Harry and RAVEC #2

[Baital]

To continue...

No doubt MPS (Met) protection is better than privately available security. That's reassuring to know (though not necessarily the case for the average woman on the street... that's the subject of another thread...)

But it goes with the job. You leave the job, and you.lose the perks.

I'm absolutely sure that if Harry and/or his family was planning to visit, and the security services had evidence of a credible threat, that he would be given as much security as he needed to keep him safe. I have no idea why this isn't good enough for him.

I can’t help but wonder now if Harry’s inclusion of his Taliban kill count in Spare was deliberate to trigger a threatening response in order to support his case that he needs more security.

I wonder also if his request for police protection after this was not just in relation to his visits here but to extend to his home in America - thereby trying to force Ravec’s hand. It would be an utterly twisted thing to do, but at this rate I wouldn’t put it past him.

it is also hilarious he’s claiming his protection is inadequate and ineffective - as a poster on the last thread pointed out, if it was so ineffective he wouldn’t still be walking around in full health and shooting his mouth off. There’s not even been a hint of an attack on him that’s materialised - which means either that nobody is actually trying to harm him, because he’s not as important as he thinks, or the threats are being effectively neutralised.

I would love nothing more than to see somebody, anybody, confront Harry with some hard truths and call him out on his bullshit - it’ll never happen though sadly.

It's not good enough for him because nothing is ever good enough for him and Meghan. It's an attitude of mind. Nothing to do with factual analysis. If you look back as far as the '70s, when the IRA was a persistent threat and the Cold War was in full swing, there are very few examples of the security services failing to protect prominent people. Airie Neave and Louis Mountbatten, sadly, fell victim to the former. Overall, though, good judgement would lead you to recognise that the security services know what they are doing.

Harry really ought to stop encouraging his friends to be his mouthpiece with the Daily Mail. They seem to be as dim as him. After the comments about the Chair of Sentebale being upset and not not being the most important black woman on the stage, today we have these two gems (my disproving evidence in brackets):

'He (H) hasn't got a nasty bone in his body.' (Errr....multiple attacks on his family, the Royal family and the UK since 2021, the rumours of his treatment of a polo horse and of women in Africa with whom he had 'close dealings')

'He tends to come in and out of the country under guise.' (Funny that the press were gathered outside the Court of Appeal last week to pap H when he didn't need to be in court)

Link if you can bear it: https://archive.ph/YWpgk

Can you imagine if the Duke of Windsor had done this? Abdicated but then launched on a series of legal actions around wanting Met police close protection, all the time whinging he “inherited the risk”?

Harry you can relax. It's you I find annoying, entitled and whiny.

At the end of the last thread, Smilesy said that Harry's comments after the private court session were agreed by both sides.

Smilesy, that stuff about 'if only knew what I knew...' was agreed?

Because he wants what William has !

How is Harry more informed about credible threats to him than the experts with access to the best intelligence?

Picked up from the previous thread, but I'd say the same way as he's "more informed" on just about everything else he yammers about ... because he wants to believe so

I missed the statement at the end of the court case, can someone link it?

PMK

They agreed on a form of words to summarise the evidence that was heard in private. Sorry, it’s behind a paywall and I can’t archive (all I get is a page 404 message 🤷‍♀️). Can anyone help yet agian

Eta It’s in the Telegraph but I can’t even get the link to attach now 😡😡😡

Thanks for explaining. I can't archive either!

Here’s a screenshot of the relevant bit. It might take a moment for MNHQ to check it

@smilesy I think this is the one.

archive.ph/3ehwH

Harry the duke's perception of threats to his person is largely borne of a hugely inflated sense of his own importance.

I'm sure he could live a quiet life if he so chose.

I'm thoroughly confused now; is this "joint statement" thing supposed to be about tthreats from Al Qaeda?

Because surely that would come under the usual thing of the authorities assessing risk and quite rightly providing protection if needed ... or in other words how would what's been said add anything new to the situation?

I scrolled carefully, I don't think that snippet from Smilesy was in the article you archived @IAmATorturedPoet (but thank you anyway). This is the quote that I thought can't possibly have been agreed by both sides:

He also suggested he was deeply unhappy with some of the evidence he had heard during the closed sittings of the court. “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he said, adding that his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad”.

Ah no. Now I look again that isn’t it. This is a new one dated today (18/04). The headline is “Prince Harry sought police protection after Al-Quaeda threat”

missed a word

@smilesy and @Not2identifying

This one?
archive.ph/Acfai

Thank you @Baital for the new thread.

Does anyone know what came of the letter that was produced by Harry's team at the 11th hour in the lower court hearing last December? The letter purported to be from the New York Police Department confirming that there had been an incident known as the "near catastrophic car chase". The letter was dismissed as irrelevant by the lower court judge. However, a number of Twitter sleuths looked at the letter in question and compared it with other correspondence from the same office and concluded it might be a forgery (not least because it was written by someone no longer in the job); and also some people filed FOI requests for this letter and were told it either didn't exist or had been sent in error. It was all very fishy!

Yes that’s it! Thanks!

Thanks @IAmATorturedPoet

What I'm getting from that is that the parties agreed a form of words summarising what evidence was given during the hearing in camera - not that there was an agreement that any of that evidence was true/substantiated/accepted by the other party. I assume they had to agree this wording in order to ensure nothing got included that would end up compromising Harry's security/RAVEC's ability to do its job.