General News about Frederik, Mary and Family 9: May - December 2011

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Frelinghighness

Funny you mentioned that because when I saw the photos of F&M arriving in Tasmania on their different flights, I was struck by the "look" of the security. I had seen them in NYC when F&M made their visit and they resemble them.

Yeah, you can recognice them after a while.

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

I was curious about the security too! Don't PET follow Isabella and Christian when they are out in public as well? I didn't see them in the video with Jane when she, Christian and Isabella are running!
Granted...it was a very short video...but it looked to me as if there was no PET present.

They most certainly do and I'm sure they must have been around.

Based on M&F's last private visit, I'd estimate there are at least six, perhaps eight PET officers with them. With a local police car more or less permanently stationed on the road where Jane and her family lives.
Two PET officers nearby at all time, the rest resting.
M&F themselves are escorted by two officers, whether they are alone or together.
When M&F are out with the children, I'd guess there are four officers around, with two (four) resting.
Even the nanny would have at least one officer as an escort when walking the twins. Even though she is more anonymous.

That's why I'm a little pussled. Right now there is a team of foreign police officers actively operating in Australia.
I know about the rules for foreign security operating in Australia, but M&F are pretty important to the Danish state and their heir and spares are with them - and the PET officers should be unarmed? I'm pretty sceptical.
Not least because M&F, Mary in particular, are so well known by the general public in Australia, in contrast to other royals (apart from the BRF of course) who can be practically anonymous.

So I wonder whether there is a quiet agreement between DK and Australia.
Because we have the same rules here in DK, about foreign security. - The rules just don't apply for the US Secret Service and apparantly not for other high profile leaders of states as well, like the French Premier and President.
When Will and Kate visited Copenhagen recently you could obviously hardly turn around without bumping into British security. And they were all unarmed?

[Lady Rosie]

Muhler, I am not very well versed on security/police protocol for visiting dignitaries. However, when I was waiting to see M&F in Sydney I got chatting to a uniformed policeman and he was surprised at the high level of security. He knew one of the plain clothes policeman who he had previously worked with. This second officer is now in the dignitary protection team.

I would be very,very surprised if there was not an Australian police presence for the family in Hobart. In terms of being armed, our uniformed and plain clothes police are all armed so I am sure that would not be an issue if the Danish PET were also?

[EIIR]

So, I assume the Danish Royal Court is reimbursing the Australian police/taxpayer for the cost of the security they are providing during their holiday?

[Trinity]

I must apologize in advance if I offend anyone here I don’t mean to. I can’t help having a laugh about the discussion about wether the PET officers are armed or not, after the photo’s in the paper today I wonder where they would keep a gun, one is wearing nothing but board shorts the other is wearing a thin shirt but he does have a “bum bag” so perhaps there is something in that.

[American Dane]

Originally Posted by EIIR

So, I assume the Danish Royal Court is reimbursing the Australian police/taxpayer for the cost of the security they are providing during their holiday?

As likely as any other foreign dignitary repaying for security provided during their private vacations. F+M aren't asking for Australian protection, they're being provided with it because the Australian government has decided to do so...

[Muhler]

No offense taken at all.
The belly bag/bum bag is actually where they carry their hardware. They use them during the summer here in DK as well. - That is, when we do have a decent summer...

Thanks, Lady Rosie
I was also surprised at very visible security. Not that I would complain, better safe than sorry...
And I'm in no doubt Australian police is close at hand, just in case. But then I can only recall once where PET had to step in and that was when a crowd got too close to Mary.

Originally Posted by Trinity

I must apologize in advance if I offend anyone here I don’t mean to. I can’t help having a laugh about the discussion about wether the PET officers are armed or not, after the photo’s in the paper today I wonder where they would keep a gun, one is wearing nothing but board shorts the other is wearing a thin shirt but he does have a “bum bag” so perhaps there is something in that.

[Madame Royale]

Talk about taxpayer money is really quite rediculous.The cost to the indavidual Tasmian/Australian taxpayer would be miniscule and hardly worth discussion.

[Terri Terri]

Originally Posted by American Dane

As likely as any other foreign dignitary repaying for security provided during their private vacations. F+M aren't asking for Australian protection, they're being provided with it because the Australian government has decided to do so...

True! This has to be an issue of diplomatic protocol....and if there was ever a problem for the Australian taxpayer, then let the PET be armed and be the sole bodyguards of the Crown Prince Family during their private visits! Simple!

