Royal Security - Page 2

Rudolph · #21 12-04-2015, 07:19 PM

Quote:

The Queen and other members of the Royal family have had their security stepped up because police believe British air strikes on Syria have increased the risk of a terrorist attempt on their lives.

Royal sources said the security measures were enhanced from the moment Parliament voted in favour of bombing Syria on Wednesday.

All senior members of the Royal family are affected, though Prince Harry is seen as particularly vulnerable because of his active military service in Afghanistan.

A police source said: “Now they’ve had the Syria vote we’ll have to review his security as everyone becomes more of a target.”

The Daily Telegraph understands that all Royal visits at home and abroad are now under review to decide whether they are necessary, sensible or feasible in the light of the increased terrorist threat.

Read more: Royal security stepped up after Syria air strikes increase terrorist threat - Telegraph

Rudolph · #22 04-03-2016, 07:23 AM

On a thread about William's work as a helicopter pilot, some are up in arms that KP didn't announce beforehand he'd be flying with a RPO.

Royals almost never ever comment on security because it's a matter for the Home Office but given RPOs travel with senior royals no matter where they go, It doesn't seem surprising to me

I gave the example of Prince Harry's security. While in Afghanistan he was there with his SO14 officers. So in addition to the natural security of being posted to an armed military camp (Harry himself carried a side-arm) the powers that be saw for him to be accompanied to a 'war zone' by Metropolitan police officers.

Now if people can make peace with that arrangement I'm not sure why it's such a leap not to expect William to have one as he flies around England.

As security is a matter for the Home Office to decide, I have no issues with William, Harry or whoever having whatever is required. If Harry needs RPOs on a already armed military base so be it. If William needs a RPO to fly a helicopter so be it.

Marty91charmed · #23 04-03-2016, 07:28 AM

I don't know why people are so surprised, to be honest. I thought it was a given that William would have a RPO on his side.

Rudolph · #24 04-03-2016, 07:53 AM

It's not the actual flying but the taking off and landing. William is a first responder and first responders don't get to choose what incidents they go to.

William can land on a rural farm one mission and attend an accident the next. He can fly to a car crash one day and be at a crime scene the next. You don't know who you'll meet when the helicopter lands. That's where the need for a RPO comes in and given the configuration of the helicopter, there is an extra seat available for an RPO

Blog Real · #25 09-02-2021, 12:15 PM

TLLK · #26 12-27-2021, 10:30 AM

This article from the UK's Daily Mail suggests that there's concern among the senior members of the British Royal Family about the removal of some of their long term Protection officers with whom they had an established relationship.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-moved-on.html

Quote:

One of the most senior female officers at Scotland Yard, Yorkshire-born Cmdr Millichap, who was educated at Bradford Grammar School and Cambridge University, has insisted that long-standing bodyguards – known as personal protection officers (PPOs) – are moved to other roles in order to open up the division and make it less ‘cliquey’. She is said to believe the role should not be seen as a job for life.
But members of the Royal Family, who are guarded 24 hours a day by their protection officers, are understood to be deeply unhappy. And some of them are fighting hard to keep their favourite bodyguards with them in face of huge pressure from the Met.
‘Protection officers occupy very unique positions with MRFs [members of the Royal Family],’ said a source. ‘They are with them 24 hours a day and it understandably takes a long time to build up a good relationship of confidence and trust.
‘Several very well-liked and respected officers have been moved on from their roles, not through any fault of their own.

Muhler · #27 12-27-2021, 11:44 AM

I can see both sides of this dilemma.

On one hand it's reassuring to have a bodyguard around you know well and whom you trust, based on years of being acquainted.

On the other hand having the same people around all the time, fulfilling the same task, often leads to people losing the edge. They start to relax, because nothing happens and it's a routine. - And as anyone who has been anywhere near the armed forces have had hammered into their heads: Routines kill.

There is also the danger of: We have always done it like this on this here detail.
And finally the danger of the bodyguards not becoming too personal or too involved with the royals as such, but beginning to regard them as "their" royals. Rather than staying detached.
A protection officer was removed from Mary's detail, because he started to become too personally involved in the protection and the lives of Mary and her family. In other words: He was beginning to look after them, rather than looking out for them.

So I think rotating the protection officers is better than keeping the same people around all the time.
New people look at things from a new perspective. They don't ignore the alarm from QEII's bedroom, because it's probably only a glitch. New people are on their toes and haven't established a routine.

For the royals it's no worse than having a new footman around. The staff see and hear things they shouldn't as well.
And if you trust a person enough to entrust them with the lives of your children, surely you can trust them to be discreet as well?

Somebody · #28 12-27-2021, 11:46 AM

From a security point of view it is a very wise decision to have the protection officers rotate. Too much familiarity is not a good thing in this business.

Duc_et_Pair · #29 12-27-2021, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

From a security point of view it is a very wise decision to have the protection officers rotate. Too much familiarity is not a good thing in this business.

Indeed. For an example starting friendly relations with security is deadly for focus. See officer Mannakee, one of the security staff of the previous Princess of Wales. Not for nothing the Royal Protection Service ended the deployment of officer Mannakee: it was impossible to keep professional focus and distance.

TLLK · #30 12-27-2021, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler

I can see both sides of this dilemma.

On one hand it's reassuring to have a bodyguard around you know well and whom you trust, based on years of being acquainted.

On the other hand having the same people around all the time, fulfilling the same task, often leads to people losing the edge. They start to relax, because nothing happens and it's a routine. - And as anyone who has been anywhere near the armed forces have had hammered into their heads: Routines kill.

There is also the danger of: We have always done it like this on this here detail.
And finally the danger of the bodyguards not becoming too personal or too involved with the royals as such, but beginning to regard them as "their" royals. Rather than staying detached.
A protection officer was removed from Mary's detail, because he started to become too personally involved in the protection and the lives of Mary and her family. In other words: He was beginning to look after them, rather than looking out for them.

So I think rotating the protection officers is better than keeping the same people around all the time.
New people look at things from a new perspective. They don't ignore the alarm from QEII's bedroom, because it's probably only a glitch. New people are on their toes and haven't established a routine.

For the royals it's no worse than having a new footman around. The staff see and hear things they shouldn't as well.
And if you trust a person enough to entrust them with the lives of your children, surely you can trust them to be discreet as well?

As always I appreciate your ability to see both sides of the issue Muhler.