Harry and RAVEC #2

[Baital]

To continue...

I wonder, if they hadn't left in such a strop , done the Oprah interview, written Spare etc etc ,whether Charles would have helped them pay for some of their security in the US

Where did the judgement say that?

It's not the role of the courts to assess security arrangements, just to assess that RAVEC were following the correct procedures.

Are you basing the above purely on Harry's account? Do you consider him a reliable narrator?

Talking head on Sky seems to think she knows more about Harry's security needs than the experts who have access to high level security.

The biggest problem with him leaving is he didn’t have any sort of profession, and Meghan’s was based on fame so it was just about ‘using fame to make money’. I would hope the Wales’ children get told the importance of finding themselves a realistic job to do - and that they can’t be ‘influencers’. Half in half out might have worked if the half out bit was being a rescue helicopter pilot. But they wanted the half in to bring the fame to sell the half out.

I'd be very surprised vif that bothered the BBC, TheAutumnCrow ... not while they're funded by an effective tax which people have little choice but to pay

"The Master of the Rolls said in his judgment that these were powerful and moving arguments, and that it was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system. But, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation, he could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to RAVEC’s decision. The legal question, indeed the only question, for the court was whether Sir Richard had failed to follow RAVEC’s policy without good reason"

If that's a response to me, it says nothing about Harry's security requirements, which the courts in any case are not qualified to assess.

Totally agree. Not a single talking head being allowed to challenge anything he's claiming.

It's so frustrating and very misleading.

what was lacking in his interview was like for like comparison with royalty, he had to compare himself with ex prime ministers, why not Edward or Anne.

I wouldn't want to assume he isn't, Profhilodisaster

As for Harry feeling "crushed and fearful" about the risk everyone's leaving him in, I'm fully expecting a few stunts to show just how bad it is ... another car chase perhaps, maybe an alleged break in, someone who somebody's said to have spotted lurking around the estate, a few faked messages, etc, etc

This is the problem. Harry clearly did not understand the point of a judicial review. His gripes and concerns do not and should not influence public policy decision making processes - and it' the process the JR looks at, not the outcome.

Who is this bloke on Sky now saying that this is a 'turning point' and Harry carefully considered every word he said?

And does anyone seriously think that the road to reconciliation with your family is an interview with the BBC where you accuse that family of conspiring to have your security removed? Who are these 'experts'?

Very good point!

Not a single talking head being allowed to challenge anything he's claiming

There never is, @RandyRedHumpback, probably because they suspect Harry would walk out and that's their "scoop" gone

Another royal historian. Anthony Weldon, I think.

I really can't fathom why anyone would go through a big legal challenge in which evidence was shared by experts and evaluated by three top judges, only to rehash it all publically, when the judgement goes against you.

Surely, the point of the judgement is that it is a fair, professional and evidenced legal decision.

We’ll just take your word should we Harry?

But not even after the fact? The BBC don't want one of their own challenged for being a shite, ineffective, uncritical, uninformed interviewer.

Apparently his father needs to 'step aside' and 'allow the experts' to assess the risks... 😮😂

Or the Duke of Kent. 89 years’ pubic service and still going. Grandson of a King, cousin of a Queen, son of a royal family member killed in WWII. No taxpayer funded security unless he’s performing royal duties.

Surely, the point of the judgement is that it is a fair, professional and evidenced legal decision

You'd think so, @Joinedinhistory, but then you're bringing common sense into it and it seems pretty clear that Harry's well beyond that

Keir, Yvette, forget COL and focus on giving me what I want...

The BBC has also released this behind the scenes picture of the interview. Where on earth did it take place??

Omg his sad little interview! He just does not get that you can’t go around slagging off your family and expect THEM to apologise to YOU, and then expect them to welcome you back with open arms. What an absolute nob.
he wants to reconcile, then you go and bloody well
grovel to them for being such an utter prick.

Can we now have the truth about Harry's 2 tours of Afghanistan, for which he is claiming an entitlement to taxpayer funded security. Because if you talk to soldiers in the know, he was never anything other than a "paper" soldier and a drain on the services.