The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Royal Security (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/royal-security-21145.html)

Jalmey 06-23-2003 03:26 PM

Royal Security
 
BBC News

Blunkett 'concerned' by Windsor stunt

Home Secretary David Blunkett has said he is "deeply concerned" by the security breach which allowed a comedian to gatecrash Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle.

He is to make a statement to the Commons on Tuesday after considering a six-page report on the incident by police.

Self-styled "comedy terrorist" Aaron Barschak, dressed as terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a pink ball gown, scaled a wall at the castle and talked his way past police.

He then mingled with guests including senior royals before jumping on stage as Prince William made a speech.

Police have apologised to the Royal Family over the incident, which Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens described as an "appalling" breach of security.

Mr Blunkett says he wants to see that "lessons are learned" from the incident.

'Heads on block'

Asked if heads would roll over the security breakdown, the home secretary said: "There is no question that after what happened, everyone in every position all the way through counter-terrorism forces and royal protection know their heads are on the block.

"I'm not at the moment looking for scapegoats, I am looking for answers to very difficult questions."

I think we deserve better from those who are employed to look after our interests

David Blunkett
Home Secretary

Despite the need to re-assess security of the Royal Family, Mr Blunkett said he was confident the Queen and other Royals were safe.

"The incident did display a real need to tighten up general security around the Royal Family, and by dint of that for the rest of those who are at risk," he said.

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner David Veness said Mr Barschak had climbed a wall before convincing police at a check point that he had a genuine reason to be there.

"It's a combination of gaining access via an embankment, climbing a tree, jumping on to a wall and then reaching a terrace.

"He then appears to have approached a member of staff of the contractors, who then took him quite properly to a police point.

"He then proffered what must have appeared to be a credible story and regrettably gained access to the area where the party was taking place.

"I understand he indicated that he had reason to be present though the detail is a matter for the criminal investigation and the subsequent internal inquiry."

Asked how close Mr Barschak had been able to get to the Royal Family, Mr Veness said: "In our judgement and with our duty for royal protection there is no such thing as an acceptable proximity."

Senior Met and royal protection officers have already met to "draw out early lessons" from the security breach.

Mr Barschak was arrested inside the castle after mingling with 300 guests, including all the senior members of the Royal Family except Prince Edward, at the Africa-themed fancy dress party.

The comedian told the Sun newspaper: "It was unbelievably simple. I'm amazed I got in. Royal security is not at all what I expected."


Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin called the incident a "pain-free wake up call".

"We need to learn a lesson from this because we're meant to be in a state of heightened alert," he told the BBC .

Mr Barschak was apparently trying to publicise his Edinburgh Fringe Festival comedy show by dressing up as Osama Bin Laden, according to his father Fred Barschak.

The comedian, from London, was questioned at a Thames Valley police station before being put into the custody of the Metropolitan Police on Sunday.

He was released on bail and is due to return to a London police station next month.

A St James's Palace spokeswoman refused to comment on how the incident had affected the Royal Family and other party guests.

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...chak203_pa.jpg
Barschak was said to be trying to promote his comedy show

https://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...3/img/laun.jpg
How did Aaron Barschak breach security at Windsor Castle?

Jalmey 06-23-2003 03:27 PM

DAILY MAIL, June 23, 2003

EVERYONE FROZE AS HE STORMED IN

RICHARD KAY

The Waterloo Chamber, heavy with the scent of exotic African blooms,
crackled with excitement as Prince William slowly got to his feet.

He had taken off his headdress and for the first time some of his
guests caught a proper glimpse of the young prince, bare-chested and
barefoot and in just a loincloth as he threaded through the tables.

All around him the warm glow of family and familiar faces as far as
he could see, and an expectant hush fell on the gathering as William
stood at a microphone to thank and toast 'my grandmother' the Queen
and 'papa', the Prince of Wales.

It was exactly 11.20pm and a princely party to celebrate a coming of
age was about to become tarnished as a night of a scandalous security
breach with potentially lethal implications.

Suddenly William, responding to a generous tribute from his father,
was interrupted by the commotion of a wild and bearded figure bearing
down on him. Dirty and perspiring heavily behind sunglasses, the man
was wearing a turban, pointy slippers, a false beard and,
extraordinarily, a salmon pink ballgown. Beneath it, most bizarrely
of all, he had on a black wig attached to a G-string.

He grabbed the microphone from William and launched into a rambling,
barely coherent monologue punctuated with the chilling words: 'I am
Osama, I am Osama.'

For a few seconds, perhaps as long as a minute, fascination froze on
the face of the Queen and almost the entire Royal Family dotted
around her. Was this some unscripted addition to the programme, a
comedy turn that would surely deliver up a suitably amusing
punchline?

Only William, who had choreographed the night's entertainment and
knew that there was no such pantomime planned, looked uneasy.
Fleetingly he thought it was a stunt of his brother Harry's making.

He looked left and right for his police bodyguard Sergeant Iuean
Jones, whose concession to the fancy-dress Out of Africa theme was to
wear a Springbok rugby shirt.

Inside palaces, royal protection officers are relaxed. And nowhere,
surely, can be more secure than Windsor Castle, a fortress of
impenetrable glacial stone bristling with the very latest
surveillance equipment.

But none of this is any good if security is lax. Alerted by William,
Sgt Jones and other police dashed forward and bundled the man away.
Within minutes he was put in handcuffs and thrust into a police Land
Rover.

With aplomb William turned to his guests and made a joke about it
being his brother in disguise and the moment was defused.

But inwardly he was seething that his party had been compromised, the
Queen was outraged that a royal home had once again been violated,
and Prince Charles was bemused and embarrassed.

At a stroke, an intruder had made a mockery of Scotland Yard, the
Home Office and all the sophisticated security at their disposal. He
had come within yards of the Queen and virtually every senior member
of the Royal Family.

Had he been carrying a gun, or a suicide bomber's belt packed with
explosive, he could have changed the face of history. The Queen, her
son, grandson and more than 30 other members of her family could have
been wiped out.

Yesterday as the appalling realisation of what might have been began
to sink in, senior courtiers were horrified. 'It would have been the
end of the monarchy,' said one influential adviser. 'It is
unbelievable that someone could have penetrated security and
apparently unchecked get that close to the family.

'It's diabolical and disgraceful.' So how did it happen? And how was
the meticulous planning of William, Prince Charles and the Queen
allowed to be overshadowed?

As we shall see the disclosures are startling and for the police
deeply uncomfortable.

It was late afternoon when the Queen motored back to Windsor from
Ascot after the final day of the royal race meeting. Outside crowds
of excited well-wishers had already begun to gather as her car swept
up the Long Walk.

Her grandson, meanwhile, was putting the finishing touches to his
party planning. His birthday had dawned without him receiving his
longed-for high-speed motorcycle as a present. Instead, it was said,
Prince Charles had bought him a polo pony.

The first guests had begun arriving at 5pm. These were the 150 who
were being provided with accommodation. Dozens of royal staff had
been asked to vacate their rooms for the weekend to permit William's
friends to stay.

The staff were not needed anyway because party organiser Michael
Fawcett, Prince Charles's former aide, had brought in out-side
caterers. As the Mail revealed last week, catering was in the hands
of the society firm the Admirable Crichton.

All was not well, however, outside in Windsor park. A gatekeeper had
been observing a bearded man dressed in a flowing black cape stalking
up and down the Long Walk, which is the private entrance the Royal
Family use to the castle.

Police too were alerted by this figure 'acting peculiarly', as the
gatekeeper told us. Some time later he was seen to disappear in the
direction of Windsor's Two

William's party was, by royal standards, a modest affair. One company
provided the food and drink, another the crockery and Wood Brown, a
florist from Battersea, South-West London, provided authentic African
flowers.

There were no wild animals roaming the grounds but there were 12ft
high model elephants, plenty of tribal masks and an array of animal
skins. Mr Fawcett had transformed two rooms in the State apartments,
the Grand Reception Room and the Waterloo Chamber.

There were few celebrity guests. Rowan Atkinson and Emma Thompson
were invited after becoming friends with William when they helped
organise a surprise party for Prince Charles's 50th birthday.

No pop stars were there, just two bands - one African, the other
contemporary - and a DJ spinning hits from the 1970s and 1980s.

Inside the Waterloo Chamber, where the Queen celebrated her

own 60th birthday, there were 32 tables of ten.

Visitors were still milling through Lower Ward as, inside the castle
guest rooms, partygoers laid out their extravagant outfits. Prince
Charles was putting the finishing touches to one of the most
elaborate of all - he would appear as a West African king.

With her feathery red headdress there was no need to guess what
Camilla would arrive as - a queen.

On any other night it would have been the extraordinary group of
guests whose stories would be told. There was the sight of the
Spencers - Diana's brother Charles and sisters Lady Sarah and Lady
Jane under the royal roof.

