Is Harry and his family coming to the UK or not

[Viviennemary]

Nobody seems to know for sure. Why should we care. Maybe he doesn't even know himself yet. He can't seem to do anything without attracting lots of press articles.

I agree, I too hope they come, it will be days of entertainment, hopefully Harry will give another whiny TV interview, I’m a bit fed up of him doing it in print, we haven’t had Harry’s sad face on our TV screens for a week or two now.

😂😂

He wants IPP status, no one will give him it so he is using the children. No matter what he is told he thinks that KC can sort it for him so he is using the press to force his hand.

Harry has wound himself up. The idea that Harry is al quedas priority during a war in the Middle East is ludicrous.

Now I’m guessing he wants Invictus to demand protection from the government and he can hand over his document to them.

Invictus need to distance themselves otherwise all their budget will be spend on Harry’s security.

https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-says-taylor-swifts-london-police-escort-was-needed-to-make-sure-she-was-safe-13231310
Ok was just repeating shit ive heard on here about william. But ms swift did get a police escort, so why not harry? Has his security risk lowered since leaving the royals?
I agree he has wound himself up re all of this and big stars to come to the uk with their own security staff all the time.
But on harrys part the need for security is by accident at birth, im not denying that he has exploited this connection for financial gain. But lets face it he would never have come into the public eye on merit alone.

This is why Taylor Swift had security.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrp7y05l9do

The Telegraph has picked the terror threat report up too: ^ https://archive.ph/sHpt0^

If I were running communications for Invictus, I would be pressing for a virtual appearance only for Harry next week, both to reduce the risk to veterans and Invictus staff there is a reference to a 'mass casualty terrorist incident at an Invictus event', and in acknowledgement of the risk posed by Harry's increasing instability. His UK family need to consider intervening to save him from himself and stop him making the monarchy look like a farce (which some argue it is already).

The Home Office must be beside itself that Harry has leaked the report it commissioned, via Harry, from his private security firm.

Taylor Swift got a security escort ONCE, when there was a clear and immediate risk.

If she were to visit London tomorrow, it's unlikely she'd be accorded police protection. She's not given a police escort just because she's Taylor Swift.

Similarly, if there were a major credible threat to Harry, he'd be afforded a full armed police escort, as he knows very well. But he won't have specialist protection officers hanging around just waiting for him to pop over. That isn't how it works. Like Taylor Swift and pretty much everyone else, he's not automatically afforded high level protection just for existing, but rather on the basis of sophisticated security assessments.

What really is the problem here? Because I'm just not seeing one.

Harry does have private security. He wants armed security and in the UK the police who you can’t pay for privately.

Harry wants road closing armed security snipers on roof security, not Kim kardasian ex security with a glock in a lunchbox security

His UK family need to consider intervening to save him from himself and stop him making the monarchy look like a farce (which some argue it is already).

This is mad.

His UK family should intervene?

What - like rendition him or something? Take him, against his will presumably, from California, and do what?

Put him in an institution somewhere? A physc hold? Electric shock him? Medicate him?

What about his wife - will she get to see him during this intervention? His children? What would happen to his commitments? His finances - would they lock those down?

And they say there is no threat to him...

Taylor Swift got enhanced security because children had been murdered at a TS themed event and riots ensued. Her Vienna concerts were cancelled just the week before due to the discovery of a huge terrorist attack being planned.

The enhanced security wasn't just for her - it was for the public attending her concerts.

This is public knowledge.

Can we get some better standards from the whatthreewords please?

I think some things are clear. The BBC reported they were coming and then 24 hours later they withdrew the report. They then reported that the King had offered them Royal accommodation.

We can surmise that if they flew into London and stayed at Windsor/Buckingham Palace, met their family there and flew out, they would 100% have security.

If Meghan wants to have lunch with her pals, then they don't get state funded security, but they will have their own protection officers, the security they pay for.

Taylor Swift was given security for one day in light of a terrorist threat to her previous concert. If she comes tomorrow and wants to have lunch with Meghan neither will get blue lights.

So essentially Harry wants the kind of security that sees roads closed off, blue lights for ALL his engagements. That is unreasonable since he's here as a private citizen. And as are his children. If he is here to meet his family there are several very very secure Royal estates where he could have family reunions and his family could have a lovely time.

He wants International VIP status. That he's never going to get, so he's throwing his toys out of the pram still. He's been throwing a tantrum for 4? 5? years now and it shows no sign of abating.

@marmaladeorJam What a hysterical, aggressive response to my measured suggestion. If a close relative of mine was behaving like Harry - unpredictable, angry, vascillating, all in public, responsible for small children, and married to a person driven by money and the desire for fame, I would be concerned. In this case, distance themselves though they might, Harry is a member if the Royal family. Heavens above, the word 'intervention' doesn't mean section and incarceration. It means, for example, quiet time spent with his father in a far corner of the Balmorel estate.

Diana was left alone to manage herself and displayed poor judgement in putting herself in the hands of the Fayeds. While I don't hold the Royal family responsible for her death, they were at fault for letting her loose. Similarly Harry, who is clearly not coping and is the weaker partner by far in his marriage.

Typo

Taylor Swift was bringing MILLIONS of £s revenue into the UK with her concerts, a terrorist attack had been made in the UK at a Taylor Swift themed event and there had been concerts cancelled because of credible intelligence that something was planned in Europe days beforehand.

Not because she wanted a cavalcade of flashing lights like Harry does. FFS.

@IdaGlossopI think it’s too late for his family to intervene. He is so completely delusional he’s not going to believe anything they say. They must be all so worried about him, but can’t even contact him as it will be all over the media the next day.

I’m actually beginning to feel a little sorry for him.

Legally it’s very difficult to get mental help assistance for someone against their will

Meghan is his next of kin, who lives with him, who knows what is temper tantrum and what is paranoid delusion

She is the person to act.

The thing is, risk assessments aren’t static. They are dynamic, normally going through the following steps:

• Identifying potential risks
• Assessing the potential impact of the risk
• Assessing the likelihood of the risk occurring
• Some kind of scoring based on the impact and likelihood to assess how severe each risk is
• Determining mitigants fo the most severe risks
• Continuous review

I don’t know what methodology RAVEC use obviously, but would be very surprised if it doesn’t look similar to the above, as this is standard practice.

Of course some kind of mass event is possible, but just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is also likely. A risk would have to be both impactful and likely to warrant mitigations like 24/7 armed police protection. Just because there were threats in the past doesn’t mean those same threats exist now (or else Anne would still have 24/7 protection given the armed kidnap attempt on her when she was younger).

Up to date security information from government agencies will be available to allow RAVEC to assess the likelihood of the risks they have identified in relation to Harry and his family. That is more important than what has happened in the past.

Diana was left alone to manage herself and displayed poor judgement in putting herself in the hands of the Fayeds. While I don't hold the Royal family responsible for her death, they were at fault for letting her loose

The royal family actually didn’t let her loose. Unfortunately for Diana, she refused her security protection from the Met as she had convinced herself they were spying on her. There were various memos from people at the Palace and government at the time she made that decision expressing concern that it was not wise of her.

My suggestion does not involve getting mental health assistance...

So is the security risk higher or lower for harry than when he was in the RF?

I know Diana refused security protection. 'Letting her loose' is unfair to the Royal family, I agree. Thank-you for telling me about the memos, which I hadn't heard about before. As a PP has pointed out, any meeting with Harry would be leaked. It must be quite nerve racking for them to watch from the sidelines, waiting for the next assault from a man who is so angry and not bright.

A motorcade and helicopter would do nothing to protect Harry at an Invictus event. What's needed are strengthened on-site security measures.