Royal Security

[Lumutqueen]

I agree to some extent but how many other equestrians have the profile Zara does?

I think you'd have to ask someone who followers equestrian sport throughout the year. During the Olympics Zara's name was hardly mentioned compared to other competitors.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think you'd have to ask someone who followers equestrian sport throughout the year. During the Olympics Zara's name was hardly mentioned compared to other competitors.

The coverag I saw and read mentioned Zara all the time when it mentioned the three-day event and hardly any other competitors were mentioned (except the Aussies here until it was obvious that they were out of contention and then it was all Zara, Zara, Zara). The DM's coverage was all about Zara and the other members of the GB team were mentioned as afterthoughts almost - even her jumping round was virtually blamed for GB's silver rather than gold medal (wrong of course but that was the media).

 

[VictoriaB]

The coverag I saw and read mentioned Zara all the time when it mentioned the three-day event and hardly any other competitors were mentioned (except the Aussies here until it was obvious that they were out of contention and then it was all Zara, Zara, Zara). The DM's coverage was all about Zara and the other members of the GB team were mentioned as afterthoughts almost - even her jumping round was virtually blamed for GB's silver rather than gold medal (wrong of course but that was the media).

That was my perception too.

 

[NGalitzine]

The sports pages tended not to focus any more on Zara than on the other riders during the Olympics. The social/gossip media did put more focus on Zara and the whole "Queens granddaughter" bit than they did on actual sporting results.
In non-Olympic years Zara doesn't really get much attention on her day to day life unless she attends a celebrity charity event or a big royal family event. Living in Gloucestershire she can live a pretty normal life without having the paps pop up from behind the hedge.

 

[democratnmonocole]

security

I've always been rather perplexed at why SO14 officers are described as "elite" and "crack". An officer in 2000 fired his gun aboard the Royal Train while the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were onboard. In 2009, court testimony revealed that police officers in the Buckingham Palace police station gambled, had sex parties, and handled load duty-issued guns whilst drunk. On September 16, 2010, Chief Superintendent Boyes, the Queen's personal police officer, her last line of defense, seen standing behind her att the 2011 Royal Maundy Service and guarding her during the Royal Wedding and at the train station going to Sandringham last year, who was trained by the Special Air Services, accidentally fired his weapon while cleaning it, at the Palace of Holyroodhouse the day before Pope Benedict arrived for a state visit. Now on October 24th, an SAS-trained officer guarding William and Catherine's home fired off a round accidentally. These are the elite officers guarding the Royal Family? In the States, the Secret Service has been caught up in a scandal over consensual sex with prostituites while on a foreign trip, true. But none of these agents were on duty at the time. It's a miracle one of the Queen's bodyguards hasn't accidentally shot someone, like Her Majesty. Who trains these people exactly? How are they trained? And how is it that the British taxpayer has to pay a quarter million quid each for these "elite" police officers who are so trigger-happy they risk shooting themselves in the foot because they don't know how to properly handle loaded guns? Of course less we forget, the "scandals" because the Duchess of Cambridge bared her breasts at a private estate and Prince Harry allowed American girls to con him into playing strip billards with them. If a photographer with a long lens could take a photo of the Duchess nude from a public road, isn't it clear that a trained marksman with a high-powered gun could get to that vantage point as well? Prince Harry could've been spared embarrassment by having the girls' cell phones confiscated, which seems a no-brainer to me in this modern age. Now I don't think anything bad will necessarily happen to one of the royals because their security details aren't up to the job, but why tempt fate? Perhaps the Army's paratroopers or the SAS themselves should take over security. It doesn't seem that the Met's up to the job anymore.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't see how there is anyway you can blame their stupidity on lack of security. A security officer is hardly going to tell Catherine to put her top on or Henry to stop having fun. Both mistakes IMO lay clear at their door. If security is told to back off, they will. If William and Catherine pick a holiday spot they like, despite it's location who's going to argue. You can take one look at Henry and see that he was not spurned on into to stripping for those cameras. Both parties caused their own embarrassment IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The list of miscues you have made shows how rare it is for there to be a problem with the security people themselves.

Their job is to protect the royals from physical harm - not to protect them from their own stupidity - and both Harry and Kate's nude photos were due to their stupidity not a failure of security to protect them from physical harm.