There was Lady Romsey, Prince Philip's beautiful carriage-driving
companion, who entered into the spirit by hiding her face behind a
leopard mask as she and her husband swept up to the castle.

The Queen's outfit, with some feathers and beads, was described by
one guest as 'understated'. But then compared with William's
outrageous polo playing friends - the 'glossy posse' - in grass
skirts, tunics bedecked with skins and bones, perhaps it was.

A white van brought a gang from William's university with the
legend 'St Andrews on safari' down the side. Some came as Indiana
Jones, others as Cleopatra, French foreign legion soldiers and Zulu
warriors.

Eyes might also have fallen on Jessica Craig - Jecca to her friends -
the Kenyan beauty who has been linked to William. His guests included
many pretty girls, such as his university flatmate Kate Middleton.

It was at 7 .30 pm that Barschak, dressed as Osama Bin Laden,
reappeared, striding towards the pen of photographers outside the
Castle Hill Gate. As he reached the cameras he shouted out: 'Happy
Birthday. I am from Africa, I am out of this world.'

Then lifting his skirts to expose his wig, he said: 'I give you the
heir, the underbelly.' He then appeared to advertise his presence
next month at the Edinburgh Festival in a show, Osama Like It Hot.

As his sunglasses fell off he removed his slippers and shouted: 'I am
Osama, I am Osama.'

In a shoulder bag he had a book about Bin Laden. A police officer
walked up. 'There were women and children there, he had to be calmed
down,' the officer said later.

Barschak shuffled off towards Windsor town centre.

By now six special guests were also inside the castle.

William's former nannies Jessie Webb, Barbara Barnes and Olga Powell
together with Prince Charles's nanny Mabel Anderson had taken their
places alongside his two favourite police guards, Dave Sharp and
Graham Craker.

There was no cabaret and after a reception, guests sat down to
asparagus and truffle mousse and stuffed chicken breasts served on
leopard and tiger-print china.

It was after the last course was cleared away that William stood up
to speak.

His father, never before so proud of his son, smiled across at him.

The intruder was now at William's side. But as the young prince took
control, one of Princess Diana's old friends said: 'His mother would
have been very proud.

He refused to allow his party to be spoiled.'

Minutes after the incident the first guests began to drift away. The
Queen herself left shortly after midnight. For William, however, the
night was still young. It was after 5am when he finally went to bed.

Jalmey 06-23-2003 03:35 PM

Hello Magazine

Wills Laughs Off 'Comedy Attack,' but Queen Wants Answers.
23 JUNE 2003

Prince William welcomed 300 guests – and one bearded gatecrasher – to his 21st birthday bash at Windsor Castle on Saturday. Wills was giving a thank-you speech when the uninvited partygoer, dressed in a dress, turban and fake beard, seized the microphone and began ranting at the revellers.

A major review of royal security has been ordered after the incident, in which self-styled alternative comedian Aaron Barschak managed to slip past police and gain entry to the year's most exclusive party.

He was quickly bundled away by royal protection officers, and quick-witted Wills laughed off the intrusion, saying: "I didn't know my brother could do an accent like that."

But the Queen is said to have been very upset that security was breached at the celebration, which was attended by almost every senior member of the Royal Family. Prince Charles was also deeply concerned and Home Secretary David Blunkett has demanded an investigation.

The fact that the intruder described himself as a "comedy terrorist" only served to emphasise Her Majesty's concerns. The 36-year-old comic apparently meant no harm, and was simply seeking publicity as he wants to become a serious actor, but the question of how he managed to get so close to the future Kings will have to be answered.

Apparently he had been spotted earlier in the day near the private entrance to the castle, but police ordered him to move on. He then approached a works entrance, and managed to talk his way past the officer who was standing guard.

"Someone loosely connected to the castle helped him to get in," said a source at Scotland Yard. "He talked to the royalty protection officer and persuaded him that Barschak should be allowed in. It may seem hard to believe but the security system was let down by one of our own people who didn't do their job properly."

The Out Of Africa-themed celebration soon got back into full swing, however, and many guests stayed until dawn. Barschak, meanwhile, has been released on bail and the police officer who granted him entry may face disciplinary action.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/2003/06...ills-dop2b.jpg
William rehearsing with a group of percussionists before the revelry got underway

https://www.hellomagazine.com/2003/06...ills-dop1b.jpg
Aaron Barshack strutting around in front of the assembled press before gatecrashing the party

Binny 11-19-2003 02:37 AM

Royal Security
 
From Sky News - (oh dear)..

Wednesday November 19, 05:07 AM

Reporter Breaches Palace Security

A serious breach of royal security has been exposed after a newspaper reporter posed undercover for two months as a footman at Buckingham Palace.The Daily Mirror's Ryan Parry used bogus references to get a job while the police and royal staff were preparing for the visit of President George Bush.Parry was due to serve breakfast to President Bush's top aides this morning, the newspaper said.

The shocking investigation covered 15 pages in today's edition of the newspaper and raises questions over royal security.

'Incompetence'

The story includes pictures by photographer Phil Harris from inside the palace of the president and his wife's bedroom, The Belgian Suite, the Queen's breakfast table and the Duke of York's room, complete with soft toys.

Parry wrote: "Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the Queen or American president George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease.

"Indeed, this morning I would have been serving breakfast to key members of his government, including National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Such is the shocking incompetence at the heart of the biggest security operation ever in Britain."

The White House press office and Buckingham Palace made no comment about the story.

Fake CV

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman also said she had no response at the moment.

In August, Parry responded to a job advertisement on a recruitment page of the Buckingham Palace official website.

On his CV, he excluded details of his journalistic career and included one fake reference and a real one, the newspaper claims.

Parry, who was pictured in red livery riding in a gilded horse-drawn carriage yesterday, claimed no rigorous security checks were done on his background.

Despite this, he claimed he was given a full all-areas security pass on his first day and had direct access to the Queen's food, which he said he could have easily poisoned.

He added that just days ago, in the midst of the security ahead of the president's visit, he was able to walk through rooms he and his wife would use, taking photographs of the bedroom.

Parry left the Palace at midnight after the arrival of President Bush and his wife, the newspaper said.

Binny 11-19-2003 04:10 AM

From the (UK) Daily Mirror

A RIGHT ROYAL FIASCO

Nov 19 2003

By Ryan Parry


FOR the past eight weeks, I have enjoyed unfettered access throughout Buckingham Palace as one of the Royal Family’s key aides.

Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the Queen or President George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease.

Indeed, this morning I would have been serving breakfast to key members of his government, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Such is the shocking incompetence at the heart of the biggest security operation ever in Britain.

Not once, from the moment I applied for my job as a footman to my walking out of the palace last night, did anyone ever perform anything close to a rigorous security check on my background.

Not once during the entire three- month operation did anyone ever search me or my bags as I came and went at Buckingham Palace.

On my first day I was given a full all-areas security pass and the traditional uniform of the Queen’s trusted aides that allowed me unquestioned access to every member of the royal family.

And within days of starting my job, I was even shown the secret hiding places for keys that will open the royal apartments.

From my small bedroom on the palace’s second floor, directly above the famous Picture Gallery and just yards from the Queen’s bedroom, plotting a devastating terrorist attack would have been simple.

Because I frequently had direct contact with the Queen’s food – delivering her tray was one of my tasks – I could have easily poisoned the monarch. And just days ago, as the supposedly impenetrable security was prepared for George Bush, I was able to wander at will through the rooms he and his wife will use during their stay, taking snaps of the bedroom they slept in last night.

I was also able to wander unchecked through Prince Andrew’s private apartment and those of the Earl and Countess of Wessex and Princess Anne. But most remarkable is the sheer ease by which I managed to win myself a job living and working in direct contact with the Queen – on the eve of the biggest security operation in British history.

IT began last August when I applied for a job as a royal footman advertised on a recruitment page of the Buckingham Palace official website.

I composed a CV – leaving out details of my journalistic career – with one real reference and one fake.

At one stage the palace even accepted a character reference over the telephone from a regular at the pub where I used to work as a barman.

Exposing my lies would have taken a simple check on the internet.

During my time at the palace I worked on a daily basis as a personal servant to the royals and served VIP guests and A-list celebrities. I was even invited to join the police gym.

Our investigation makes a mockery of the £10million security operation set up to protect the President.

I spent the early part of yesterday in a royal carriage with the Portuguese ambassador and other VIPs.

I left last night at 9.45pm, loading my gear into two holdalls. I walked out past two British armed guards, my heart pounding.

Then I stepped out into Buckingham Palace Road, unchecked and unchallenged for the last time.

Binny 11-19-2003 04:15 AM

From the same source -

OUR MAN IN THE PALACE: MY LIFE AS A FOOTMAN Nov 19 2003

By Ryan Parry


THE horse-drawn carriage came to a halt outside the Grand Entrance to Buckingham Palace. I jumped off, opened the heavy carriage door and lowered the blue-carpeted steps.