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

True! This has to be an issue of diplomatic protocol....and if there was ever a problem for the Australian taxpayer, then let the PET be armed and be the sole bodyguards of the Crown Prince Family during their private visits! Simple!

I don’t think there would be a problem for the Aussie Taxpayer Terri Terri. For the first part of their visit (the official part) there would have been local police Commonwealth police as well as private security due to other dignitaries being present or crowd control.

The private part, well see Muhler’s post above, the Danish PET officer has the “hardware” in that “bum/belly bag” The local police are doing laps every hour or so around Mary’s sister’s homes but as no one is exactly sure where they are staying (some reports say a motel and others say a rented house in Sandy Bay) there seems to have been no build up of press in the street around Mary’s sisters house, thus saving the local police umpteen calls from irate neighbours not being able to get to or leave their homes without the stress of a photographer jumping out in front of them from between parked cars.

So far so good the private part of their visit has gone well, the only reason the newspaper has pictures today is because those children Mary was photographed with posted photos on Twitter. If the press were camped outside Jane Stephens house we would have seen a lot more of Christian and Isabella when Christian did his little runner away from his aunt.
I think they have achieved the private holiday they wanted and at little cost to the Aussie taxpayer too boot.

[EIIR]

But why should the taxpayers of any country pay to protect foreign royals when they're on a private holiday? Surely the Danish state can afford to send a few more policemen with them?

[American Dane]

Originally Posted by EIIR

But why should the taxpayers of any country pay to protect foreign royals when they're on a private holiday? Surely the Danish state can afford to send a few more policemen with them?

You're forgetting it is not just royals that are protected on private vacations -- when Obama or Cameron, for example, are on holiday they are protected too. As I said before, it is not a matter of the Danish state thinking F+M and family need extra protection, it is the Australian and Tasmanian governments who do...

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by EIIR

So, I assume the Danish Royal Court is reimbursing the Australian police/taxpayer for the cost of the security they are providing during their holiday?

As usual the above post which raises a legitimate question about something other than the superficial comments about shoes or clothing is met with several responses....

Originally Posted by American Dane

As likely as any other foreign dignitary repaying for security provided during their private vacations. F+M aren't asking for Australian protection, they're being provided with it because the Australian government has decided to do so...

Originally Posted by American Dane

You're forgetting it is not just royals that are protected on private vacations -- when Obama or Cameron, for example, are on holiday they are protected too. As I said before, it is not a matter of the Danish state thinking F+M and family need extra protection, it is the Australian and Tasmanian governments who do...

Neither of these seem enthusiastic about engaging EIIR in a discussion but they do address the issue and American Dane raises very valid points. M&F are not heads of state or high-ranking elected officials, but the host country can determine that heightened awareness and attention can create other problems, as described in the post by Trinity below....

Originally Posted by Trinity

I don’t think there would be a problem for the Aussie Taxpayer Terri Terri. For the first part of their visit (the official part) there would have been local police Commonwealth police as well as private security due to other dignitaries being present or crowd control.

The private part, well see Muhler’s post above, the Danish PET officer has the “hardware” in that “bum/belly bag” The local police are doing laps every hour or so around Mary’s sister’s homes but as no one is exactly sure where they are staying (some reports say a motel and others say a rented house in Sandy Bay) there seems to have been no build up of press in the street around Mary’s sisters house, thus saving the local police umpteen calls from irate neighbours not being able to get to or leave their homes without the stress of a photographer jumping out in front of them from between parked cars.

The following typifies one of the reasons some posters have issues in the Danish threads. It not only makes assumptions about financial costs without any factual basis, but it also insulting and rude by referring to EIIR's post as ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Talk about taxpayer money is really quite rediculous.The cost to the indavidual Tasmian/Australian taxpayer would be miniscule and hardly worth discussion.

As far as the issue itself, there are valid arguments on both sides. But neither will change the situation. I personally feel that M&F haven't made too many trips to Australia and definitely aren't putting the Aussie economy in any danger. I do find the rather excessive amount of time they spend on vacation in a year versus the amount of work to be a bit out of proportion but that is another thread which probably doesn't exist or would be shut down anyway.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Rascal

As far as the issue itself, there are valid arguments on both sides. But neither will change the situation. I personally feel that M&F haven't made too many trips to Australia and definitely aren't putting the Aussie economy in any danger

Indeed, the Australian economy is fairing quite well for now and has for some time.

