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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That article is 20 years old (Camilla) but even then it is pretty shocking that in a country with Met, Scotland Yard, MI5 and MI6 it depends on someone's private purse to have security.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

Peter Hunt described this situation perfectly. He said “Harry’s many media critics will be dismissive. Royal sources will be active. The faux outrage generated will distract from the risk to Charles and William that any judicial review could present them as having been petty and uncaring at the Sandringham summit in January 2020.”

 

[Denville]

That article is 20 years old (Camilla) but even then it is pretty shocking that in a country with Met, Scotland Yard, MI5 and MI6 it depends on someone's private purse to have security.

the police have limited resources. Senior royals get round the clock protection but many royals only get it when on duty. The police cannot provide 24 hour protection for everyone in the country

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

the police have limited resources. Senior royals get round the clock protection but many royals only get it when on duty. The police cannot provide 24 hour protection for everyone in the country

Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

 

[Hallo girl]

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...

I am a little confused by your post, are you suggesting that every citizen of a country is entitled to one on one security. I agree the role of the state is to provide a police force/ army etc but the way I am reading your post is that we are all entitled to our own personal protection team.

It is neither practical or affordable.

 

[Lee-Z]

.... I am surprised to hear that private security provided by non-state agents is illegal in the Netherlands. Are you sure your infornation is correct?

..

OT, but don't think your question was answered yet: the NL also know private security which you can hire on your own expense, there is a list of rules to which these companies should comply on the official dutch site of the ministry of Justice and Safety
https://www.justis.nl/producten/particuliere-beveiliging-en-recherche
(in dutch)

 

[Claire]

Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

yep - as does the RF when there is large events like royal weddings and Jubilees. As does large football games and Sporting evenings like the Olympics. However these are parameter policing and can be done by regular police officers.
VIP security is done by special branch - limited amount.
And yes - Man United, the Olympics and the RF did have an agreement back to help fund the overtime and transportation.

 

[Hallo girl]

Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

I do not know the facts around Kate Moss wedding so I will not attempt to answer that.

I think we also need to separate protection and public order.
What can sometimes happen is that when there is an event that can impact on public order the police are brought in as a general back up to ensure freedom of movement with regards traffic and footpaths.

So for example a personality is attending court or is getting married, the police probably have an idea that there will be a huge turnout of the general public to view the proceedings so to ensure public order they will send along police officers to ensure crowd control.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

View attachment 302871

Thanks for the screencaps!

However, nothing in the screencap suggests that the "full time security staff" whom the Prince of Wales hired for his then girlfriend were police officers. It seems more likely that they were private bodyguards. Do you have information stating differently?

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

View attachment 302872

Moreover, it’s literally something that they do!

View attachment 302873

Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, which your last screencap cites, says:

25 Provision of special services.

(1)The chief officer of police of a police force may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the [F1local policing body] of charges on such scales as may be determined by [F2that body].

[F3(1A)The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force may provide special police services at the request of any person, subject to the payment to the [F4British Transport Police Authority] of charges on such scales as may be determined by that Authority.]

(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .​

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/25

So, yes, the police forces may provide "special police services" which are billed to the person to whom the services are provided, if the person has requested those services.

However, "may" is not "must", and I cannot see anything in Section 25 or the screencaps that would imply the police would be legally liable if they had refused to police Ms. Moss's wedding. In fact, the part of the article visible in the screencap does not even specify whether she requested the police presence or if it was the police who deemed it necessary.

Peter Hunt described this situation perfectly. He said “Harry’s many media critics will be dismissive. Royal sources will be active. The faux outrage generated will distract from the risk to Charles and William that any judicial review could present them as having been petty and uncaring at the Sandringham summit in January 2020.”

Who is said to be outraged and by what?

I cannot see a reason for a judicial review into the Metropolitan Police's security decisions to investigate an unrelated family summit, let alone petty and uncaring behavior between family members (and in that hypothetical scenario, Harry would run the same risk of being presented as petty and uncaring by the hypothetical judge).