It was a grand occasion for the occupants - they were about to have an audience with Her Majesty the Queen.

Moments earlier I had stood proudly on the rear of the black and gold carriage as hundreds of tourists and royal watchers saw our convoy clatter up The Mall.

Special Escort Group police motorcycles carved a safe route through London and all security measures were taken - the royal parks managers were even asked to ensure covers were placed over waste paper bins.

Yet, dressed in the royal footman's livery of a long scarlet wrap doubled up over the shoulders and a gold-lined top hat, I once again had direct access to the royals and their VIP guests from Prime Ministers and foreign leaders to international celebrities.

The Queen's Equerry, Major James Duckworth-Chad, will be waiting on President Bush this week. One of my duties was to wait on the major, placing me one person away from the president himself.

I had previously waited on the Equerry on Remembrance Day, watching him on TV accompanying the Queen to the Cenotaph in all his ceremonial glory, knowing I had spit-polished his boots.

I spent the previous weeks working within the Master of the Household's department - what royal insiders refer to as the G-branch, general household staff comprising valets, butlers, footmen and drivers. Other footmen work for F-branch - food and drinks - and H-branch - housekeeping and cleaning.

My duties, on a £11,881 salary, cut to £9,338 after living costs, included manning the Grand Entrance and receiving and escorting guests.

EACH day began at 7.30am in the footman's room in the basement where we got our instructions. Were I a terrorist I would have found useful a card on the noticeboard with the Queen's schedule for the day - handwritten by Major Duckworth-Chad.

Working for G-branch was like stepping back into another era where royal pomp and ceremony - down to the tiniest detail of where to place the Queen's marmalade - have changed little since Edwardian times.

One weekend I joined another footman, two kitchen porters, two chefs, two silver pantry under-butlers, a page and a coffee-room maid - just to tend to the Queen.

The maid waited two-and-a-half hours to pick up a pot of coffee from a hot plate and pour it into a silver jug.

She then handed it to me. My role was to take the tray 20 metres to the page's vestibule and hand it to the page, who then carried it another eight metres to the Queen in her dining room.

One of the staff said to me: "It's incredible, isn't it?" At official events such as investitures and receptions, footmen show distinguished guests into the ballroom and serve drinks and canapes. At one reception held for British pioneers, I served Sir Cliff Richard a gin and tonic. Dignitaries including David Trimble, Lord Attenborough and Sir Trevor McDonald accepted drinks from me as they mingled with the Queen.

I also learned how to lay out the grandly titled Prime Minister's Drinks Tray with its choice of whisky, soda, clarets and beer.

Footmen also ride the Queen's carriages at the State opening of Parliament and Royal Ascot. We serve at State banquets and diplomatic receptions. But all this is secondary to attending royals - serving , delivering mail and being at their beck and call.

The myriad of personal instructions for each member of the household would be invaluable to anyone who meant them harm. Tea trays for each royal have their own precise map, indicating where condiments, teapots and milk jugs must be placed. Philip's always includes oat cakes next to the honey. Sophie Wessex eats breakfast in private from 7.30am to 8.10am, and prefers white wine at dinner.

Prince Andrew does not drink alcohol but will often have wine on the table for guests. We were told: "Do not dither around, be positive in his presence."

As part of the working rota, footmen come into contact with the royals, speaking to them personally in the mornings to find out their movements and their daily needs.

Some are easy to attend to. Princess Anne gets on with her work without fuss. But she's also quite particular. Her fruit bowl must contain a very black banana and ripe kiwi fruit.

The Wessexes are known for being laid back and pleasant with footmen but Andrew is known for his abrasive and demanding attitude.

When he flies through the main gates in his Aston Martin, even the police stand well back. And he is well known for dressing down staff.

Some often talk about what kind of mood the Duke is in because it can mean the difference between an easy and a nightmarish day. Each morning at 7.30 a footman wakes him up with his "calling tray" - a pot of tea with a china cup and saucer. The response can as easily be "f**k off" as "good morning". My senior footman Robert Ferris told me: "You get used to it." Ferris, who has been at the Palace for three years, told me that after he made a mistake over a task, Princess Anne once blurted out "You f*****g incompetent tw*t."

New footmen start on a three-year programme spending time in the glass and silver pantries and receive a certificate highly regarded in the hospitality industry.

One of three new recruits, I shadowed a senior footman for six weeks. Once, when I dropped a cup, Ferris laughed: "Just ensure you don't do that with the Queen's Georgian china."

AT THE end of my six-week trial period, he told me: "Next week, you're on your own. Good luck and don't f**k up." Now, I had the complete run of the Palace without a shadow.

Master of the Household Tom Arnold summoned me for a 15-minute introduction. He said: "You never know what is going to happen. Consider security a high priority but your safety is also extremely important. You need to know ways of getting out quick."

There are bizarre rules and protocol to follow. It's frowned upon for junior staff to walk along the middle of the carpets. Footmen keep to the edges on what is described as "the slow lane".

I was given Day Livery of a black tailcoat and red waistcoat, Scarlet Livery for ceremonial events and State Livery for the state opening of Parliament and coronations.

In contrast to the Royals' luxurious surroundings, I lived on the footman's floor in a section known as London Bridge. The small room was basic with a bed, wardrobe, desk and sink. Toilets and showers are communal.

Live-in staff have three meals a day. Dishes like roast pork and banoffi pie - served to royals the previous day - often popped up.

I was told many of the footmen's secrets. One said: "When the Tories are in power, there are always two footmen at the door to welcome the Prime Minister and another to serve the tea tray, but there are no footmen on hand when Tony Blair comes for his fortnightly meetings every other Tuesday. They don't think it looks good having liveried staff everywhere for the socialists."

A footman's hours are often long, especially if there is a dinner or a reception. But every day is different. Valeting is a big part of the job. I often steam ironed the Equerry's shirts. Major Duckworth-Chad's boots have to be spit polished to a "glass finish" and his sword and belt buffed before being laid out in his room.

ONE worker said of senior household members: "They think they're more royal than royalty. They fire orders around and some don't bother to say please, thank you or even hello.

"I've seen Duckworth-Chad on shooting days at Sandringham. He drags picnic baskets around and the Queen has him doing all kinds of jobs. He's just like us at the end of the day."

There are 13 footmen at the Palace but G-branch are always looking to recruit more as there is a high turnover of staff.

Four weeks into my training another recruit was sacked. I was told his work wasn't up to standard and the personnel office had discovered a problem when they checked his references. Yet they hadn't checked mine.

It is a demanding job with long periods away. The atmosphere can be tense with staff rowing over trivialities like whose duty it is to clear away the cheese, biscuits and butter dishes.

Page Richard McCue, who runs the Palace social club, orders junior staff around and does his utmost to catch them out.

"Nice tram-lines, get them sorted," he would shout pointing at my badly ironed trousers.

I soon realised life as a footman is not my cup of tea. With long hours and pitiful pay, no wonder the novelty of working for the Queen soon wears thin.

Binny 11-19-2003 04:21 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Ryan Parry - the reporter/footman..

Dennism 11-19-2003 08:52 AM

I love the footman's story. That is hilarious and so bad at the same time. Just a question; How did the photographer get in to take photos of the Belgian suite? That part I'm missing.

Binny 11-20-2003 02:29 PM

On a lighter note - :flower:


Some Britons Shocked at Queen's Decor

By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - A tabloid reporter's tale of working undercover as a Buckingham Palace footman has deeply shocked British commentators.

That wallpaper!

That Tupperware and plastic yoghurt pot on Her Majesty's breakfast table!

That "eat, drink and remarry" pillow in Prince Andrew's sitting room!

Thursday's newspapers had plenty of comment on the style — or lack of it — inside the palace. Never mind the security implications of servants being hired despite giving false references.

The Daily Mirror's scoop in having reporter Ryan Parry work undercover as a royal footman for two months won the ultimate tribute from rival newspapers, which quoted at length and reprinted several of the pictures that Parry snapped while on duty.

"Have you seen that wallpaper?" Andrew Anthony wrote in The Guardian.

"To gaze at the red and pink flock paper that adorns the walls of Prince Andrew's bedroom is to be transported back to 1973 in the unused upstairs room of your local pub where tuneless rock bands used to practice," Anthony wrote.

Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century political commentator, had warned against this kind of scrutiny.

"Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it," he wrote. " ... Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic."

Buckingham Palace went to court Thursday, winning an injunction to stop the Daily Mirror from printing any more of Parry's discoveries pending a full hearing.

This week's stories weren't as damaging as years of coverage of the Charles and Diana marriage, or the photos of a topless Duchess of York, or the recent kerfuffle over the unpublished rumor so firmly denied by Prince Charles.

But as the nation contemplated the wallpaper, the mystique of the monarchy died a little bit more. It was all so suburban, so yesterday.

