Muriel said:
Is it fact that Harry was given special leave, or is it mere speculation? And even if he were given special leave, thats a matter between him and his superiors.
I think you will find that special leave was granted, but as I unable to prove it, we will have to leave the articles by the various media organisations as checked by them. One might get it wrong, but not I think all. With regard to being 'up to his superior officers', it depends how much they want to keep their jobs and whether they are soldier soldiers or political soldiers.
As regards the cost of security as I previously said, if it has been decided that the boys need security, then that is it. You can't use that as a stick to restrict their movements. Asking the "court of the Daily Mail" for approval for what might be a suitable charity event for members of the royal family to attend is asinine in my opinion!
Nobody has left it up to the Mail, as far as I know, unless you have something to say that all the negative comments in all the papers and all the negative comments on this and other forums, are by members of the Mail. That would equate to a suggestion from me, that anyone defending these two children (I use the word knowingly) works for their PR department!
They can travel wherever they want in their pursuit of the wow factor, just ensure they pay ALL the extra costs of their security detail and ensure they actually raise some money.
I was in london for the weekend a few weeks ago and went to Primrose Hill with some family. By the swings was none other than David Miliband, playing with his 2 sons, followed discretely by 2 security guards. Extending your argument further, surely the foreign secretary has no business to take his children to the playground on a Sunday morning!
But you are
not extending my argument at all are you, you just seem to be trying to deflect the facts with such a statement, I find it hard to believe that you are unable to comprehend the difference. Miliband was being guarded in the UK because of his job - he wasn't on a jolly needing the extra payments made on behalf of unnecessary expenses incurred by his detail. By the way, if Milibands security guards were seen by you, they were not very good, or were they just a couple of chaps who happened to be in the same vicinity.
One thing I don't understand here is that when Prince Charles is accused of wasting taxpayer money for one reason or other, his defenders are very quick to point out that he's funded by revenue from the Duchy, not via the Civil List. I think William and Harry are also funded from Duchy money rather than being paid for out of the Queen's taxpayer-provided income. So if they used their own money to pay for expenses over and above the salaries of the protection officers, which would be paid whether they were in Africa or in England, how is it all of a sudden taxpayers' money being used?
Security is not paid by The Duchy, nor are the costs incurred by the security team. IF Charles had gone off on such a jaunt and expected the taxpayer to pay the extra costs incurred, I would push him off his motorbike!
I understand the cost of the security officers entry, m/c clothing etc was not met by William, Harry or Charles, the only money paid by them was apparently their own entry fees, clothing and m/c hire, all items extra to those a security team would need in the normal, day to day job of providing security for them.