And I'll no doubt put a few noses out of place but c'est la vie. Let Australian's raise concern over the state of funds provided towards the security of visiting dignitaries be it in either an official or private capacity. I find too many foreigners on these forums concern themselves in matters of economic interest that have very little to do with them, if anything at all. And let us not pretend it's because they concern for the fiscal welfare of other world citizens

I for one couldn't care what the American taxpayer does or does not pay for and I'm very certain most American's feel the same in regards to Australia or any other country for that matter. It is an entirely sovereign matter and Australia's federal and state government's are perfectly capable of dealing with such matters I'm sure some will be delighted to learn

I find the taxpayer 'argument' to be one which is generally explored by those who appear to post on a regular basis in an attempt to always 'question as to why'. The trend is there for all to see and I'm likely to think that most are still in search of whatever clarification it is they seek. Certainly, these forums have a tendancy to draw out the righteous.

Some here appear to be on the hunt for admissions almost as though the universe owes them an explanation. Of course, this is but the opinion of one and I speak on behalf of no other.

In that, there is a consistent agenda to attempt to draw on what they perceive to be as accountable and in many ways negative 'truths' which must always be addressed in disucssion. Really, it gets old and has been spoken about over and over again. It's much like a puppy chasing it's tail, but even then, at least puppies know when to give up!

[Muhler]

By EIIR: But why should the taxpayers of any country pay to protect foreign royals when they're on a private holiday? Surely the Danish state can afford to send a few more policemen with them?

It's a matter of sovereignty and diplomatic protocol.
A country pays for and provide security for visiting dignitaries - sometimes with the aide of the visiting country.
If Australia would not provide security for M&F, it would be a huge breach of diplomatic protocol, a major embarrassment for Australia and a big affront as well. Not to mention that the Danish government would flatly refuse M&F to even go there.
M&F are official representatives of Denmark, they carry diplomatic passports. Australia is obliged to protect them in accordance with international law, regarding protection of diplomats.
So if the Australians wished to be visited by M&F at all, or members of the Danish government too for that matter, they would have to get used to seeing FET agents... I mean Danish "diplomats" in the general scenery. Because Australia would in that respect rank lower than Iraq and Afghanistan, who at least provide some protection.

But let's look at your idea, EIIR.
M&F visited Australia, an official visit. They would then be protected by uniformed and armed Danish police officers, not to mention the PET officers. While Australian police stood in the background.
That means that Australians, in Australia, would be ordered around by foreign police. If necessary arrested - by foreign police. Who would also have juristidiction to enforce order on Australian soil. In accordance to which legislation? The Australien or Danish? Because we obviously can't rely on Australia to protect our CP couple.
I somehow don't think that would be acceptable to the Australians.

Let's take it to the extreme. An Australian is shot by a uniformed Danish police officer, in Australia. The Australian police were not around because Australia wouldn't pay for the protection, so Australia can't even issue a formal protest. Let alone prosecute the officer.

There is also a more omnious reason no country is sending a bill for the protection of foreign dignitaries. To avoid retalliation and misuse.
If Australia were to send a bill to DK for protecting M&F Australia can be very sure to get a bill in return for protecting Australian diplomats and visiting dignitaries. And for some countries it would be very tempting to turn this into a money machine.
No country will be willing to pay the bill for protecting it's own dignitaries abroad, without insiting on full control of their safety. With everything that entails.

[Florencia]

Proud Princess Mary's wheels just keep on turning

[EIIR]

I believe it's just as wrong for any other country to pay to protect David Cameron on holiday as it is for for the Australians to pay for Danish royals.

With regards to the issues Muhler raises, do you really think the President Obama's security is unarmed and would be unwilling to take out any individual threatening the safety of their President when in a foreign country? Do you really think that they would wait for a local police officer to come along when dealing with the threat? Of course they wouldn't.

Queen Elizabeth II also took armed British guards to the Republic of Ireland with her and it failed to lead to a diplomatic incident.

I have no issue with providing protection to foreign dignitaries, when they are on official business. When they just fancy a warm mid-winter break, I think it's asking too much to expect other countries to pay to protect them.

Rascal, I appreciate your post. I think I'm just going to have to start censoring myself once again on Danish issues. It's just too much hassle on this board it seems.