"'Footman' exposes Tupperware secret of the queen's table," said a headline on The Daily Telegraph's front page.

"Chief among the victims were the Earl and Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie), who — it is now known — share their bedroom at the palace with a wooden wall unit and like to adorn their bed with furry bears and dogs," The Daily Telegraph said.

The Daily Mail annotated a photo of a royal breakfast table, noting the adjustable lamp ("circa 1975"), the plastic containers of cereal, the pot of yoghurt, the portable radio and the "old-fashioned telephone."

"These are constant reminders of bygone years when the lives of the royals were so much gentler and less troubled," the Daily Mail's report said.

"The poor dear queen can't win," Lucia van der Post wrote in The Times. Either she redecorates, and is criticized for extravagance, or does nothing and is derided as a fuddy-duddy.

"But the real trouble with the little bits we see is not that they're out of date, it's that most of us have trouble understanding how anybody in her right mind could have chosen them in the first place," van der Post wrote.

"The real importance of the story is nothing to do with security," The Independent said in an editorial. "It is that it is yet another example of the Brits' unerring ability to focus on what really matters: in this case, the queen's breakfast habits."

Binny 11-20-2003 09:07 PM

Queen Wins Order Against 'Footman' Reporter

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Queen Elizabeth won a bid on Thursday to temporarily gag a journalist and his paper after a security scare in which the reporter got a job as a royal servant ahead of President Bush's visit to London.

For the past two days, the Daily Mirror has been printing tidbits about life in the royal household as told by its man "below stairs," reporter Ryan Parry.

But on Thursday judge Kim Lewison granted the Queen a temporary injunction banning further publication of any details of Parry's time as a Buckingham Palace footman.

During the hearing at the High Court, David Pannick, counsel for the Queen, described Parry as "not so much a footman as a foot-in-the-door man."

The Daily Mirror indicated that it would return to court on Monday, when the temporary injunction expires, to reargue its case.

Earlier a palace spokeswoman said the Queen was seeking to preserve her right to privacy on the grounds that Parry had breached the duty of confidence he owed to his former employer.

The palace spokeswoman said the court action applied only to any further revelations.

"This is about privacy. Everybody has a right to privacy in their own home," she said.

In a coup for the tabloid, Parry worked as a footman in Buckingham Palace for two months after getting the job using bogus references.

The Mirror printed articles by Parry describing intimate details of the daily lives of members of the royal household, including snippets on how the Queen takes breakfast and her taste in television soap operas.

In an embarrassing blow for the security forces mounting the capital's biggest ever police operation, Parry said he had access to the suite of rooms being used by Bush during his stay at the palace at the invitation of the Queen.

Cartoonists have had a field day with Parry's scoop.

The Times showed two footmen carrying the ermine-lined train of the monarch as she swept along in her royal robes.

One footman asks the other: "Which newspaper do you work for?"

Dennism 11-21-2003 12:36 AM

AP

A tabloid reporter's tale of working undercover as a Buckingham Palace footman has deeply shocked British commentators.

That wallpaper!

That Tupperware and plastic yoghurt pot on Her Majesty's breakfast table!

That ``eat, drink and remarry'' pillow in Prince Andrew's sitting room!

Thursday's newspapers had plenty of comment on the style - or lack of it - inside the palace. Never mind the security implications of servants being hired despite giving false references.

The Daily Mirror's scoop in having reporter Ryan Parry work undercover as a royal footman for two months won the ultimate tribute from rival newspapers, which quoted at length and reprinted several of the pictures that Parry snapped while on duty.

``Have you seen that wallpaper?'' Andrew Anthony wrote in The Guardian.

``To gaze at the red and pink flock paper that adorns the walls of Prince Andrew's bedroom is to be transported back to 1973 in the unused upstairs room of your local pub where tuneless rock bands used to practice,'' Anthony wrote.

Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century political commentator, had warned against this kind of scrutiny.

``Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it,'' he wrote. `

Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.''

Buckingham Palace went to court Thursday, winning an injunction to stop the Daily Mirror from printing any more of Parry's discoveries pending a full hearing.

This week's stories weren't as damaging as years of coverage of the Charles and Diana marriage, or the photos of a topless Duchess of York, or the recent kerfuffle over the unpublished rumor so firmly denied by Prince Charles.

But as the nation contemplated the wallpaper, the mystique of the monarchy died a little bit more. It was all so suburban, so yesterday.

``'Footman' exposes Tupperware secret of the queen's table,'' said a headline on The Daily Telegraph's front page.

``Chief among the victims were the Earl and Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie), who - it is now known - share their bedroom at the palace with a wooden wall unit and like to adorn their bed with furry bears and dogs,'' The Daily Telegraph said.

The Daily Mail annotated a photo of a royal breakfast table, noting the adjustable lamp (``circa 1975''), the plastic containers of cereal, the pot of yoghurt, the portable radio and the ``old-fashioned telephone.''

``These are constant reminders of bygone years when the lives of the royals were so much gentler and less troubled,'' the Daily Mail's report said.

``The poor dear queen can't win,'' Lucia van der Post wrote in The Times. Either she redecorates, and is criticized for extravagance, or does nothing and is derided as a fuddy-duddy.

``But the real trouble with the little bits we see is not that they're out of date, it's that most of us have trouble understanding how anybody in her right mind could have chosen them in the first place,'' van der Post wrote.

``The real importance of the story is nothing to do with security,'' The Independent said in an editorial. ``It is that it is yet another example of the Brits' unerring ability to focus on what really matters: in this case, the queen's breakfast habits.''

Dennism 04-16-2004 10:19 AM

BBC

Vetting for jobs working with the Royal Family is expected to be stepped up following a reporter's infiltration of Buckingham Palace.

The Independent Security Commission was asked to investigate after the incident.

Its report is thought to recommend "positive vetting" for royal jobs with every aspect of an applicant's life is looked into.

MI5 could take a lead role in checking people's backgrounds.

The Security Service also do this for sensitive jobs in Downing Street, the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere.

The commission was headed by senior judge Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and is now being examined by the Home Office.

The prime minister ordered the investigation after Daily Mirror journalist Ryan Parry was able to get a job as a footman and work for two months with only cursory efforts to check his background.

Mr Parry had worked close to the Royal Family and had access to royal sites in the run-up to a visit by President George W Bush, with security supposedly stepped up.

Concerns had been raised earlier in the year by comedian Aaron Barschak's gatecrashing of Prince William's party at Windsor Castle.

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the actual physical protection of the royals - enhanced in the current climate of fear over possible terrorist attacks - was unlikely to see major changes.

Dennism 05-17-2004 10:25 PM

BBC


A man has been arrested for allegedly impersonating a police officer in a public area of Windsor Castle, said Scotland Yard.

A woman in her 30s was also arrested on suspicion of deception on Monday after 1600 BST.

No members of the Royal Family were at the castle and police say the incident did not represent a security breach.

The man, who is also in his 30s, and the woman are being questioned at a London police station.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "At this stage it is not believed that security was breached but we are reviewing all the circumstances of the arrest.

"No members of the Royal Family were in residence at the time."

Security adviser informed

BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said it was believed the man, posing as a plains clothes officer, entered the public area of Windsor Castle.

An overhaul of royal security was ordered last year after stand-up comedian Aaron Barschak gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at the castle.

He set off seven alarms and was visible on CCTV cameras but was not stopped by police.

Earlier this month the Buckingham Palace announced the appointment of a new director of security, Brigadier Jeffrey Cook, to oversee the co-ordination and royal protection and vetting of staff.

As to the latest incident, a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a police matter.

"However, our security adviser, Brigadier Jeffrey Cook, has been informed."

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "It beggars belief that within a year, we have a third major breach of palace security, which comes almost immediately after the appointment of Brigadier Jeffrey Cook as head of royal security and after an extensive and expensive security review.

"The home secretary must take responsibility for this and must now recognise that the case for a separate minister for homeland security in unarguable.

"If David Blunkett cannot protect our head of state, how can he be expected to provide protection for the whole of the British public against terrorism threats."

Scotland Yard refused to comment on reports the man had passed through a security check at the castle by using the name of a senior detective currently heading a high profile investigation.

GrandDuchess 04-07-2005 08:49 AM

From BBC News:
 
https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...camilla203.jpg

Fake bomb 'reaches castle area'

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an inquiry into claims journalists drove a van carrying a fake bomb into Windsor Castle's grounds.

The Sun said the van passed St George's Chapel, where the marriage of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles will be blessed this Saturday.

The "apparent security breach" raised serious concern, Scotland Yard said.

The report comes after it emerged that on Sunday two tourists scaled a fence and entered a private castle area.

'Not searched'

Scotland Yard said Sir Ian wanted to establish the facts surrounding the latest report in Thursday's Sun.

The newspaper claimed it breached the castle's £5m security barrier with "breathtaking ease" and got to within a "stone's throw" of the Queen's apartments.