These officers will put their lives on the line for the royals if necessary - as was seen with the officer injured in Princess Anne's kidnap attempt and the way Charles' security officer pushed Charles out of the way of an 'attacker' in Sydney (he perceived a threat and acted accordingly).

With regard to the long range lens - we don't know if the security advised them not to use that balcony at all due to the risk - but that applies to everywhere they go - someone with a long range gun can take out any royal almost any time they like when they are in the open. They can't protect them against everything.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Kate Middleton and Prince William "upset" after chief bodyguard quits job for Broadmoor post - Mirror Online

 

[Lumutqueen]

Life must be bad if he's choosing broadmoor over protecting William and Catherine. I'd choose royal protection any day!

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Maybe there is more to it than just money, although times are indeed very tough for many.

 

[Roslyn]

Maybe he's just fed up with having to pander to the whims of and the bulls*$% that goes along with working with the royals. Maybe he's reached the stage where the extra money just isn't enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Kate Middleton and Prince William "upset" after chief bodyguard quits job for Broadmoor post - Mirror Online

That job sounds like handsome pay and regular working hours, with regular off time for his family.

What is so astounding, that s.o. who has worked shifts and very unregular work-hours should prefer after 30 years of service to have a nicely ordered live and good money?

Working for the royals is not good on the money side of things, as it is considered a privilege and very good reverence for future jobs. So this is exactly what he is now doing.

Nothing unusual or disrespectful, if you ask me (what no one did of course )

 

[Baroness of Books]

^^^Exactly, the upside to working for the royal family is the prestige and good references for future positions, but the downside is that it's a demanding job and the quality of his life may not fare so well. He's put his time in and now he's off to greener pastures!

 

[Dman]

I highly doubt the royal couple is upset about his leave.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I doubt it, too; no one is indispensable or irreplaceable. He might not have been upset to leave, either.

 

[CanRoyal]

^^^Exactly, the upside to working for the royal family is the prestige and good references for future positions, but the downside is that it's a demanding job and the quality of his life may not fare so well. He's put his time in and now he's off to greener pastures!

So true. With that much time in, he might want a more predictable job, little or no travelling, and a bigger paycheque (royals are not known for paying well).

 

[suztav]

He could just have some very personal reasons for changing jobs -- more time with his family, financial, perhaps someone in his family needs his time more than William and Catherine. However, I don't think we have seen the last of the "sorting out" of the staff. And, that includes their Foundation. Lots of people are all perky when they first start out and then they figure out that the truth is you're just there to carry their lunch not be a star in your own right.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I wonder if this exit has anything to do with the hospital issue and the naked photos? It is likely to be a combination of things I guess. Money, time, family, stress and it was probably an opportunity at the right time.

In any case he was at it for a long time and a change can be as good as a holiday!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course the bodyguards aren't actually employed by the royals as they are police officers and so are paid at the same rate as any other police officer of their rank and working hours.

 

[TLLK]

It is possible for career advancement that the royal protection officers transfer to other divisions to gain more experience.

This officer had been with Scotland Yard for more than 30 years so he might prefer the opportunity to have a different role as he moves toward retirement.

 

[EIIR]

The role of PPO to the royals is pretty bloody sweet. When Eugenie was on her gap year, like 99% of backpackers she stayed in youth hostels and travelled economy. Her two bodyguards, however, were put up in 4-star hotels and travelled business class as their contracts stipulated, while also getting at least £200 per day 'spending money' above and beyond their normal pay.

If one has small children at home, I can see how the travelling would probably not be ideal, but it's a job that's certainly got very generous terms and conditions.

 

[Dman]

Queen's protection reviewed after police worker sold information to newspapers:
Queen's protection reviewed after police worker sold information to newspapers - Telegraph

 

[democratnmonocole]

Hmm...

I agree that some of the protection for the family should be taken away...

With all possible respect, I have to ask how you are such an expert on how much security, members of the Royal Family ought to have. Do you work with the Security Services? I have several close relatives in police protection (in the US) who have provided security for a sitting President and two Vice Presidents. Cutting six protection officers in half gives us three. Presuming three protection officers are for Edward, Sophie and the children around-the-clock, that means one protection officer for each eight hour shift. Unfortunately one bodyguard, even if they are highly trained, would never be a match for multiple attackers. The last armed attack on the royals (40 years ago last week), resulted in the one policeman being seriously wounded, with several other unarmed officers and bystanders also being seriously injured. That kidnapping attempt (on the Princess Royal), led to drastic changes in royal security, which is what we are discussing. The Princess Royal admitted herself if there had been more than one attacker, she probably would have gone with them. Imagine Al Qaeda or another terrorist group with automatic weapons opening fire. Two or three bodyguards with semiautomatic handguns, even well-trained, would be no match. Sorry.
.

