Duke of Sussex security to be reviewed

[bluegreygreen]

The Duke of Sussex lost his argument in the Court of Appeal in May for automatic taxpayer security: the current arrangement is that his security needs are assessed on a case-by-case basis provided he gives notice.

He has recently been in touch with the new Home Secretary, and the latest update is that RAVEC has asked its Risk Management Board (RMB) to reassess his threat level.

Telegraph archive link

All the RF would have had police escorts to the funeral .
To be honest , A and S are probably more in danger than H and M.

I have yet to understand why people think that Harry, with the 'bespoke' security arrangement that he has at present, deserves a better arrangement than his aunt and uncle who are working members of the Royal Family.

Becoz feelingz.

Because William has !!

As pps have said; is it about the extent to which they are working royals or the level of threat against them?

I think H and M are a bit more contentious character than Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent. Arguably they have more enemies than Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

Harry can’t change being the son of the king and the brother of the heir. If I was a terrorist wanting to kidnap someone to promote a cause or leverage funds, Harry or God forbid one of his children,would qualify as a potential candidate.

Personally I think it’s a very good thing that we discuss security costs in more detail and that the great British public are aware of these costs as it comes out of the public purse.

So did the failed Judicial Review that the HO was forced to defend because of Harry's hissy fit.

Do you know if he's repaid the legal costs yet?

Anne and Edward couldn’t help being the daughter and son of a Monarch .
And let’s remember that Anne was almost kidnapped.

Comment in reply to @ restlesslimbs54

That security bill for the Coronation and the LQ’s funeral would in large part also be to protect the general public.

As pps have said; is it about the extent to which they are working royals or the level of threat against them?

It's both.

Many 'ordinary' individuals have threats against them but do not receive any sort of security because, frankly, they are not considered important to national security. As the son of the King, Harry obviously isn't just anyone, but his relevance to the country has declined substantially now that he is no longer representing the Crown and has no honourary military roles.

In other words, the Captain General of the Royal Marines is going to be considered more relevant to the nation than the bloke who twerks in labour rooms.

This is reflected in his current security arrangements. You've yet to tel us quite what is wrong with these, other than that you consider Harry should not have the inconvenience of having to give reasonable notice. That inconvenience should be borne by the highly trained professionals you appear to think should be at his beck and call 8 time zones away. And of course by the taxpayer.

Harry can’t change being the son of the king and the brother of the heir. If I was a terrorist wanting to kidnap someone to promote a cause or leverage funds, Harry or God forbid one of his children,would qualify as a potential candidate.

You might want to pass your insights onto RAVEC. I'm sure they're unaware of any potential threats against Harry, their freuquent high level threat assessments notwithstanding.

Yes, I think giving 28 days notice, for reasons already stated ad infinitum down thread, is rather harsh. I think a week would be reasonable.

RAVEC based its decision on the evidence placed before it; and as I understand it, a not terribly up-to-date assessment of risk, which presumably why they are reviewing it now.

And it’s not an evasive response given that Harry remains, in literal fact, closely related to monarch and heir whether he has left the country or not, or whether he is working officially for them or not,

But with respect, we can’t reward people for being contentious. If Harry makes enemies, that’s on him. Same for his wife.

I have no doubt that if an imminent threat to Harry or any member of his family while visiting the UK were identified, Harry would receive the highest level of protection. What we can’t do is provide the reassurance of 24/7 protection so he can run his mouth off about the US president on American soil.

Yes, I think giving 28 days notice, for reasons already stated ad infinitum down thread, is rather harsh. I think a week would be reasonable.

You haven't given any real reasons though, other than that you believe Harry should be indulged at all times.

Is a week 'reasonable' for in demand specialst officers to be deployed? For them to make risk assessments regarding Harry's travel plans? It's not like they're sitting around playing Minecraft when Harry's not in the country.

You seem to think only Harry's 'needs' are relevant.

Do you think the 28 days period was just come up with on a whim?

RAVEC based its decision on the evidence placed before it; and as I understand it, a not terribly up-to-date assessment of risk, which presumably why they are reviewing it now.

Harry and his family's security needs are kept under continual review. Surely you know that?

