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

Has Harry ( or his supporters) ever said WHY he is unsafe in the U.K. ? I know there was alleged unpleasantness towards him and Meghan years ago but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then .
If highly knowledgeable professionals deem his present arrangements to be adequate and fair why doesn’t he ? ( other than it’s not what William has).

I’ve only read it on these threads. It sounds made up, as though AI generated. It may well have originated that way even if the poster who uses it is genuine.

Edited as have now noted the alleged origins of the phrase as described by Google AI.

And given that 3 of the Sussex family members are American citizens and California is their 'forever home', why aren't they petitioning the American authorities for official protection? Since they are so incredibly important and under threat? Someone will probably say that their American 'security team' is armed but that's not at all the same thing as official security. His guards have no rights or privileges above those of other private citizens, and certainly no access to the sort of intelligence Harry seems to think so essential.

Well I agree with @IcedPurple and others. Harry has made his home in the US and by all his and M's accounts they are very happy. He is not a member of the WRF and so ( as has been said so so many times before ) his security arrangements seem to be appropriate , indeed a little indulgent - dare I say. None of us know what those are when he visits and rightly so. I suspect H doesn't know. But I wish he would stop banging on about his position he was born into. In the position he was born into he would be expected to support his brother ( even Eton must have taught H the word primogeniture even if he was reportedly uninterested in history. ) He decided to emigrate and earn lots of money instead. Bed , lay , & other words - rearrange H .

& No , a million times no, I do not wish him or his family harm.
Well that is my little rant du jour 😂

PS I'd also love to see whether he has paid for the previous RAVEC trial but no idea whether for him or any other private citizen ( ie court costs - not RAVEC specifically ) payment of costs are released.

I did wonder if, as the Home Office is a government body, an FOI request to them about the costs would be possible.

PS I'd also love to see whether he has paid for the previous RAVEC trial but no idea whether for him or any other private citizen ( ie court costs - not RAVEC specifically ) payment of costs are released.

I'm surprised we've not heard about this too.

I'm far from an expert, but don't judges usually publish a judgement about costs shortly after the verdict is released? We do know that the HO specifically said they intended to pursue Harry for all legal costs so it's hard to see how even he could wiggle out of this.

Completely bonkers of Harry not to have realised that there is no precedent for providing Met protection to people who live permanently overseas.

It would be an absolute nightmare to do so with significant impacts on close protection resources and with a significant changeover every couple of weeks at the very least as pretty much all of the Met officers will have families in the UK that they’d quite like to see! To say nothing of the cost and the potential implications of having Met officers in the US with no police powers and only allowed to do what private citizens can do. Completely mad if he didn’t see those issues in advance and even more silly not to properly sort them before he actually left!

Plus ludicrous to suggest that the UK is more dangerous than the US when any idiot there can buy automatic weapons. Thankfully we generally don’t have to worry about school children being shot dead in this country - how do they square that risk their kids will face daily, with their perception of the risk in the UK?

This is the crux of the matter.

H&M and their super supporters present narratives that are often divorced from fact. By contrast, RAVEC and the security apparatus gather intelligence and allocate resources based on fact and not H's feelings.

H will never be satisfied until he has what William has. But H will never have what William has because H is the second child of the monarch. H cannot lean on the overextended UK taxpayer for emotional support security to validate his ego in his ridiculous one-sided competition with William.

I can see the arguments now! ….but ….but Diana’s son ! …..but …but ..walking behind her coffin as a child…..🙄

I think it was a light hearted comment, apologies @Lifestooshort71if I’m wrong. That’s the phrase I’m familiar with too.

”With her full chest” sounds very breasty!

I'm familiar with the phrase "saying something whole heartedly". "With a full chest" sounds like a weird AI translation of the phrase.

Or very phlegmy 🤪

I don’t think Harry has realised that he is simply not that important in terms of the Monarchy. He is currently 5th in the LOS .
When has was born David Linley ( Princess Margaret’s son) was 5th in the LOS . He is now 26th and whizzes around London completely unbothered .
The Duke of Gloucester was 5th in the LOS when born and is now 32nd . Still a WR but I doubt many people would recognise him in a crowd.
This is Harry’s future and he really has to start understanding that .

Slight difference though and I can’t believe I’m saying something in Harry’s defence; but David Linley was the nephew of the monarch, and Duke of Gloucester the cousin, so not quite the same as son and brother of monarch.

True however the point remains that he will slip down the LOS. Edward was also the son of the Monarch and is now the brother of one yet does not receive 24/7 security.

Well, strictly speaking Harry is at present 5th in line and at highest was 3rd, so was never as high as either Margaret, Anne or Andrew.

Neither Anne nor Edward as working members of the Royal Family have the level of security that Harry seems to feel he warrants.

Edit: Crossposted!

H&M and their super supporters present narratives that are often divorced from fact. By contrast, RAVEC and the security apparatus gather intelligence and allocate resources based on fact and not H's feelings

That just about sums the whole thing up, @My2cents1975, but unfortunately for him it doesn't result in what Harry wants - and when, having been raised with everything paid for but without the intelligence to understand it doesn't work like that in the real world, this is what we get

As for "whether he's paid the court costs", I'd like to know too, but I very much doubt this would be forthcoming with a FoI request. More likely some excuse would be found to keep it "private", as so many other things are with the RF

All he needs to do is move to a state that allows him to get a concealed carry license and he can pack his own firearm. The whole family can learn to shoot together. He can even take the kids hunting. He can take ownership of his own security.

I don't know about the UK but I have regular active shooter trainings at my job and kids have drills in school. It's a normal part of life in the US for regular citizens.

Yes, because America needs more guns. Especially in the hands of children.

(sarcasm- I shouldn’t have to note that, but some people are very literal)

I think Bemused was being sarcastic as well...

Harry's bodyguards have been photographed in the US carrying Glocks in Glock bags. Unless I've been interpreting it incorrectly, he wants government security in the UK because they can carry guns in the UK and his rentals cannot.

If he really feels so unsafe without someone around him carrying a gun, then he should carry his own.

Gun violence is a very real problem in the US. The people most at risk are generally unable to afford armed private security.

He can’t carry a gun in the UK though

No but if he lives in a state with easier guns laws, he can do so in the US. No need for state funded security in the US.

I just took as quick look at the California laws. If he qualifies for a gun license, he can buy a new gun every 30 days.

Typos.