The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[Moran]

Is the Met police for rent? If not, it's just another illustration that the Sussexes took too many things for granted and didn't do proper research on what they were leaving behind in their quest for a new life.

Is the Met police this numerous that they can be spread as widely as a former working royal desires? If it is and it is for rent, I see no problem. If not, it's rather privileged of Harry to insist that he and his family should be accommodated before everyone else when the solution is simple - don't come to the country you don't look too fond of anyway.

[Mirabel]

If Harry is willing to pay for his own security, couldn't he hire a private security company in the UK?
Why does he need to hire officers from the Met?

[Hallo girl]

The problem as already stated on here is that you do not hire the Met police, but by the same token if the police/ security services became aware of a specific threat to him , his family or any of the royal family appropriate action would be taken, without the need for payment.
Unfortunately you can never protect from the lone madman,


I have to say the example he gave regarding being chased by the press for the reason he now needs additional security a wee bit lame. It goes back to controlling the press, they seem to be happy with their own camera teams following them and appear to wear mic packs at times but want the Met police to hold back any other press.
This does smack of entitlement, whether he wants to pay or not, he wants to be treated in a special way.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

The problem as already stated on here is that you do not hire the Met police, but by the same token if the police/ security services became aware of a specific threat to him , his family or any of the royal family appropriate action would be taken, without the need for payment.
Unfortunately you can never protect from the lone madman,


I have to say the example he gave regarding being chased by the press for the reason he now needs additional security a wee bit lame. It goes back to controlling the press, they seem to be happy with their own camera teams following them and appear to wear mic packs at times but want the Met police to hold back any other press.
This does smack of entitlement, whether he wants to pay or not, he wants to be treated in a special way.

I think you would have a different opinion if your mother was mercilessly hunted, even into death...

[Denville]

If Diana had retained her royal protection, she would almost certainly have been safe enough in Paris. If Harry is worried about security, then he needs to provide his own protection.. who will Im sure liaise with the RPOs

[Claire]

I actually got hold of a friend who works for a high profile, not British person living in the UK. They are not classed as an international person of interest and therefore do not received MET protection.

The part that he noted is the most stupid in the Sussex's statement is this part :
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK.
He notes this is very incorrect. Many celebrities, presidents even the Pope can come into the UK and not have to switch to the MET protection. When Biden and Trudeau came over for the COP2021 - did they leave their secret service and did MET security at the border? Nope - any international recognized security will be able to work with the MET to met the requirement. This statement is nonsense. It is possible that his private protection did not work well with the MET when he was previously here. But he noted that personally he thinks it comes down to cost. Personal protection costs more outside of their country, and in general costs more then the MET in general.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Claire

I actually got hold of a friend who works for a high profile, not British person living in the UK. They are not classed as an international person of interest and therefore do not received MET protection.

The part that he noted is the most stupid in the Sussex's statement is this part :
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK.
He notes this is very incorrect. Many celebrities, presidents even the Pope can come into the UK and not have to switch to the MET protection. When Biden and Trudeau came over for the COP2021 - did they leave their secret service and did MET security at the border? Nope - any international recognized security will be able to work with the MET to met the requirement. This statement is nonsense. It is possible that his private protection did not work well with the MET when he was previously here. But he noted that personally he thinks it comes down to cost. Personal protection costs more outside of their country, and in general costs more then the MET in general.

I think in these cases, with foreign HoS, the Met shares intelligence for protection and I understand that this is what Harry wants. But unfortunately, he is not yet in the same league as the Pope.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

If Harry is willing to pay for his own security, couldn't he hire a private security company in the UK?
Why does he need to hire officers from the Met?

He claims private security would not have access to the some kind of intelligence that the Met for example would have on credible threats to him and his family. But, as it has been pointed out in this forum, if the Met or the UK intelligence services had information on any credible threat against the Sussexes while they are in the UK, action would obviously be taken.

And just to be clear, as far as I understand, he is not proposing to pay off-duty Met officers to work for him. He is asking to have regular, on-duty Met protection, but reimburse the British Treasury for the associated costs.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is that , in the US, the Sussexes' private bodyguards don't have access either for example to FBI intelligence on neo-Nazi or terrorist threats, but that doesn't seem to be an argument for Harry to demand state security. It seems that he is implying that the risk to him and his family is somehow bigger in the UK than in California where he is currently residing to the extent of claiming in his petition to the High Court that, without Met Police protection, he and his family would be literally prevented from going to the UK.