And it’s not an evasive response given that Harry remains, in literal fact, closely related to monarch and heir whether he has left the country or not, or whether he is working officially for them or not

It's hard to disccuss this with you when you keep refusing to read what people are saying. Simply being related to the monarch does not guarantee a particular level of security. Why do people need to keep repeating this?

And the fact that he chose to live on another country and give up official duties is highly relevant.

You might elicit a slightly more elaborate and enthusiastic response to your posts IcedPurple if you laid off the sarcasm just once. It’s unnecessary. I have replied politely to you several times.

You've mostly ignored my points though, just as you are doing here.

I have no doubt that if an imminent threat to Harry or any member of his family while visiting the UK were identified, Harry would receive the highest level of protection.

Do people sincerenly believe that this is not the case?

Do people honestly think that the British authorities would be indifferent to harm coming to the son and grandchildren of the monarch, on their watch?

For example. the security cost for QE2´s funeral and the 10 days of national mourning was around £73.7 million, and was described by the Met as the greatest policing event in their history.
And this was closely followed by KC3’s Coronation, for which the security costs were £21.7 million.

Remembering, of course, that these are major state events, that they would take place in some form even if the head of state was not a monarch, and that the King wanted a more scaled down coronation than the government did.

Also, security for major public events in London can't be compared to close personal protection for an expat Prince.

They're completely different things. Apples and oranges.

I honestly don’t know.

I don’t understand why Harry needed (and had) the security when he was first in Canada (before officially giving up Royal family duties). But when he made the decision not to be a ‘working royal’, the security was withdrawn quickly. What changed? He had a high enough threat level to need security one day, but the next day that threat level had entirely disappeared? That doesn’t seem logical.

Do most people who plan to make a long journey not plan in advance? Surely 28 days is not unreasonable?
Clearly there are exceptions as H travelled over the day after his father announced he has cancer .

Yes, I think giving 28 days notice, for reasons already stated ad infinitum down thread, is rather harsh. I think a week would be reasonable.

@Restlesslimbs54 Would you like your annual leave from work to be cancelled at a week's notice?

We are talking about highly trained specialists here - there won't be too many, and if it's anything like my corner of the public sector, it's understaffed. People won't be sitting about waiting for things to happen - they'll be doing overtime to keep things going.

Suddenly landing a demand for an entire extra team (at least one team, possibly more depending on the current assessment, and the length of the visit) at a week's notice would mean cancelling leave.

Apart from anything else, that would be against employment law. It's different in emergencies (I work in NHS, and have experience of major incidents) but that's not what we're dealing with here.

It's very logical.

Firstly, he chose to relocate to another country. For obvious reasons, British police do not have jurisdiction in California. His Royal Protection Officers collaborated with the Canadian police for what was expected to be a brief stay there, at a time when Harry was still a representative of the Queen, who was of course also Head of State of Canada.

That's entirely different from choosing to live abroad permanently as a private citizen.

Secondly, security is provided not only on the basis of threat, but also on the impact a potential attack would have on national security. As explained above, wannabe public speaker Harry does not have the same status as the Captain General of the Royal Marines.

Thirdly, Harry was never guaranteed security. Also as explained above, he was a 'Tier Two' individual and his security arrangements were always likely to be downgraded at some point.

Plus the security of the following at the Queen’s funeral.

The Foreign Office is organising the arrival of as many as 500 heads of state and dignitaries for Queen Elizabeth’s funeral in what officials say is the equivalent of telescoping hundreds of state visits into the space of two days

Representatives from 168 countries, out of 193 UN member states, two UN observer states and Kosovo, confirmed attendance, including 18 monarchs, 55 presidents and 25 prime ministers.

Because he was no longer a working royal. It’s not just about the level of risk, or we’d be providing protection to all sorts.

And crucially, he had chosen to live abroad.

If they'd continued to live in Frogmore, even without being working royals, I'm sure they'd have continued to have security for some time at least.

But I doubt there is a single example of a private citizen living abroad permanently who has their security paid by the country they chose to leave. And worth pointing out that the Canadians and Americans were also unwilling to fund their security long term.

The decision to change security would not have been a snap decision. To the public it appears it was quick but there will have been discussions behind the scenes.