What Does Harry Verdict Mean?

[OtherS]

Sorry if this is a bit dim, but I've not been following the security hoo-ha terribly closely so not sure I have it right... My understanding is that Harry (and his US family) will remain eligible for security if it is deemed necessary. And as he is so very unpopular in the UK, I would guess it would be considered necessary if he ever chooses to grace us with his presence. I don't really see that Charles, or anyone else, wants him to be mobbed or attacked - imagine the headlines if he were!

So how are things different for him now? He just has to tell us he's coming and we'll have a set of scary bodyguards waiting to protect his life and limb as soon as he touches down. Is all this because he begrudges having to announce his plans in advance and instead expects the (taxpayer-funded) bodyguards to be sitting around 24/7 twiddling their thumbs, just in case he wants to pop over on a whim?

Nothing has changed he still gets security when he comes over he still has to call first in an emergency he will get security as a given

He has to pay for family security in UK

He's spoilt and entitled. He has more money than most of us could ever dream of.

But I thought he didn't pay - I thought he asked if he could pay and was told no as we don't really want our specialist armed guards to be available to the highest bidder?

I know he likes a good whinge, but surely he's articulated an actual complaint? I just don't see what's changed for him, other than he (or his staff, obviously) has to make a phone call to announce his arrival. And if he's travelling with his family I imagine that wouldn't be a spur of the moment thing anyway, so why would having to make a phone call be an inconvenience? At least, not enough of an inconvenience to be worth £1.5 million to fight, surely!

I might have misunderstood this because I haven't been paying attention to it, just looked at it today

I thought the point was, he wants information to be shared from the authorities here with his personal team. Isn't that what's being refused? The record sharing part?

So he pays for his own protection, but he doesn't feel that they have access to enough information to do it properly and to keep him safe. And given the horrendous threats to his wife and children from racist nutters, I completely see why he's worried.

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that was the case.

No, not so.

That’s absolutely not true. In this court case, it is was made crystal clear that police protection was not to be paid for. Otherwise any random celebrity could demand it.

It means that he still isn't eligible for armed close protection and won't be unless intelligence suggests he warrants it, in which case he will be given it automatically and free of charge. He can pay for his own security if he wishes to but it won't be armed security as armed UK police are not for hire.

What he's actually after is IPP status so that he gets protection wherever he goes. This won't happen.
He will get protection when he comes to the UK , if it's for an official reason (coronation, state funeral) he will be protected immediately as security will already be in place. He has to give notice if he's just coming over see friends , for example, which is fair enough.
He pays for his own security in the US and I think one of his complaints was that they don't have the same intelligence as RAVEC , which is understandable as you can't have a load of American bodyguards having access to national security information.
The court case was about whether RAVEC were correct in downgrading his security to be assessed on a case by case basis, instead of just giving him full security regardless. The judge ruled that they were correct.

@Profhilodisaster thank you, that makes sense

Things dont add up. If they want privacy and peace, and stopped at 2DCs due to climate concerns, they won't feel the need to travel to the UK?
They can Zoom/FaceTime the family & friends who are still talking to them.
All the money wasted on the court cases could have gone to the many charities they support.

I really doubt most people care one way or the other anyway whether H ‘chooses’ to ‘bring’ his wife and children from the US to the UK for visits or not.

And how bloody sexist of him to assume he gets the final and manly say in any family travel plans anyhow. I hope he’s run that one past Meg.

I remember 10-15 years ago KC wanted to cut back on security, I think got rid of full time secuirty for Andrew, Edward and Anne. So, Harry is not alone.

100% this. I believe it is the right decision.

If I may précis @Profhilodisaster's excellent reply: it means he's a grabby, whiny, self-important twit whose belief that he's entitled to UK taxpayer-funded security services at all times is mistaken.

The Court was really, really kind to him! It sounded like they were giving disappointing news to a small child 😂

He’s not unpopular enough for people to actually attack him physically, LOL. They just laugh at him.

No, he doesn’t.

Essentially he gets the best security in the UK when he or his family visit. They need to give notice and he should think himself lucky!
What he wants is an ego boosting entourage of gun touting men following him and his gold digger around the world, so he can feel like a big important person, but what he actually is .... a t thicko, wingeing idiot with sod all to bring to the planet. Neither of them do anything, they know nothing and they're really just leeching bottom feeders spinning a life off of their titles ... we're all bored sick of these moaning, entitled lying, self righteous clowns 🤡 ...
they've both so desperate to 'be' something ... neither are anything, they're a waste of fresh air

Nailed it. 💯

Ha! They were... I didn't watch the judgement live but some of the Judge's words felt like they were saying 'You tried really really hard here and you should be pleased with all the effort you put in, sadly we can't do what you asked but do give yourself a treat with a tin eared interview with the BBC a big hot chocolate with marshmallows and everything

No he doesn't. The tax payer pays. He has to give 28 days notice so a threat assessment can be done and he is given the security deemed appropriate.

My understanding is that Harry (and his US family) will remain eligible for security if it is deemed necessary.

That's correct.

However, unless it's an official visit such as the Coronation, then he has to provide RAVEC with advance notice so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Sounds perfectly fair and reasonable.

And as he is so very unpopular in the UK, I would guess it would be considered necessary if he ever chooses to grace us with his presence. I don't really see that Charles, or anyone else, wants him to be mobbed or attacked - imagine the headlines if he were!

I agree that neither Charles nor anyone in high places would want Harry to come to any harm on their watch.

However, I disagree that Harry would be 'mobbed' by members of the public. He is disliked yes, but I don't think people have strong feelings about him like that. He's been over several times over the past few years, entirely without incident.

What makes him believe he’s such a target? Has he been threatened? Or is he just incredibly self-important?

The latter.