One of its reporters and a photographer say they drove up in a hire van with no security passes and no pre-arranged delivery time.

On board was a brown box marked "bomb" and the reporter says he had a fake delivery note.

After an attempt to check up on them failed, they were allowed to drive into the grounds - past the chapel where the royal couple will be blessed - and they were not searched, the paper said.

Scotland Yard said in a statement: "It's only right the facts are established before any action is taken against any person who may be culpable."

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said: "Security is a matter for the police who have been asked to investigate."

Windsor Castle staff are already investigating how two men were able to enter one of its private areas last weekend.

Scotland Yard said the tourists were detected immediately and taken back to the public area but not arrested.

"The secure area of the castle was not breached at any stage", a spokeswoman said.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, police said they hoped Buckingham Palace would contribute to costs caused by the change in the royal wedding date.

The switch, from Friday to Saturday because Prince Charles will be attending the Pope's funeral, may result in a big rise in security costs as extra police are drafted in on their days off.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles is preparing for his last official UK engagement before the wedding.

He is a patron of Breast Cancer Haven and will visit the charity's centre in Fulham, London, on Thursday.

The new wedding date and time - 1230 BST on Saturday - has also affected the Grand National at Aintree, with a change in start time from 1545 BST to 1610 BST.

Weathermen say it is set to rain on Saturday, with Windsor having quite chilly temperatures of 6C (43F), which is lower than the seasonal average of 12C (54F).

WINDSOR SECURITY BREACHES
Feb 2005: Conman Michael Hammond, who posed as a senior police officer to get into Windsor Castle, is jailed
June 2003: Intruder Aaron Barschak jumps on stage dressed as Osama bin Laden at Prince William's 21st birthday
Nov 2003: Reporter Ryan Parry, who got a job at Buckingham Palace, claims security at Windsor is worse
1994: Security review launched after a ceremonial sword is stolen from the castle museum
1994: A pair of Eton schoolboys scale the castle walls and trigger alarms

marezdote 06-16-2005 08:47 AM

from msnbc.com

Another royal security breach
Journalist builds fake bomb, films prince at his military academy
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:18 a.m. ET June 16, 2005

LONDON - Britain’s defense minister on Thursday ordered an investigation into security at the army’s Sandhurst officers’ academy, where Prince Harry is training, after a newspaper reported that one of its journalists gained access and filmed the prince.




The incident is the latest in a string of breaches that have focused attention on the royal family’s security in the past couple for years.
The popular daily newspaper The Sun said its reporter posed as a student to get permission to use the library at the elite Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in Surrey, southern England, where Prince Charles’ younger son is an officer cadet.

The journalist spent some eight hours wandering the grounds at Sandhurst and took video footage of Prince Harry, stills from which were published in the newspaper. He also built what The Sun called a fake bomb, with wires, plasticine, a battery and clock in his car while at the academy, the daily said.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman confirmed that The Sun’s report was accurate.

Defense Secretary John Reid said he had ordered “an immediate investigation into this serious security breach.

“I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence,” Reid said in a statement released by the ministry. Reid didn’t specify what the changes would be.

Prince Harry, 20, began his training at Sandhurst last month.

The Sun’s stunt follows several recent lapses in royal security. In September, a protester disguised as Batman climbed onto a ledge on the front of Buckingham Palace and remained there for several hours.

A comedian dressed as Osama bin Laden gatecrashed Prince William’s 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle in 2003. Later that year a reporter from the Daily Mirror got a job as a servant at Buckingham Palace and took pictures of the royals’ living quarters.

sara1981 06-16-2005 02:15 PM

KANSAS MORNING SUN NEWSPAPER

Security at Prince Harry's military academy to be investigated after journalist gained access

The Associated Press https://images.morris.com/images/ap/o...pe/7956914.jpg The front page of British newspaper The Sun, which has led to the Sandhurst military academy - where Britain's Prince Harry is training to be an officer - launching a security review after a reporter walked around the grounds carrying a fake explosive device. Prince Harry is seen at centre of the front page circled in red and the photo of the journalist named only as the investigator at bottom of the page was manipulated was by the publishers of the newspaper. (AP Photo/The Sun, PA)
LONDON — Britain's defense minister ordered an investigation Thursday into security at the military school where Prince Harry is training, after a newspaper said one of its journalists, who had a camera and a fake bomb, gained access.

It was the latest security breach involving the royal family in recent years.

The Sun tabloid said one of its reporters posed as a student to get permission to use the library at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in Surrey, where Prince Charles' younger son is an officer cadet.

The journalist spent some eight hours wandering the grounds and took video of Prince Harry, stills from which were published in the newspaper. He also built what The Sun called a fake bomb, with wires, plasticine, a battery and clock in his car while at the academy, the newspaper said.

But Clarence House, the office of Prince Harry's father, Prince Charles, said the cadet shown in the video was not Prince Harry.

"Having reviewed the footage and spoken to people with Prince Harry, it's our opinion that it's not him," a Clarence House spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity.

The Sun insisted the video showed the prince and said it stood by its report.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman confirmed that The Sun's report was accurate.

Defense Secretary John Reid said he had ordered "an immediate investigation into this serious security breach."

"I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence," Reid said in a statement. Reid didn't specify what the changes would be.

Prince Harry, 20, began his training at Sandhurst last month.

The Sun's stunt follows several recent lapses in royal security. In September, a protester disguised as Batman climbed onto a ledge on the front of Buckingham Palace and remained there for several hours.

A comedian dressed as Osama bin Laden crashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle in 2003. Later that year, a reporter from the Daily Mirror got a job as a servant at Buckingham Palace and took pictures of the royals' living quarters.

sara1981 06-16-2005 02:24 PM

CNN NEWS

Harry 'faced fake bomb thread'
https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...rst/index.html

Sara Boyce

sara1981 06-16-2005 03:54 PM

ITV NEWS

https://www.itv.com/news/story2118016.160x120.jpg"I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach" - Defence Secretary John Reid
Row breaks out over 'Harry bomb' pics
4.48PM, Thu Jun 16 2005


A row has broken out between the Sun newspaper and Prince Charles's office over undercover pictures allegedly showing a reporter holding a fake bomb just metres from Prince Harry.

The pictures were taken inside Sandhurst Military Academy, where the young Prince is undergoing army training.

An undercover reporter claims that he filmed footage of the young Royal and wandered through the sleeping quarters of Sandhurst after gaining access by posing as a "warfare student".

However, following a statement from Clarence House that the cadet in the pictures is not Prince Harry, the Sun has said it stands by its original story and that the denial by Prince Charles's office is "absurd".

Many observers claim that, in the long term, who is pictured is irrelevant. Security at the military academy - where Prince Harry is undergoing training - suffered a serious breach nonetheless.

And the MoD has already launched a major review of security levels at Sandhurst. Defence Secretary John Reid has now demanded a full investigation. He said: "I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach.

"I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence."

An MoD spokesman said: "We treat any kind of breach of security extremely seriously. Sandhurst is now conducting a review of its procedures and changes will be made."

sara1981 06-16-2005 04:21 PM

BBC NEWS



Sun stunt sparks Sandhurst review

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttps://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...4_royal2tr.jpg
https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...ashed_line.gif

https://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/videonews.gifWatch the footage

A security review has been launched after a newspaper reporter gained access to Sandhurst military academy, where Prince Harry trains.

The Sun said its journalist walked in the grounds of the academy for seven hours after posing as a student.

Once inside, the reporter constructed a fake bomb in his car and took grainy video footage of the prince.

Defence Secretary John Reid demanded a "quick investigation" into what he termed a "serious security breach".

"There are no excuses," Mr Reid told BBC News.

"We ought to expect a reasonable degree of security when it comes to our armed forces.

"And we ought to expect a pretty good degree of security when it comes to the Royal Family, so when you put them both together things like this shouldn't happen."

'Public interest'

The Ministry of Defence said it was taking the breach "extremely seriously".

An MoD spokesman confirmed Sandhurst was conducting a security review.

"We will be implementing any changes we feel are necessary," he said.

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttps://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...t_quote_rb.gif Everything about the reporter was suspect but it wasn't picked up https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...d_quote_rb.gif


Graham Dudman
The Sun

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...ashed_line.gif

Do newspaper stunts work?



The Sun said it had acted after being tipped off by a "concerned insider" worried about the state of security at the academy.



The paper's managing editor, Graham Dudman, told BBC News its actions were intended to "expose, for the public interest, gaps in security".

"What would have happened if that hadn't been the Sun that the source had called, what if he'd called somebody far more sinister?" he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"You would have a completely different news agenda today - you wouldn't be trying to talk down the Sun on a fantastic piece of journalism, you'd be talking about something a whole lot more serious and dangerous.

"Everything about the reporter was suspect but it wasn't picked up," he added.