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

I think in these cases, with foreign HoS, the Met shares intelligence for protection and I understand that this is what Harry wants. But unfortunately, he is not yet in the same league as the Pope.

Well, there is no way British law enforcement or the UK intelligence services (which BTW are among the best in the world) would share intelligence with unvetted private contractors. That is not going to happen.

As for foreign heads of state/government or people of equal rank, my humble understanding is that, as internationally protected persons, yes, they are assigned British state security while on UK soil, although some of them, like most notably the President of the United States, will also rely on their own national security services (in the case of the POTUS, the Secret Service) to protect them. In that case, the foreign security services would need to cooperate with the local authorities and be given permission to conduct operations on British territory where in principle they do not have jurisdiction.

[Lee-Z]

deleted.....

[Alison H]

Where do you draw the line? For example, some places of worship and faith schools pay for security - look at what happened in Texas yesterday. Is it fair that they should have to do that? No, but there just aren't the resources for the police to guard them all the time. I think Harry's argument is that a private security firm wouldn't have access to information about terrorist threats, but you can't have everything. The idea of boosting security for MPs was for them to have private security guards, not police protection.

[angieuk]

So, if Harry is happy with his security in the States. Can he not bring them with him to the UK when he visits? Or is he asking the British Security Forces to share Intelligence information with his US security detail beforehand, before he sets foot in the UK? For example, when a US President visits the UK, Intelligence is shared between both countries.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by angieuk

So, if Harry is happy with his security in the States. Can he not bring them with him to the UK when he visits? Or is he asking the British Security Forces to share Intelligence information with his US security detail beforehand, before he sets foot in the UK? For example, when a US President visits the UK, intelligence is shared between both countries.

it seems that thats what he is expecting. but while there would be liaison, the Met can't share much of its information with a private security firm. Its one thing to share with the security forces of another nation. Or does he think he is more at risk in the UK than he is in America?

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I think you would have a different opinion if your mother was mercilessly hunted, even into death...

We all have different views and that is what makes this forum interesting to read and contribute to. I will leave my views on Dianas death to another thread.

[Tatiana Maria]

The most interesting aspect of this story is that, if the Duke of Sussex follows through on the threatened legal action, a member of the British royal family will be suing the British government, which I think is unprecedented.

It would place the Queen in an interesting legal position, given that she is the head of the Royal Family but also bound by the unwritten constitution to act on the advice of the sitting Government. According to the Mail report, she was "made aware of" her grandson's action, which sounds as if she was not asked for permission or consulted. Hopefully, that means she will be treated by all sides as uninvolved.

The representative added: [...] "In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home."

I wonder if this news was made known right now, four months after the letter was sent, in order to explain the couple's possible absence from Platinum Jubilee festivities.

[yukari]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

The problem as already stated on here is that you do not hire the Met police, but by the same token if the police/ security services became aware of a specific threat to him , his family or any of the royal family appropriate action would be taken, without the need for payment.
Unfortunately you can never protect from the lone madman,


I have to say the example he gave regarding being chased by the press for the reason he now needs additional security a wee bit lame. It goes back to controlling the press, they seem to be happy with their own camera teams following them and appear to wear mic packs at times but want the Met police to hold back any other press.
This does smack of entitlement, whether he wants to pay or not, he wants to be treated in a special way.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

He claims private security would not have access to the some kind of intelligence that the Met for example would have on credible threats to him and his family. But, as it has been pointed out in this forum, if the Met or the UK intelligence services had information on any credible threat against the Sussexes while they are in the UK, action would obviously be taken.

And just to be clear, as far as I understand, he is not proposing to pay off-duty Met officers to work for him. He is asking to have regular, on-duty Met protection, but reimburse the British Treasury for the associated costs.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is that , in the US, the Sussexes' private bodyguards don't have access either for example to FBI intelligence on neo-Nazi or terrorist threats, but that doesn't seem to be an argument for Harry to demand state security. It seems that he is claiming that the threat to him and his family is somehow bigger in the UK than in California where he is currently residing to the extent of claiming in his petition to the High Court that, without Met Police protection, he and his family would be literally prevented from going to the UK.



Well, there is no way British law enforcement or the UK intelligence services (which BTW are among the best in the world) would share intelligence with unvetted private contractors. That is not going to happen.

