Should Prince Harry get state funded security ?

[CaraVirra]

Okay, why does he want State funded security. Let’s speaks with cited facts only… and not emotion.

Prince Harry has stated clearly and in writing that he will pay for the security out of pocket.

Sources:

-Reuters-

Reuters confirmed Harry’s offer and the government’s refusal:

“Prince Harry said he had offered to personally pay for police protection for himself and his family during visits to Britain, but the UK government rejected the offer.”

-BBC-

The BBC reported that Harry’s legal team argued the refusal was procedural, not security-based:

“The Duke of Sussex offered to fund the security himself, but this was rejected because police protection cannot be paid for privately.”

-The Guardian-

The Guardian adds context that this was raised during court proceedings, not after the fact:

“Prince Harry’s lawyers said he was willing to pay for protection but was blocked by policy, not assessed threat.”

Okay so if he’s willing to pay out of pocket why won’t his own security work?

Heres why:

When Prince Harry stepped back from royal duties, the UK government… via the Home Office… removed his automatic, state-funded police protection.

That decision was made by a committee called RAVEC (Royal and VIP Executive Committee), which assesses security risk.

Harry’s argument is:

“My role changed, but my threat level didn’t.”

And on that point, he’s not wrong.

Okay, so where’s what he’s actually asking for:

He has been very explicit that he is willing to pay for security.

What the UK government refuses to allow is:

Access to armed, intelligence-briefed Metropolitan Police protection
Even on a paid basis

So why does this matter?

Private security cannot legally carry firearms in the UK
Private guards do not receive intelligence briefings
They cannot coordinate with UK counterterror or local police in real time

So this is not about luxury, it’s about safety.

Okay now. Why does harry believe there’s still a risk?:

There are several concrete factors:

He is still one of the most globally recognized people alive
His mother, Princess Diana, was killed following paparazzi pursuit
He and Meghan have received documented threats, including extremist rhetoric
His military service (Afghanistan) placed him on known threat lists
His children are high-value symbolic targets, regardless of titles

None of this evaporated because he moved to California.

Okay now because you can’t have a argument without both sides of the story lets talk about why the UK government has refused:

The official stance is:

Police protection is tied to official royal duties
Allowing people to “buy” police services could set a precedent
Security decisions must remain under state control, not personal request

This is a policy argument… not a safety argument.

So why is Harry fighting this so publically?:

Harry believes removing protection discourages others from leaving. That signals “Step outside the institution, and you’re on your own.” And it indirectly pressures him to return or stay silent.

so those are the facts. How do you feel about it?

also, if there a fact I’ve stated that you wanted cited, politely asking will do just fine.

The actual question should be more clear…..” should U.K. taxpayers fund Harry’s 24/7 armed security in the us and other countries “ because this is actually what he wants.

A truncated version , but in the words of the Rolling Stones , I would say to Harry

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

I'd actually question whether he needs armed security , being not a part of the WRF'n'all , but if Ravec say with a good deal of notice he gets it , who am I to argue?

I think he needs to STFU on this matter. Polling seems to show he is deeply unpopular (in the UK ) , his wife more so (& I don't know how those polls are taken - frank admission) . But if he wants to come over and see his father ( who has a full diary, which is part and parcel of his "I'm the King's son" argument ) then I can't see what he has been accorded isn't appropriate. I wish H would stop looking for slights, "establishment stitch ups" his words , BBC , and perhaps find something constructive to do. He's a director of Africa Parks still (I think ) - sorting through the accusations - that would be almost a full time job for someone dedicated to charity I would have thought - ?

But I speak as one who has never been the son of a monarch , so what do I know 😂

Doesn't matter how many people say this. You'll just be told you're wrong by the same repetitive posters

Does something cease to be factually incorrect if you repeat it often enough?

It is an established fact that being the son or daughter of the monarch is not a sufficient condition for on tap taxpayer funded security. Living proof of this fact is readily available.

It is also an established fact that Harry, despite chosing to live abroad as a private citizen, will receive whatever security is deemed appropriate by the authorities on his visits to Britain. Again, this has been objectively shown to be true several times.

Repeatedly claiming otherwise, and ignoring actual facts, just makes you look a bit silly.

Why are people so desperate to deny reality in the service of the bruised ego of a dim exiled princeling?

Indeed @IcedPurple

If this stalker is really a member of the Sussex Squad, then Harry should reevaluate his interactions with them. I've seen pictures of him hugging them and posing for photos in Nigeria, Canada, London, and the US. Perhaps he should just keep a discreet distance and wave.

He chose to leave and he chooses to remain in the public eye.
If he had public funded security he would still want to do what he wants when he wants.
If he wants public funded security then he lives within the security that they provide and does it how they want it to be done.