 

[Heavs]

I don't understand if paparazzi are the biggest issue why they would need special branch protection? The "incident" he describes was a couple of photographers who took photos but hardly chased him down the (very busy, traffic jammed) road.

Other attacks could happen just as easily in the US as the UK, more likely thanks to more guns available perhaps. Why are non police bodyguards fine in Montecito but not Windsor?

Neither the family or Scotland Yard/Home Office want Harry and his family in any danger. That's a fact. They simply disagree with him that he needs the level of protection that he thinks he does and don't want to open the flood gates to others demanding to basically buy intelligence.

And lets not forget that this offer to pay for using special branch is a recent development, before he and Meghan focused their ire on the fact that they felt they should be IPPs because of who they were, so I'm kind of sceptical that they wouldn't try and use this as a way to get back to that in the long run. Just my opinion of course.

I get why they want protection but if there truly was a need for it, including credible threats of Neo Nazis who whoever, then they would have it.

 

[Denville]

not sure if they are trying to get to be IPPs but I think that they are using the issue to make a fuss... harry was quite safe in the UK when he went to Philips funeral. does he really think that he wont be safe if he comes again?
Or is he perhaps very nervous about his security and that of his family

 

[Alison H]

In 2017, a terrorist murdered 22 people, many of them children, at an Ariana Grande concert three miles from my house. Two months ago, a terrorist tried to attack a Remembrance Day event 35 miles away in Liverpool. Only yesterday, a number of people were taken hostage at a synagogue in Texas. A terrorist could walk into a school, a shopping centre, a hospital, a supermarket, a cinema, a theatre, a cafe, a railway station, a place of worship or anywhere else in the next few minutes. It's terrifying. The world is a dangerous place. But there are just not enough police to guard everywhere and everyone.

Yes, there's a police presence at big football matches, but it's private security staff, paid for by the clubs, who check people's bags at the point of entry. The police are there more to keep order than to foil attacks.

 

[Denville]

In 2017, a terrorist murdered 22 people, many of them children, at an Ariana Grande concert three miles from my house. Only yesterday, a number of people were taken hostage at a synagogue in Texas. A terrorist could walk into a school, a shopping centre, a supermarket, a cinema, a theatre, a cafe, a railway station, a place of worship or anywhere else in the next few minutes. It's terrifying. The world is a dangerous place. But there are just not enough police to guard everywhere and everyone.

Yes, there's a police presence at big football matches, but it's private security staff, paid for by the clubs, who check people's bags at the point of entry. The police are there more to keep order than to foil attacks.

True, and I think that as there are limited resources, people who can pay for private security should do so, if possible.

 

[Moran]

Once, when leaving the gym, I narrowly avoided being lynched. The reason? I had forgotten that there was a football match a few hours later and I left via my usual door, aka through the "half" reserved for the "blue" fans. While wearing a red jacket. Fortunately, my friends cordoned me off while I took the stupid thing off. If I had been alone, the police that was close by would have been sorely needed. I still can't believe I forgot.
There's a reason police all over the world is called to such events and that's because there is a real danger. I can't believe that HM's grandson would be left without if there is a real danger to him or his family.

 

[Osipi]

My take on this is that if the Met Police and their RPO squad are not available for rent then there is absolutely nothing Harry can do to demand protection from them or gain access to the information and chatter that these professionals are privy to. I seriously believe that with the knowledge that Harry and his family were to be in the country, that if anything cropped up on their radar pointing to harm against the Sussex family, they would step in and assure protection. For Harry's own peace of mind while in the UK though, it's going to be up to him to provide the security that he feels his family needs and not a matter of concern for the Metropolitan Police. Even the RPOs that do 24/7 security for the main line like Charles do not answer to what Charles feels his security should be like but rather what the chatter and information back at the Met Police office deem. RPOs do not answer to the royals but it's the other way around. The royals answer to the RPOs when it comes to their security and safety.

