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

Because no one knew that he wasn't coming back to the UK or giving up royal duties.

As someone with a diplomatic role he was considered an IPP and so the UK and Canada, as a PP has said, collaborated over the level and more importantly cost of providing the level of security deemed necessary.

Canadians were not happy at the prospect of funding Harry's security needs indefinitely when he was no longer representing their monarch and had no other official diplomatic role.

The UK can't compel other countries to pay for armed security for their citizens unless it's part of the reciprocal arrangement that IPP designates.

I suspect that if they'd stepped down from royal duties but stayed in the UK they'd have benefited from the Windsor security for home and they'd have kept some royal protection officers for a while but then like Beatrice and Eugenie would have been downgraded at some point. Maybe upgraded again for Charles reign but then downgraded again for William's and as George becomes an adult.

As someone with a diplomatic role he was considered an IPP and so the UK and Canada, as a PP has said, collaborated over the level and more importantly cost of providing the level of security deemed necessary.

I think it's unlikely Harry was ever an IPP. That is only accorded to high level diplomats and I don't think occasional foreign tours on behalf of the Queen would count. Even in Britain itself, he was not guaranteed lifetime security.

I think it was more a courtesy from the Canadian govt to the son of their Head of State. But in any case, that was expected to be a short term arrangement. As I said above, I don't think there is any precedent for a British private citizen living abroad permanently and having security paid by the British taxpayer. It makes no sense.

I don't think the threat level changed so much as the person/people responsible for providing security changed.

H&M left the 'job' so became responsible for their own security. Canada was an interim measure while the details got worked out, so it made sense for security & funding to run on for a bit during this period.

H can have as much security as he wants (and pays for) in the UK, like any other high profile individuals. There are ex-police close protection officers now working for private companies - they just can't be armed. And if the authorities become aware of specific threats the police will work with the security staff, as happened with Taylor Swift last year - in Austria (where concerts were cancelled) and the UK.

What he can't have is currently working police close protection on demand, because he 'feels' he needs it.

Harry is in the position he is by his own hand, he was informed that the consequences of leaving would be a lack of taxpayer funded security, if he didn’t believe or listen thats his problem and if after all that he still decided that attaching a target to his back and that of his family by enraging the Taliban with boastful confessions in his book was a good idea .. well I’m sorry why should the U.K. whose people are suffering under a cost of living crisis pay for his mistakes?

Firstly, it was removed while he was living in Canada.

Secondly, Meghan, Harry & Archie’s threat level was second only to that of the Queen (QE2) according to Neil Basu.

@jeffgoldblum the book was released at the beginning of 2023, I think. With the taliban info in it. That was nearly a full 3 years after he ‘left’ the royal family.

Think again.

We don't provide protection to the children of presidents who are over the age of 16. No reason Why We have to pay for Harry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act#:~:text=All%20living%20former%20presidents%20and,receive%20lifetime%20Secret%20Service%20protection

While I have your attention I’d like to leave this here. A couple of weeks ago Carole Malone on GBNews was happy to report, with her full chest, that Meghan’s mother, Doria, had been in prison and did not bring her daughter up.

Carole Malone is now apologising for her errors and so is GBNews. Doria was never in prison AND she brought her daughter up.

https://x.com/Nicomac_666/status/2000723517352841517?s=20

This will take you to twitter. A couple of posts down from this you will find the clip of what she originally said. It’s nasty. I didn’t post it also - because it’s disgraceful.

The book was published 10 January 2023 - so I was correct, published nearly 3 years ago.

I don't care about Meghan's mother.

I don't think that Harry is so important that he can't give 28 days notice to the UK. He isn't a world leader or a famous doctor who is needed to cure a rare disease.

I never said he should be given international protection anywhere. I’ve not pretended to understand who needs it or not and who qualifies ir not. I posted this question about it, is all. 👇

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.

Unlike you, I do very much care about a tv station, with the viewership that GBNews has, broadcasting misinformation about a woman that has been nothing but dignified this whole time. She should not have had to live with the nasty lies, rife on the internet, of having been in prison and not bringing up her daughter. Actually, I have a problem with them broadcasting misinformation period.

As I posted above, the responsibility for security changed. He continues to have security, but needs to arrange and pay for it himself. Because he has chosen to be a private individual.

What 'changed' is his decision not to be a working royal. Fair enough, he didn't want to any more. So he lost the benefits that went with the role, including state provided security.

“With her full chest”? What does that even mean - Is this a bot post?

As I've posted before - the 28 days notice is per Employment Law. If an employees booked leave has to be cancelled (to cover security for an unnamed Prince for example) then 2 weeks notice has to be given. Usual 2 weeks annual leave = 28 days.

And let's not forget - Harry doesn't have to give 28 days notice - he only has to if he wants UK taxpayer funded security. He is still able to visit and use his own paid for private security at a minutes notice.

Firstly, it was removed while he was living in Canada.

Yes, when he was planning to live there long term and was no longer representing the Crown. Exactly as I said. He'lll have known about this in advance and still chose to live abroad and make himself a burden on Canadian taxpayers until they decided they weren't going to subsidise his lifestyle choices any more.

Secondly, Meghan, Harry & Archie’s threat level was second only to that of the Queen (QE2) according to Neil Basu.

I'm surprised this out of date interview hasn't made an appearance before now. Threat levels change all the time, as this person knows very well.

Also, as has been explained many times, 'threat level' is not the only thing taken into account by RAVEC. Even as a working royal, Harry was much less important than the Queen. As a wannabe Netflix producer, his importance declined much further.

Do you believe British taxpayers should be paying for Harry's security to make money from his titles in California? It sounds as if you do.

I've only ever seen this expression from American social media types. Which figures.

I suggest we ignore the blatant derail attempt.

Neil Basu made that claim when he launched his book. It brought a lot of publicity. It may be true, I have no knowledge either way. But the timing is a bit suspicious, and of course he knew that the Met wouldn't comment on his claim.

You recall correctly about him having to withdraw his case over the Mail having lied about his "offer to pay", Jeff. I'd say if you don't want to be caught out then don't lie, but he doesn't seem to be capable of that, and instead clearly resents his lies being revealed

BTW last night I saw your post about being injured, so here's hoping you're soon feeling a LOT better

Thanks @Puzzledandpissedoff, I’m fine, yes it’s quite irritating that these long debunked tales are being yet again retrofitted as a defence by new posters , we here have long since debated them ( and in my case forgotten half of it) , and dismissed them! 🙄

But haven’t tHarry and his wife also broadcast misinformation? I have t seen an apology from them?

Then start a thread about it, this has nothing to do with this particular thread at all.

Out of interest, how would a male broadcaster be described? Would he also have a full chest? 🤔

I think Harry conflates no-one wants to see him or his family come to harm , with him getting exactly the security he wants vs what he has been given, which he counts an "establishment plot" . No-one wants to see he and M and 2 small children come to harm but that does not equate to him getting exactly what he wants. I suspect there are very many more less hard of thinking ( understatement ) members of RAVEC , the Met etc , who are poised for when he decides he might like to come over here. The UK is not his taxpayer funded security playground and family visits will be as secure as anything can be.

I do wish he'd pipe down & perhaps realise how very incidental to the WRF he now is. I say that more in hope than expectation 😂 He's taken this through the courts. What more does he want. (Well , more obviously )

@IcedPurple whether they were IPP or not, they thought they were as their initial “see ya” statement made reference to being IPPs

re “her full chest” am sure there was a previous poster who used this phrase - it stood out at the time, perhaps they’ve returned under a NC

With her full chest ?