far I understand it - all they are deciding is if RAVEC followed their own procedures correctly - and the outcome if it’s found they didn’t follow their procedures correctly is they have to do the review again.

Nothing Harry has done, said or feels should form any part of that.

Which is why it’s so annoying that he’s basically instructed his KC to bring in all the safety fearing for his life stuff into her arguments. And why lots of people are confused and think this case is deciding whether he gets security or not.

A fair point but his batshittery seems to be intensifying so him bing out of reach of the courtiers is even more of a risk.

Yes, I had to laugh at the Telegraph article with all those references to Harry's precious feelings. He wants to bring his children, he wants to support 'his charities', he feels this is a slight against him and so on. Could he have made it more obvious that he was the source for this article?

As we discussed on the previous thread, what Harry wants and what Harry feels are irrelevant. The judicial review will be decided on procedural details, and his security arrangements will be based on a careful assessment of the evidence. In neither case are Harry's 'feelings' relevant.

It's deliberate. He has to play the victim card. That's his entire persona. He's uniquely vulnerable and in need of special treatment.

Having just reacquainted myself with the copy across the sussexroyal website which laid out their grand plan for being ‘Royals with financial independence’ for the first time in five years, I’m absolutely astounded by the hubris of the two of them to publish all this stuff without checking in with the Queen or Prince Charles.

There’s so many things wrong with it that any advisor - who understood the UK and the system in the UK and the British public - would have told them not to do or include.

Some of it reads like a Wikipedia entry in explaining ‘how stuff works’.

They clearly only had US advisors with them on that Canada break where they cooked this up.

The 'lay down his sword' message is vacuous. Even if he did get the security he thinks he's owed, there'd be something else he would find to fight about.