It is once again harry wanting his cake and eating it.

What are your objections to a monarchy then, since it clearly isn’t the cost?

What risk? Where is the evidence that being the estranged son of the King of a country he doesn’t live in puts him at risk?

This

He’s a revolting privileged half-witted publicity hound who makes his living out of performative whinging. His whole existence is about seeking publicity & prostituting his life to the media - and boo hoo he’s discovered there’s a downside to that.

He should get nothing, nothing, nothing at all funded by working people in Britain either directly or indirectly (as would be the case if he ‘pays for’ security). The very suggestion is disgusting.

He didn’t say that to start with

But interestingly the person who turned up in court and for which Harry was removed for his “safety” was a fan of his

Duke of Sussex-v-ANL judgment

"The Claimant’s PR team issued a public statement on the Claimant’s behalf within minutes of news of the legal action breaking in a Mail on Sunday article, which spun the story to imply that the Claimant had brought proceedings to challenge the Home Office’s refusal of his offer to pay for police protection in the UK, when in fact no such offer to pay had been made to RAVEC before his visit in June 2021 or to the Home Office in correspondence prior to the commencement of the proceedings. This rebutted the Claimant’s initial public statement which implied that he had always been willing to pay."

Can those claiming that H offered to pay for security provide any evidence? As there is court documented evidence that H did NOT submit a written offer to pay for security even a year and a half after temper-tantruming off to find his freedom.

But this is precisely what you are doing. It’s quite clear that this is what you think should happen.

Honestly, I wish that RAVEC had turned around and said 'You want to pay? Great! Do we send the bill to the office of the Dook and Dookess? Dollars or GBP?'

Because can you imagine the eyewatering cost of the type of security Harry seems to think he deserves? Highly trained specialist officers on permanent standby just for him? We're talking millions a year, surely.

But of course, we know Harry never in fact offered to pay and in any case, any such 'offer' would be pointless because surely even someone as slow as Harry knows the police cannot be bought by wealthy expats.

Agree. It is simply a red herring used to confuse the issue, in particular for a US audience that does not grasp that IPP means that they, the US taxpayer, would pay for a foreign Prince whose ancestors the US fought for Independence.

IMHO, H should be stripped of all security except when he is invited to a state event. There is only one sad state event that will happen with less that 30 days' notice, but all other state events are scheduled well in advance.

There are far wealthier individuals than H who are based in the UK who the charities can court to replace H as Patrons, so it is a choice by the various charities to retain H as a Patron. So, these charities can feel free to use their own resources to give H private protection...there is no need for the hard-pressed UK taxpayer to be involved.

As for personal travel, again H needs to reach into his wallet and pay for private security, like all his celebrity peers. He can use the proceeds from the spread sales to pay for security. The over-burdened UK taxpayer does not need to be involved at all.

H wanted freedom. He should get it.

Palace pushback at last on the claim that Harry has "nailed on" security.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/questions-over-harrys-nailed-on-security-as-he-returns-to-uk-jgcv0vlzs

This is my First Ever Archive Link:

archive.ph/kmFlm

You did it perfectly @Rhaidimiddim! 👍

“On that basis, claims that a decision is already ‘nailed on’ seem more like an attempt to manipulate the media into manifesting an outcome from what will be a fair and rigorous review, but one that is very much still ongoing. Whoever is behind them must not realise how transparent and counter-productive to proper process that is.”

This part jumped out at me, as it's been my interpretation of recent events.

Also the comment from the Sussexes "we don't comment on security matters".

Insert don't make me laugh gif.

It's like they think we're dumb! What they should have said is "we won't comment officially, but we will leak to high heaven via sources close to us ie us".

What did this even mean?

@sleepwouldbenice You know what they say.

Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy. We all have them.

Facts, however, are not so subjective. You can agree or disagree, but they remain facts.

Why you are so desperate to squander public money and resources on the hissy fit of a prince turned twerking extra remains perplexing to me. He wouldn't cross the road for you.

Thank you @Rhaidimiddim - a perfect article to choose for your first archive link!

A source familiar with the process says: “I have no idea what the RMB recommendation to Ravec [the Royal and VIP executive committee] will be, but what I do know with certainty is that neither does anyone else, since they are still undertaking the review.
“On that basis, claims that a decision is already ‘nailed on’ seem more like an attempt to manipulate the media into manifesting an outcome from what will be a fair and rigorous review, but one that is very much still ongoing. Whoever is behind them must not realise how transparent and counter-productive to proper process that is.”

You're just remember enforcing your opinion, not changing mine. You really really just can't accept it