Harry just can't waltz back into the country and demand things that he used to take for granted. It's part and parcel of what he's decided that he needed to walk away from. Paying to use the Met Police as "rent a cops" won't wash. Joe Public of London couldn't walk in and pay for RPOs so why would Harry be able to?

It'd be sad if something like this were to keep the Sussex family away from celebrating his Granny's Platinum Jubilee but I don't feel Harry has the right and the privilege to call the shots for UK security for any visit he may want to make. He basically will be a visitor to the area for a short amount of time. His involvement in celebrations mostly will be minimal also comparable to Andrew's or Peter's. Extended non working royal family members there for their grandmother and mother. It's not a personal celebration for the Queen but a celebration of the Queen and her monarchy and the continuity of that institution.

 

[Marengo]

As sent to the mod. team by TRF-member Queen Claude:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/entertainment/harry-meghan-spotify-misinformation-intl-gbr/index.html

Harry and Meghan express 'concerns' to Spotify over misinformation
By Max Foster, Vasco Cotovio and Rob Picheta, CNN
Updated 7:58 AM ET, Sun January 30, 2022

(CNN) - Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have expressed their "concerns" to Spotify over Covid-19 misinformation on the platform, joining a growing group of personalities putting pressure on the streaming service amid a dispute about Joe Rogan's controversial podcast.

The pair first raised the issue last April and have continued to urge Spotify to root out misinformation, a spokesperson for their foundation, Archewell, said on Sunday.

 

[TLLK]

Omid Scobie shares via his Twitter account a statement from an Archewell spokesperson about the couple's Spotify relationship.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1487745677077721095

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I am not sure if there is some provision in British law that would establish that Harry is an "internationally protected person," but he does not qualify under the UN convention on internationally protected persons: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_4_1973.pdf

First of all, the convention does not apply while Harry is within his home country for the jubilee. Second, even when Harry is in the United States, he does not meet the legal definition because he does not have an official or diplomatic position with the UK government.

But more importantly, the convention does not guarantee that the host country will provide 24 hour protection. Rather, the agreement requires countries that host diplomats, heads of state, and families to take steps to prevent crimes against the person - which may or may not include around the clock guards.

 

[UglyAmerican]

These two have peddled at least as much misinformation as Joe Rogan, and probably to a larger audience, at least initially. Oprah must have gotten more viewers than Rogan, but I doubt anywhere near that many people are still listening to them.

As far as I can tell, no one really knows the terms of their contract with Spotify. Articles purportedly citing dollar amounts all seem to have been complete speculation based on what some source or other thinks is customary in the industry, so we really have no idea what the contract was worth or how much (if anything) they got up front. What we do know is that it was signed at least a year ago, and they've released absolutely nothing by way of content since that time. (I'm not counting the one Christmas 2020 podcast because it doesn't seem to have been exclusive to Spotify, which means Spotify probably didn't make any money off of it.) Unlike Neil Young, who has actual content with actual subscribers who pay Spotify actual money to listen to him, they aren't in a good position to make demands of Spotify. At this point, Spotify would probably be happy if they quit. Which they won't do if they got a significant advance, because they'd most likely have to return it.

As for the security, I'm assuming other wealthy celebrities who disagree with the Met's threat assessment can't commandeer it at whim to serve as their own personal rent-a-cop service whenever they decide to visit the UK. I don't see any reason to make an exception for Harry and Meghan.

I'd like to know more about the supposed incident that convinced him his family would be in mortal danger if they returned to the UK. I might be persuaded to believe that someone got a knife or even a gun within a dangerously close distance of Harry, but I find it very difficult to believe that Harry and Meghan would have kept quiet about such an incident for nearly a year. If the "threat" being described was a paparazzo taking pictures or some random person yelling insults, these are things people who choose to be controversial celebrities have to deal with. (I bet Joe Rogan has had all the same things happen to him!)