Fake bomb

The newspaper said its reporter posed as a "warfare student", arranging an appointment at the military college to carry out research on the causes of the Gulf War.

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ope_203_pa.jpg Prince Harry was accepted into Sandhurst last September



He was waved through security and strolled into the library before wandering off, the paper said.

He later went back to his car where he constructed a fake bomb with wires, modelling clay, a battery and clock.

A policeman challenged him soon afterwards but allowed him to stay on the base, it was reported.

Security review

On its front page, the Sun printed a picture of the prince with fellow cadets, taken from video footage from their reporter.

Harry is an officer cadet at Sandhurst.

Former Sandhurst cadet and instructor Rory Clayton said the academy was designed in a university campus style to "give free movement to cadets" and was "not supposed to be a fortress".

"I'm sure security immediately around Prince Harry, as it is around all the royals, is very tight indeed," he told BBC News.

"I think the last thing the Sun's antics are going to trigger are a revelation of just how tight that security is."



In the past two years the royal family's security has been breached by a stand-up comedian dressed as a female Osama Bin Laden; a Mirror reporter posing as a footman; and a campaigner wearing a Batman outfit. A review of royal security, last year, concluded the most likely source of "insider threat" was from the media and individuals. It said any weaknesses which could be exploited by them could also be exploited by terrorists.


sara1981 06-16-2005 04:30 PM

YAHOO NEWS

Breach at Prince Harry's School Probed
Thu Jun 16,12:47 PM ET



LONDON - Britain's defense minister ordered an investigation Thursday into security at the military school where Prince Harry is training, after a newspaper said one of its journalists, who had a camera and a fake bomb, gained access.

ADVERTISEMENT
https://[img]https://ad.n2434.doublecl...639?[/img]if (window.yzq_a == null) document.write("");if (window.yzq_a){yzq_a('p', 'P=tg3lgkSOwhUvbneTQq4vyAA6RDMSqUKx4LwADom6&T=16slir2is%2fX%3d1118953660%2fE%3d84962395%2fR%3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d3826016171%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJzZWN1cml0eTttaWxpdGFyeTtJdDtNaWxpdGFyeTt2aWRlbztIb3VzZTtpdCI-%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d47C28E44');yzq_a('a', '&U=139f1qtjv%2fN%3d5iOqVkSOxIY-%2fC%3d354752.6638731.7623340.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d2800075');}https://bc.us.yahoo.com/b?P=tg3lgkSOw...%2fB%3d2800075
It was the latest security breach involving the royal family in recent years.

The Sun tabloid said one of its reporters posed as a student to get permission to use the library at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in Surrey, where Prince Charles' younger son is an officer cadet.

The journalist spent some eight hours wandering the grounds and took video of Prince Harry, stills from which were published in the newspaper. He also built what The Sun called a fake bomb, with wires, plasticine, a battery and clock in his car while at the academy, the newspaper said.

But Clarence House, the office of Prince Harry's father, Prince Charles, said the cadet shown in the video was not Prince Harry.

"Having reviewed the footage and spoken to people with Prince Harry, it's our opinion that it's not him," a Clarence House spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity.

The Sun insisted the video showed the prince and said it stood by its report.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman confirmed that The Sun's report was accurate.

Defense Secretary John Reid said he had ordered "an immediate investigation into this serious security breach."

"I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence," Reid said in a statement. Reid didn't specify what the changes would be.

Prince Harry, 20, began his training at Sandhurst last month.

The Sun's stunt follows several recent lapses in royal security. In September, a protester disguised as Batman climbed onto a ledge on the front of Buckingham Palace and remained there for several hours.

A comedian dressed as Osama bin Laden crashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle in 2003. Later that year, a reporter from the Daily Mirror got a job as a servant at Buckingham Palace and took pictures of the royals' living quarters.



https://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....b5WHCGJlRrGw--
AP Photo: The front page of British newspaper The Sun, which has led to the Sandhurst military...

sara1981 06-16-2005 04:35 PM

YAHOO NEWS

British military red-faced over security lapse around Prince Harry

LONDON (AFP) - A newspaper said that a reporter carrying a "fake bomb" penetrated Britain's elite military academy at Sandhurst which is training Prince Harry to be an officer.

The Sun newspaper claimed Harry, the younger son of Prince Charles and the late Diana, was at Sandhurst while its reporter spent seven hours wandering the grounds and corridors carrying a fake explosive.

The defense ministry said it had launched a review of security, without confirming whether the 20-year-old Harry was present at the time of the lapse.

"I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach. I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence," Defense Secretary John Reid said Thursday.

At the beginning of last month, Harry began a tough 44 weeks of intensive training as an army officer at Sandhurst, in Camberley, southeast England.

He has completed the first five weeks which are known as the "breaking-in" period, when both male and female cadets train for up to 20 hours a day without leaving the academy grounds.

Once they get through that, the recruits can go out for a weekend.

The Sun said its reporter, whom it did not name, posed as a "warfare student", wandering into accommodation blocks where cadets sleep.

On its front page it printed a picture of the prince with fellow cadets.

The reporter sent an e-mail to the academy's chief librarian giving a vague outline of his research into 20th century warfare.

He reportedly received an e-mail back confirming an appointment and days later received an invitation from Sandhurst in the post.

The newspaper said the reporter was then waved through security and strolled into the library before wandering off.

He later went back to his car where he constructed a fake bomb with wires, plasticine, a battery and clock.

After seven hours at the base he was finally challenged but simply asked for directions to a shop and was sent on his way.

A policeman challenged him soon afterwards but was satisfied with the reporter's explanation and allowed him to stay on the base.

A spokeswoman at Clarence House, the residence of Prince Charles, said "we never comment on security matters."

Lapses in security around the royal family have occurred many times before.

In April, a reporter said he drove a "fake bomb" through the grounds of Windsor Castle just 72 hours before Prince Charles was due to hold a wedding reception for him and his new bride Camilla at the estate west of London.

The report came after police confirmed that two tourists wandered into a restricted area of Windsor Castle before being caught by police. In November and September last year, men campaigning for the rights of fathers to see their children in cases of divorce or separation breached security at Buckingham Palace,Queen Elizabeth II's residence in London.

sara1981 06-16-2005 10:10 PM

PEOPLE MAGAZINE ARTICLES

PeopleNews

Fake Bomb Rattles Prince Harry's School

Thursday Jun 16, 2005 3:00pm EST
By Stephen M. Silverman
https://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2004...025/pharry.jpg
Prince Harry
CREDIT: HUSSEIN ANWAR/SIPA




A tabloid reporter toting a "fake bomb" said he penetrated Britain's elite military academy at Sandhurst, where Prince Harry lives and trains.

The Sun newspaper claims that Harry, 20, was at Sandhurst while its reporter spent eight hours wandering the grounds and school halls carrying a fake explosive. The reporter apparently approached the academy saying he would like to research the 20th-century military in the school library, the Associated Press reports.

In light of the Sun's story, Defense Secretary John Reid said Thursday that his department has launched a review of security. He did not confirm whether Harry was present at the time of the alleged lapse in protection of the third in line to the throne.

"I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach. I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence," Reid said.

The Sun said its reporter, who has not been named, posed as a student, wandering into residential areas where cadets sleep. Early last month, Harry began a tough 44 weeks of intensive training as an army officer at Sandhurst.

A spokeswoman at Clarence House, the residence of Prince Charles, said, "we never comment on security matters."

gaggleofcrazypeople 06-16-2005 10:18 PM

I must say that some of these reporters are really pathetic. There are far more important things happening in the world than what Harry did today. This reporter really shouldn't have done what he did. Besides, one of those pics don't even look like Harry.

sara1981 06-16-2005 10:30 PM

TELEGRAPH NEWS

Harry scare story sparks Sandhurst security review
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent and Caroline Davies
(Filed: 17/06/2005)

A major security review at Sandhurst was ordered yesterday after a newspaper reporter bluffed his way into the grounds and allegedly got within yards of Prince Harry.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, called the intrusion a "serious security breach" after it emerged that the reporter wandered around the Royal Military Academy for seven hours.

The Sun reporter entered both Old College, where Prince Harry has a room, and New College, where he allegedly got close enough to the prince to film him conducting drill, although Clarence House denied this.

Despite twice being challenged at the campus in Camberley, Surrey, once by a Ministry of Defence policeman, the reporter, dressed in a blazer and slacks, was allowed to go on his way.

Mr Reid said yesterday: "I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach. I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence."

Military sources said security had immediately been tightened following the newspaper's revelations.

Prince Harry already has a 24-hour armed guard. It is thought that this could be reinforced. Other measures could lead to greater gate security and the installation of more CCTV cameras. An MoD spokesman said: "We treat any kind of breach of security extremely seriously. Sandhurst is now conducting a review of its procedures and changes will be made."

The journalist e-mailed the academy's library and, posing as a war studies student, asked to study there for a day.