 

[scooter]

Fortunately for thse that live in the UK, there are extremely strict gun laws. There are automatic or semi automatics weapons in the country.

 

[democratnmonocole]

I know

I am well aware of the strict gun laws in the UK and that the vast majority of police officers are unarmed and that only those in Specialist divisions like Royalty and Diplomatic Protection, Special Branch, the Nuclear Constabulary, Airport duties and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are armed as a matter of course. The rest of the forces have Authorised Firearms units in the event an armed response is required. Unfortunately terrorists by their very nature, are unconcerned with the rule of law. I am certain that they (unfortunately) can get their hands on automatic weapons and other devices of mayhem if they wish to. That is why places like the Houses of Westminster, Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and Heathrow are patrolled by armed officers 24 hours a day and people like the Prime Minister, the Queen and other senior royals and members of the Cabinet have the benefit of 24-hour armed protection units. They are prime terrorist targets.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They are prime terrorist targets.

Yes, as is everyone on the planet. I do not mean to rattle cages but those who died during 9/11 became prime terrorist targets by accident when they all got on those four planes. That made a statement. A local mosque is a prime terrorist target, the local catholic school is a prime terrorist target, a united kingdom serving soldier walking back to his barracks is a prime terrorist target. They would all make headlines, and they would all make a profound statement to whoever was ordering or carrying out the attack.

I'm not by any means saying that the protection of heads of state is not important, however in every day light it should be rationalised and should be used for whom it is needed most desperately and for what can be afforded. We are all prime terrorist targets but we all cannot afford the constant protection that a royal family or president gets.

Protection should be used when and if it is needed IMO. The entire royal family does not need 24/7 armed guarded police watched protection.

 

[RoyalDaisy]

...Protection should be used when and if it is needed IMO. The entire royal family does not need 24/7 armed guarded police watched protection.

This subject comes up in the press on a regular basis and the response from the Security Services is that it is constantly reviewed. And with budgetary constraints I think that is true.

Not all the royals have 24/7 protection - but they do have security when on public engagements. It is obviously intrusive and I think that if the royals could cut it back they probably would. However, the police got caught out 40 years ago with 3 people being shot. THey dont want to get caught again

I think that the least said by the Security Services the better, even tho the press and republicans hate that otherwise the arrangements would be leaked.

I accept that security reviews take place and that the level of security is appropriate to the level of threat.
.

 

[Molly2101]

With all possible respect, I have to ask how you are such an expert on how much security, members of the Royal Family ought to have...

I am not an expert but the security of the BRF is a topic that is covered in the press a lot. It's hard not to know a lot about the security of the family.

I think the RF do need protection, but I don't think all of them need it 24/7, which they don't all have now due to cutbacks. I know Anne, Andrew and Edward have one with them all the time, whether they are on duty or out with their family, but Sophie and Tim do not have one. Sophie only has one when she is doing engagements but not when she is doing the school run. I think that's fair enough as she doesn't need one then. I did read an article about her security and her friends used to find it annoying that he would accompany her all the time, as they would have to pay for an extra ticket at the theatre or an extra table at dinner.

Sophie upset as bodyguard axed

"One positive outcome of the removal of Sophie’s policeman is it may be cheaper for her friends.

Explains one: “If you invite her to join you at a restaurant you’re also expected to pay for the bodyguard who sits at the next table. If you take her to the theatre you have to fork out for another ticket for him because he has to be next to her. And Sophie isn’t very good at offering to pay you back.”

What I am saying is I totally agree that not all of them need constant protection. Sophie may have lost hers 24/7 but she gets one by default as her husband has one.
.

 

[AdmirerUS]

... I know Anne, Andrew and Edward have one with them all the time...

Why would you want to spread this info? Why could you not keep this to yourself?
.

 

[TLLK]

...What I am saying is I totally agree that not all of them need constant protection...

There are likely layers of protection for the families through electronic surveillance as well. Also don't those who live at the Kensington Palace complex need to pass through a guard station to get to their homes?