It may be true that Harry's royal birth has increased his risk, but it's also given him more than adequate means to make whatever security arrangements he feels are necessary. Assuming the plan was for him to visit his family rather than shill for his various projects, there's nothing stopping him from taking a private jet, then being driven by a private secured car to Sandringham or some other secured estate, then back again the same way. He's done that exact thing for far sillier reasons (New York trip, polo match, etc.)

It's increasingly clear that they (or at least Meghan) simply don't want to see Harry's family, and are grasping for ever-more-tenuous excuses to avoid having to say so outright. Or maybe Harry's family doesn't want to see them because they can't be trusted. It's just one more example of their pathological unwillingness to accept that the freedom to make one's own decisions comes with the responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

 

[yukari]

(...)

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?

Harry mentioned it during Oprah interview:
“Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed, but due to our change in status [by] which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family…”

Though, I’ve never heard the story about receiving death threat to Harry as “race traitor” or Meghan for “polluting the royal bloodline” though. At least not in the last 3 years (I don’t follow the news about the Sussexes pre-2019).

Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

yep - as does the RF when there is large events like royal weddings and Jubilees. As does large football games and Sporting evenings like the Olympics. However these are parameter policing and can be done by regular police officers.
VIP security is done by special branch - limited amount.
And yes - Man United, the Olympics and the RF did have an agreement back to help fund the overtime and transportation.

If I may add, according to the Police Act 1996 (available on website linked in Tatiana Maria’s post #769)

(…)

The ability to charge for police services is generally determined by statutory provisions. This guidance covers four main areas:
• The provision of Special Police Services at the request of any person under Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 (as amended) which makes such services subject to payment of charges as determined by the PCC. Special police services generally relate to policing an event, e.g. a pop concert, or series of events, e.g. football matches. Section 26 of the 1996 Act applies similar requirements to the provision of police services overseas;

(…)

Special police services are policing services which are carried out a) on request; and b) which are in addition to the regular duties of police forces. They include policing services provided on privately owned property or, in some cases, publicly owned property where access to the general public has been restricted (either permanently or temporarily, e.g. by requiring a ticket for entry). They may also include providing policing services which have been requested and which go above and beyond the resourcing which the Chief Constable considers necessary. Such services may be charged for.

(…)

Assessment of the need for police attendance and action at public events will be principally based on the need to discharge their core responsibilities which legal advice indicates are as follows:
• Prevention and detection of crime;
• Preventing or stopping breaches of the peace;
• Activation of a contingency plan where there is an immediate threat to life and coordination of resultant emergency service activities;
• Traffic regulation within the legal powers provided by statute, a Road Closure Order
(TPCA 1847) or a Traffic Regulation Order (RTRA 1984). (Traffic regulation is not to be
confused with the management of the road closure.)

(…)

It spesifically states event, so I’m sure if Harry organised a birthday bash for Lili or Archie in Hyde Park and estimated to be attended by hundred or thousand of guests, just like for Kate Moss’s wedding I think the Met would be happy to provide their officers policing the event and of course Harry would had to pay some money.

But round-the-clock security is different matter. Kate Moss’s wedding was policing by the Met, but did they also provide it to her outside the wedding? I don’t think so. Just like when Christiano Ronaldo plays in a match for MU there are Met officers guarding the stadium, but outside the game he (and his family) has his own privately paid non-Met security.

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

View attachment 302871

Thanks for the screencaps!

However, nothing in the screencap suggests that the "full time security staff" whom the Prince of Wales hired for his then girlfriend were police officers. It seems more likely that they were private bodyguards. Do you have information stating differently?

(…)

Camilla’s wasn’t active Met officer, it was former RPO who then open his private security firm after retirement. There’s nothing to stop Harry from hiring them, they may not have access to the intelligence but as former RPO means they had received the same training as active RPO, experienced, and also know what to do.