[UserDane]

Madame Royale - excellent post as always
You capture the very essence of the ongoing 'discussion' and have a gift for always remaining courteous all around.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by EIIR

I believe it's just as wrong for any other country to pay to protect David Cameron on holiday as it is for for the Australians to pay for Danish royals.

With regards to the issues Muhler raises, do you really think the President Obama's security is unarmed and would be unwilling to take out any individual threatening the safety of their President when in a foreign country? Do you really think that they would wait for a local police officer to come along when dealing with the threat? Of course they wouldn't.

Queen Elizabeth II also took armed British guards to the Republic of Ireland with her and it failed to lead to a diplomatic incident.

I have no issue with providing protection to foreign dignitaries, when they are on official business. When they just fancy a warm mid-winter break, I think it's asking too much to expect other countries to pay to protect them.

Rascal, I appreciate your post. I think I'm just going to have to start censoring myself once again on Danish issues. It's just too much hassle on this board it seems.

Because we disagree? Come on.

As I pointed out in a previous post, there clearly appears to be situations where the rules are bend, because the Australian, British and Danish legislation says that no foreign security is allowed to be armed on their soil. It's no secret that Secret Service were armed to the teeth when US Presidents are visiting DK. And likewise with a number of other visiting dignitaries.
That's why I pointed out that now, that M&F are on a private holiday it seems that PET have taken over the close security, with Australian police providing perimeter security - and that I cannot imagine the PET officers to be unarmed.

Naturally any protection officer, be they Secret Service, PET or Special Branch would intervene on the spot - and take the diplomatic fallout afterwards.

Australia is ultimately responsible for the safety of foreign diplomats and dignitaries, while on Australian soil, no matter whether they are on the job or not.
It's no different from the Australian PM renting a summer cottage here in DK. Denmark is responsible for her safety and Denmark foots the bill.
Can you imagine Australia getting the bill for 300 conscripts forming a cordon 24/7 around the cottage, "just to ensure her safety", at 150 $ an hour, per man, for 8 days? They would suffer a collective stroke in the Australian Foreign Office...
It's also to avoid such teasing that the idea of the host country pays the bill, is there.

[puddytat]

Why don't the tax complainers do a simple google search of "protection of foreign dignitaries Australia?"

Really, that's all you have to do. A website for the Australian Federal Police pops up and you can read how the government is responsible for the security of visiting dignitaries. If you go a little deeper you can find the international treaties and specific protocols involved, including individual threat assessments for each dignitary.

Frederik and Mary and their family are foreign dignitaries - official visit or private. Full stop.

Frederik and Mary cannot travel surreptitiously to any country on the earth without their own Danish embassies and consulate offices being notified. There is no such thing as an entirely private visit for them. the Danish government knows where they are at all times.

The protection of visiting foreign dignitaries in any country is figured into the budgets of security forces as a matter of course, including police salaries and overtime. It's standard operating procedure.

The burden to the Australian taxpayer in this case is a non-issue. You are not being asked to write a personal check to cover security for Frederik and Mary's visit. You have already been taxed for it, the way you would have been taxed for it whether Frederik and Mary were in Australia or not. If not them, then some other dignitaries.

[EIIR]

Originally Posted by puddytat

Why don't the tax complainers do a simple google search of "protection of foreign dignitaries Australia?"

Really, that's all you have to do. A website for the Australian Federal Police pops up and you can read how the government is responsible for the security of visiting dignitaries. If you go a little deeper you can find the international treaties and specific protocols involved, including individual threat assessments for each dignitary.

Frederik and Mary and their family are foreign dignitaries - official visit or private. Full stop.

Frederik and Mary cannot travel surreptitiously to any country on the earth without their own Danish embassies and consulate offices being notified. There is no such thing as an entirely private visit for them. the Danish government knows where they are at all times.

The protection of visiting foreign dignitaries in any country is figured into the budgets of security forces as a matter of course, including police salaries and overtime. It's standard operating procedure.

The burden to the Australian taxpayer in this case is a non-issue. You are not being asked to write a personal check to cover security for Frederik and Mary's visit. You have already been taxed for it, the way you would have been taxed for it whether Frederik and Mary were in Australia or not. If not them, then some other dignitaries.

Just because something is a certain way does not mean that it's right or fair. As we Europeans have seen over the last few days, just because there's a treaty stating something doesn't mean it's not a load of complete rubbish!

I stand by my opinion - I don't believe taxpayers should have to pay to cover the protection costs of a bunch of foreigners who fancy a jolly when they can well afford to do it themselves.