At the gate, the unnamed reporter handed over a letter that the library had sent him, and was allowed in without the guards searching his car, which contained two video cameras and fake bomb-making equipment.

Despite having no photo identity, the reporter was allegedly handed a parking pass and an identity pass after presenting a credit card. After touring the campus, the reporter made a fake bomb from Plasticine, a battery and a clock, and filmed himself in front of New College.

The paper claimed to have got so close to Prince Harry that it was able to take video footage of him with a hidden camera.

But Clarence House said: "We are of the opinion that it is not him in the footage."

It is understood that Prince Harry has seen the footage and denies it was him, or that he was in the vicinity of the building where it was shot.

A spokesman for The Sun said: "The footage is Prince Harry. The Clarence House denial is absurd."

Security is expected to be tight when the Queen visits Sandhurst on Tuesday.

sara1981 06-17-2005 03:33 PM

ITV NEWS

https://www.itv.com/news/story2118016.160x120.jpg"I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach" - Defence Secretary John Reid
Security stepped up at Sandhurst
10.56AM, Fri Jun 17 2005


A massive security clampdown is in place at Sandhurst after a newspaper reporter was able to freely wander around the grounds carrying a fake bomb.

The Sun said guards had been posted outside Prince Harry's dormitory and every vehicle entering the site is now subject to inspection.

Meanwhile Royal officials remain locked in battle with the Sun over whether the reporter actually got anywhere near Harry.

Clarence House insists the prince does not appear in footage secretly filmed by the undercover reporter.

The Sun said it stands by its original story and that the denial by Prince Charles's office is "absurd".

Many observers claim that, in the long term, who is pictured is irrelevant.

Security at the military academy - where Prince Harry is undergoing training - suffered a serious breach nonetheless.

Defence Secretary John Reid has now demanded a full investigation. He said: "I have demanded an immediate investigation into this serious security breach.

"I have instructed Sandhurst to change their procedures to prevent a recurrence."

An MoD spokesman said: "We treat any kind of breach of security extremely seriously. Sandhurst is now conducting a review of its procedures and changes will be made."

CATS 06-21-2005 02:21 AM

DOESN'T the sun have any thing better to do?, all their doing is proving can be done and endangering the royals.
example being the Buckingham palace stut. When they got that man a job there and he went around taking pictures of the private apartments.
then later on, batman now knowing it could be done climbs on to the palace and stay there. not everyone want to have all the protection the US president needs. the Queen sure doesn't.


(no insalt to the americans intended)

hudson 06-18-2007 05:47 PM

What if a member of the Royal Family were Kidnapped?
 
Given that Prince Harry was not allowed to serve in Iraq because of various kidnap plots against him by the Iraqi insurgents I was wondering what would be the response of the British government if Prince Harry or any member of the Royal family were to be kidnapped?Would they take a no negotiation stance like the Italians did when their former Prime minister Aldo Moro was abducted in 1978? the result of that was that Mr. Moro was killed! Rescue probably would''nt be an option so would''nt the government have to meet the kidnappers demands?

yvr girl 06-18-2007 06:00 PM

I'm sure there would be a rescue attempt but
 
I don't think there would be any deals.

The main reason they have protection is to avoid kidnapping. It would put the government and the Queen in such a terrible position. If you make a deal one time, it would open the floodgates. Open season on the Royal Family.

I think the final call would rest with the PM and not the Queen.

Bella 06-18-2007 06:25 PM

What a terrible thought. Though unfortunately, in the world we live in today, it's a very real threat. Actually, I take that back. Throughout history there have been kidnappings and murders of members of various royal families. So I guess it's not anything new. And there was that not-too-long-ago attempt at kidnapping the Princess Royal. Personal security is a must-have for any royal.

scooter 06-18-2007 09:01 PM

I think it was wise to not send Harry to Iraq for exactly this reason.

hudson 06-18-2007 11:22 PM

I agree that accepting the demands of a Kidnapper would mean that no member of the Royal familywould be safe and I agree the Prime minister would most
likely make the final decision.But the refusal to negotiate would most likely result in the death of the victim.Would any PM want to accept responsibility
for that? It would definitely be a no win situation.

Emeralds and Opals 04-05-2009 08:53 AM

Royal Security
 
Ski trips on the taxpayer for Prince Charles' guards ... even though there are no Royals to protect | Mail Online

sophie25 04-18-2009 12:03 PM

Royal Security
 
Just why are we paying Princess Eugenie's £100,000 gap-year security bill? | Mail Online

I know it's Eugenie's name in the headline but the article is relevent to Beatrice as well.

iowabelle 04-18-2009 02:59 PM

Not only do you have terrorists, you also have stalkers. Redeeming a royal prisoner might be more costly than giving them minders.

Remember the close call Princess Anne had back in the 1970s? I think the man was probably closer to a stalker than a professional kidnapper. It was a very narrow escape for the princess.

Duke of Marmalade 04-18-2009 03:31 PM

The sisters are the grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II so it's understandable to a degree for them to have security. What is not understandable though and very insensitive are the headlines they have been making these days (Britain badly effected by the recession, people being made redundant, struggling to keep their house or to make a decent living etc etc etc), by excessively enjoying themselves, partly sporting some indecent behaviour, and all this on the taxpayer's expense although the Princesses are completely unimportant for the crown.

Again, no common sense. It should come naturally for any sensible human being to try to keep quiet or at least to avoid any offence when other people, the British public, are forking out the salaries for your minder. And, if that's not possible and you just wanna have fun on your gap year or at university and do all these crazy and sometimes stupid or indecent things the average 19 year old does, ask your rich daddy to pay for the bill.

The majority of the young royal generation, headed by Eugenie and Beatrice, have the potential to change people's attitude from "I like or don't mind the monarchy" to "I am a republican".

Menarue 04-18-2009 03:53 PM

I think the Duke of York should pay for his daughters´ minders. Remember professional security officers said they thought it wasn´t necessary to have that amount of security and they certainly know more about these things than most people do.

rmay286 04-18-2009 07:14 PM

I think the press is more than a little to blame for people's attitudes towards Beatrice and Eugenie/their security. It's true that Beatrice and Eugenie haven't done many royal duties or been involved in many charitable causes, but at the same time, I don't feel like they really party as much or do anything as scandalous as the media makes out. I mean, all I ever hear about Beatrice is "doesn't she ever do anything but fall out of nightclubs?" But if you look back through this thread, how many times this month have we had an article on her going out to a party? I've found two. That doesn't really seem excessive to me...if she goes out once a weekend or so, she still has plenty of time to study. But articles about Beatrice and Eugenie partying are the only articles we ever get about them. And yes, to be fair, that's because we don't see them doing much else. But in Beatrice's case, she presumably spends the rest of her time studying or at school, which isn't something you can photograph or design a dramatic headline about.

It's a tough problem to solve. Whenever the girls are out and about, the press will take pictures of them. And because they don't carry out royal engagements yet, the only times they are out and about are usually social evenings. But that doesn't mean they always party or that their security is just being used to fund their party lifestyle.

I do understand, from the perspective of British taxpayers, that security for these girls seems like a waste of money. I somewhat support reducing their security, but the truth is, as unlikely as it may be, something could happen to them. And costs for security in general seem to be going up: for example, I know the security costs for the 2010 Winter Olympics here in Canada are significantly over budget and keep rising. Then again, I don't think this would apply nearly to the same extent to B/E's bodyguards...and I'm not sure why these men need to fly first class and stay in nice hotels when their royal charge is backpacking her way around. The government should possibly consider reducing the perks these bodyguards are enjoying, rather than scrapping security altogether.

Menarue 04-19-2009 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923389)

Then again, I don't think this would apply nearly to the same extent to B/E's bodyguards...and I'm not sure why these men need to fly first class and stay in nice hotels when their royal charge is backpacking her way around. The government should possibly consider reducing the perks these bodyguards are enjoying, rather than scrapping security altogether.

That ´s marvellous, professional security officers made to backpack to save money so that the two princesses can enjoy themselves on holiday after holiday. In the article it was explained that a jet-lagged security officer cannot do his job.
These men are away from their families watching over a pair of spoiled little girls having their holidays from what seems to be an endless holiday and they have to do what teenagers find fun! Also the working hours of these men make it necessary for them to have a relief team of men fly out so that they can go home, these are grown trained men not boys out having fun with their mates, they are working unlike their charges who probably will never work in their lives.

Duke of Marmalade 04-19-2009 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923389)
... I don't feel like they really party as much or do anything as scandalous as the media makes out. I mean, all I ever hear about Beatrice is "doesn't she ever do anything but fall out of nightclubs?" But if you look back through this thread, how many times this month have we had an article on her going out to a party? I've found two. That doesn't really seem excessive to me...if she goes out once a weekend or so, she still has plenty of time to study.

