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.

Not to mention one whose demands and expenses obscene.
Unfortunately I think Invinctus’ image has been irreversibly tainted by the grifters.

You know, what with this reminder from @Serenster, and the recent(ish) evidence from the ANL case that he had a close relationship with royal editor Charlotte ‘G String’ Griffiths, and now the revelations about the Sussex PR machine having a direct link between H and multiple journalists from many media organisations, and given his previous protestations in court to the contrary, there’s quite a picture building up of H as potentially some sort of consummate liar and perjurer.

The two of them are liars . We all know that by now. Also utterly self serving.

I would say lower. He no longer represents the Crown. The Taliban and Al Queda have far more pressing issues and targets during a war in the Middle East. Not saying he's no risk, but his risk is clearly lower. He's at the same risk as the Kardashian's or any other celeb now.

Probably less than the Kardashians, they have a huge following.

Genuinely Cathy, are you ok???

But, FFS, children had been murdered at a TS themed dance event and riots ensued.

Her Vienna concerts had been cancelled last minute as a huge terrorist plot had just been uncovered. The one off increased protection was to protect the public at the events. Manchester was all very much a recent horror.

You know this. This was all discussed at the time.

Are you ok?

It's just awful, isn't it?

Same behaviour as his wife then. She famously lied under oath in court and had to apologise - and we know she lies day in day out anyway. Lying and deceit seems and acceptable personal value for these two.

I'm not criticising any extra security measures to protect the wider public once the decision was made to go ahead with the concerts.

I'm questioning the circumstances surrounding the provision of enhanced security usually reserved for royals, visiting heads of state and senior to a celebrity which stirred up controversy at the time.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/14/taylor-swift-police-escort-claims-how-much-of-a-problem-is-this-for-labour

FTR I think it was ill-advised not to cancel the concert given the tensions then prevalent but it appears money was the over-riding factor.

And can the now multiple 'are you OK' comments stop now?

I've never been fond of personal insinuations or remarks towards posters. I try not to make them myself (provocation excluded) and I'd hope that courtesy might be extended in return.

Taylor Swift’s London security certainly was controversial, you are right, but the Met insisted that they had not been pressured by either the government or the Mayor of London in deciding to grant her security. Their statement at the time:

“The Met is operationally independent. Our decision making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”

They have protected celebrities before though. The Met’s Operation Malachite ran for a decade and protected Salman Rushdie 24/7 after the fatwa was declared against him in the 1990s. And more recently Holly Willoughby was given protection after the plot to kidnap, rape and murder her was uncovered.

No-one but you has suggested that William had anything to do with the decision to grant Taylor security.

Latest if that Meghan and the children aren't coming to London but may join Harry in the far safe reaches of Birmingham (their gloss not mine).

Apparently they weren't given "safe passage" in and out of Buckingham Palace.

Whatever that means.

It means he's a medieval knight who is traveling on a pilgrimage, but needs safe passage across Mercia.
Or he's a pretentious over dramatic idiot who can't bear 5 minutes out of the headlines

Something has been puzzling me since the Chris Shop story about the leaked report into threats facing Harry. How would a private security company know as they don't have access to intelligence? Here's an explanation from juliasugarbake on X. Private companies analyse online sources (mainly social media) which mention threats, and extrapolate view and interaction data to create a narrative about risk. It's a well-known technique, apparently.

The trouble is that many accounts are created by bots and powered by bot farms. So a single Sussex Squad post about a threat could be posted as mere speculation, based on what Harry has said (eg 'I can't see a time when it will be safe to bring my family to the UK at this point') and suddenly have millions of views and shares.

This all sounds plausible at least.

In summary, these 'threats' are not grounded in reliable source information. They may all be totally fabricated. Does Harry understand this? Perhaps not. A brighter person than him would question the methodology to be used before forking out for a report. There's also the option that he doesn't care about any of it as long as the report makes the case for him to be granted IiP status.

Interesting. One of Chris Ship's claims was about the Taliban. Those men in the UK linked to that have already been released from prison. In other words, it's such an old threat, men have served time and been judged to have been deradicalised and are out under supervision.

I found it interesting too. It seems to be the case that the significance of real threats is distorted and other threats are entirely fictional. There have only been five attempts on the lives of Royals since the 1970s, including the one on Princess Anne on The Mall.

It is the total contradiction of Harry's current position

One of his complaints is that without RPO security he doesn't get up to date intelligence about possible security threats ....

Yet on the other - Harry has paid 3 analysts based in LA to compile a security analysis without any access to UK intelligence .....

Yest the shots fired at the Queen in the Mall and the shots fired at Charles in Australia

And the man who broke into Buckingham Palace and had a chat with QEII, who was in bed.

You are expecting too much of this Eton-educated prince, @Lunde. Critical thinking is not his forte.

There's also the option that he doesn't care about any of it as long as the report makes the case for him to be granted IiP status.

That's not how it works.

Harry is not a serving diplomat. He cannot 'be granted' IPP status. You either qualify or you don't. Harry doesn't.

I know that Harry doesn't qualify for IiP status but it's what he may be trying to secure - because he's a king's son and the rules don't apply to him.

It's also all about the money, because if he had IPP status, he'd get high level protection for free.

Which presumably is one of his motivations. Why pay for security if you can get it for free? (Except he can't and won't.)

Yep. Greedy and self serving.

They do though.

Unless Harry joins the diplomatic service and becomes a high ranking diplomat posted abroad (as if!) there is no pathway to IPP status for him. It doesn't matter if the whole world is out to get him. He's just not that important. He never held IPP status and never will.

I agree he may be too dim to understand this.