As for foreign heads of state/government or people of equal rank, my humble understanding is that, as internationally protected persons, yes, they are assigned British state security while on UK soil, although some of them, like most notably the President of the United States, will also rely on their own national security services (in the case of the POTUS, the Secret Service) to protect them. In that case, the foreign security services would need to cooperate with the local authorities and be given permission to conduct operations on British territory where in principle they do not have jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Denville

it seems that thats what he is expecting. but while there would be liaison, the Met can't share much of its information with a private security firm. Its one thing to share with the security forces of another nation. Or does he think he is more at risk in the UK than he is in America?

What is an Osman warning, why do police issue threat to life notices and what do they tell death threat victims?

(...)

Why do police issue threat to life notices?

They are used when there is intelligence of the threat, but there is not enough evidence to justify the police arresting the potential murderer.

In 2017, the police in England and Wales issued more than 776 Osman warnings or “threat to life” notices.

(...)

Osman warnings are issued if police have intelligence of a real and immediate threat to the life of an individual.

(...)

A number of recent court cases have revealed how police have issued Osman warnings to bosses of gangs involved in dealing drugs amid fears that rivals wanted to eliminate them.

Some forces revealed how more women were being told their lives were at risk, raising the possibility that some “threat to life” notices could be connected to domestic violence.

Osman Warning - Guidance (PDF file)

So basically as a general rule, when a person is considered to be in real and immediate danger from the criminal actions of another, police should warn the intended victim of the threat against him. It's the law.

If the police have issued warning to common people from drug dealers to housewives, surely they'll inform Harry and his privately hired bodyguard if there is one directed to him. But of course, I don't think in most case paparazzi/tabloid photographers will be considered as life threatening by the police.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The most interesting aspect of this story is that, if the Duke of Sussex follows through on the threatened legal action, a member of the British royal family will be suing the British government, which I think is unprecedented.

It would place the Queen in an interesting legal position, given that she is the head of the Royal Family but also bound by the unwritten constitution to act on the advice of the sitting Government. According to the Mail report, she was "made aware of" her grandson's action, which sounds as if she was not asked for permission or consulted. Hopefully, that means she will be treated by all sides as uninvolved.

Yes, it is interesting. My understanding is that, whereas Harry cannot sue the Crown, the actions of any non-sovereign body, including statutory bodies like the Police, are subject to judicial review in the UK. Harry would have to prove , however, that the authority which is subject to review failed in this case to fulfill a statutory obligation, which does not seem to be an easy case to be made in my humble opinion.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Claire

I am told that this stems from the fact that Harry was ambushed by some photographers outside the Heros award when he came last year.

Your understanding seems correct. According to his own statement: "During his last visit to the UK in July 2021 - to unveil a statue in honour of his late mother - his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event."

However, it's clarified in the media reports (including, but not limited to, the BBC and Telegraph stories that yukari kindly posted) that the mention of the July 2021 charity event refers to the Duke's car being chased by photographers.

Apparently the Duke considers being chased by photographers to be a security risk.

Originally Posted by Curryong

Harry does NOT want security paid for fulltime by the British Govt. In spite of the DM trying to twist this for all it?s worth.

The reports I have read, including the Mail's, have all included the Duke's statement that he is willing to pay for the public security he requests.

Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK – which they make clear he is happy to pay for.

Some seem to have subsequently edited their headlines or stories to make that fact even clearer.

Originally Posted by MARG

I seem to remember a very acrimonious occasion when the removal of his Met PPO's was discussed. [...] Many of those threats were deemed credible at the time and Harry had a valid question to which the Met replied, no. His threat level had not decreased but his position in relation to the British royal family had and, as a result, he no longer qualified for protection.

Could I have a link to that story, please?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

If Diana had retained her royal protection, she would almost certainly have been safe enough in Paris. If Harry is worried about security, then he needs to provide his own protection.. who will Im sure liaise with the RPOs

I would say the raison d'être of a state is give protection to the citizens. That is why states have police and military forces. It is not correct that a Diana or a Harry had/have to provide in their own protection. This are not mediaeval times in which Maid Marian has to travel through Sherwood Forest...

[Hallo girl]

An added factor for the removal of protection was that they made the decision to live in another country .

[MonacoRoyalFan]

The thing is, there are just endless examples of the royals paying for their own security by Met.



In addition, there are endless examples of anyone being able to pay Met for security.



Moreover, it’s literally something that they do!