There is going out for drinks and there is excessive partying. Nobody bothers, including the media, when somebody goes out for drinks and is sober enough to get home in a decent manner. But it's a different story when, and that's what I call excessive, stories hit the newspapers about one of the York girls running around naked and drunk, or enjoying herself in an indecent manner on a Thai beach. It's careless and offensive towards those who fork out the bill for their "protection". Protection from what? Themselves? In times when the ordinary British citizen struggles to make a decent living and funds are cut everywhere, it's hard to understand that there is still enough money to pay for bodyguards of unimportant royals who are bold enough to remind the public on a regular basis that they partly pay for their carefree celebrity lifestyle. Many people simply can't afford to go on holiday any longer, let alone send their kids on a "around the world" gap year.

It would be more helpful if the Duke of York invested his money in a governess who is there to advise his daughters on how to behave in public as a representative of a country instead of having the public pay for minders to protect his daughters against incidents that are unlikely to happen anyway.

Skydragon 04-19-2009 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 923430)
That's marvelous, professional security officers made to backpack to save money so that the two princesses can enjoy themselves on holiday after holiday. In the article it was explained that a jet-lagged security officer cannot do his job.
These men are away from their families watching over a pair of spoiled little girls having their holidays from what seems to be an endless holiday and they have to do what teenagers find fun! Also the working hours of these men make it necessary for them to have a relief team of men fly out so that they can go home, these are grown trained men not boys out having fun with their mates, they are working unlike their charges who probably will never work in their lives.

Not to forget the massive Breach of Contract payments they would be entitled to if they were forced to stay in a beach hut near to their charges. It is not a position I can imagine very many volunteering for. :nonono:

Well written Duke of Marmalade, I agree completely. :flowers:

rmay286 04-19-2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 923459)
There is going out for drinks and there is excessive partying. Nobody bothers, including the media, when somebody goes out for drinks and is sober enough to get home in a decent manner. But it's a different story when, and that's what I call excessive, stories hit the newspapers about one of the York girls running around naked and drunk, or enjoying herself in an indecent manner on a Thai beach.

But I don't know where you're getting this from! "There is going out for drinks and there is excessive partying"...where do you personally draw the line? Have you counted how many times a month these girls go out to party? Or do people assume they party "excessively" because the only stories we ever get about them are about them emerging from a party? What about charity balls and dinners, nights out with "mum" to help promote her new film or some other new initiative? Is this exactly the same as partying at nightclubs? Not sober enough to get themselves home in a decent manner? I've read stories that say Eugenie has been drinking with her friends, but I've never seen evidence that Eugenie was too drunk to get home without making a fool of herself, and I can't even recall stories that stated as much (by stated, I don't mean implied through the colourful language of tabloids). Running around naked and drunk? There was one incident where Eugenie and some of her friends were apparently "frolicking" naked on school property. Immature and ill-advised, maybe, but I don't remember any accusations that the girls were drunk at the time, and I don't see what that has to do with her police security on her travels since that apparently happened on school grounds. I know this is not the Beatrice and Eugenie thread, but you are suggesting that they're doing things under the watch of police protection that they simply aren't actually doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 923430)
That ´s marvellous, professional security officers made to backpack to save money so that the two princesses can enjoy themselves on holiday after holiday. In the article it was explained that a jet-lagged security officer cannot do his job.
These men are away from their families watching over a pair of spoiled little girls having their holidays from what seems to be an endless holiday and they have to do what teenagers find fun! Also the working hours of these men make it necessary for them to have a relief team of men fly out so that they can go home, these are grown trained men not boys out having fun with their mates, they are working unlike their charges who probably will never work in their lives.

I didn't say the security officers should backpack; I was just wondering if maybe their travel costs could be cut. Or maybe their salaries could be looked at. If these men are fairly compensated and they're not spending more than what's absolutely necessary, then that's a different matter, but I don't know if it has been looked at. I'm on the fence about Beatrice and Eugenie's security because their royal status is somewhere between the "top royals" and the whole constellation of lesser royals. Obviously the Queen, Prince Philip, and the heir to the thrones and his sons should have security because they are the ones closest to the crown. But what about Beatrice and Eugenie? They are the first princesses in the land, but not likely to ever ascend the throne. But on the other hand, fifth and sixth in line to the throne (and if Charles ascends the throne before William and Harry have children, fourth and fifth) are still high-ranking positions. So I don't know. Would a terrorist or kidnapper really attack them because of their position? It's doubtful, but it's possible. Then again, Zara Phillips could also be targeted because the Queen is her grandmother too. But maybe those with the title of Princess are in a little more danger? I don't know. Does Princess Anne have security? She's further away from the throne than Beatrice and Eugenie are, although she's the daughter of the Queen.

branchg 04-19-2009 01:02 PM

The current guidelines for security is that all members of the royal family who are HRH are automatically entitled to protection. The general rule is they receive protection anytime they venture in public.

This is another reason why it is generally thought Prince Charles will eventually downsize the number of Royal Highnesses once he is King. The agreement that Edward and Sophie's children will use their styles as Lord/Lady Windsor, rather than HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, is a step in that direction.

The Duke of York is adamantly against his daughters losing their royal style and titles, so it remains to be seen what will happen in the future.

Skydragon 04-19-2009 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923570)
Not sober enough to get themselves home in a decent manner?

We have seen photos of Beatrice having to be helped to her car and the occasion that she was too merry to remember she had a driver there to pick her up. These are just two of the incidents that spring immediately to mind. We have also seen pictures where Eugenie appeares to be a little worse for wear. These are just the ones that have had a major splash in the media.
Quote:

I was just wondering if maybe their travel costs could be cut. Or maybe their salaries could be looked at. If these men are fairly compensated and they're not spending more than what's absolutely necessary, then that's a different matter, but I don't know if it has been looked at.
Their salary and terms of employment will have been agreed by the government, it is not a job everyone would want and therefore they are recompensed accordingly. To suggest cutting their salary or overseas payments to facilitate the gadding about of these girls is IMO, not right.
Quote:

Would a terrorist or kidnapper really attack them because of their position? It's doubtful, but it's possible.
In all honesty, could two security personnel stop a determined kidnapper with accomplices, could they stop an attack by someone wielding an AK47 or an M16, of course not.

rmay286 04-19-2009 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 923663)
We have seen photos of Beatrice having to be helped to her car and the occasion that she was too merry to remember she had a driver there to pick her up. These are just two of the incidents that spring immediately to mind. We have also seen pictures where Eugenie appeares to be a little worse for wear. These are just the ones that have had a major splash in the media.

It's true, Beatrice might have had too much to drink when she forgot that she had the driver there...but then again, this is a girl who had her car stolen because she left her keys in the ignition and the car unlocked, so maybe she's just a scatterbrain! Beatrice and/or Eugenie might "appear" to be a little worse for wear from time to time, and this could be because they had too much to drink, but it's impossible to prove that for sure. Sometimes people act as though Beatrice and Eugenie are always intoxicated beyond the point of normal functioning every time they go out with their friends, and I just don't think that's true. Some of the claims made about them are wildly exaggerated.

Also, I'm quite certain that if there were any other and/or worse incidents beyond the ones you've mentioned, they too would have made a major splash in the media. The paparazzi are quite thorough in covering Beatrice and Eugenie's every move.

Quote:

Their salary and terms of employment will have been agreed by the government, it is not a job everyone would want and therefore they are recompensed accordingly. To suggest cutting their salary or overseas payments to facilitate the gadding about of these girls is IMO, not right. In all honesty, could two security personnel stop a determined kidnapper with accomplices, could they stop an attack by someone wielding an AK47 or an M16, of course not.
I also don't think that two security personnel could do anything to stop a really determined kidnapper, and I'm not totally sure the girls should have police protection. But as branchg mentioend, all those styled HRH currently receive security. Is the security for, say, Princess Anne any better at warding off potential kidnappers? (Wasn't she the victim of an attempted kidnapping twenty or thirty years ago? I don't quite remember how that turned out.) If the norm is for all members of the royal family styled HRH to receive security, why should they break that rule for Beatrice and Eugenie just because they don't currently carry out royal duties (even though they're expected to do so in the future: Sarah, Andrew, and the Queen have apparently agreed on this).

Warren 04-20-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923695)
Is the security for, say, Princess Anne any better at warding off potential kidnappers? (Wasn't she the victim of an attempted kidnapping twenty or thirty years ago? I don't quite remember how that turned out.)

It turned out quite badly. Four people were shot.
See here.

Duke of Marmalade 05-14-2009 07:47 AM

Thankfully this topic is being scrutinized again.

The idea that the bill for the security - a ludricous amout of money - of unimporant royals such as Eugenie or Beatrice is interfering with the budget of issues that are really imporant for the country (the security of service personnel) is acutally shameful.

Unless they do any service for the crown / country security should be their private business. And if the royals, eg Andrew keep ignoring these questions being asked in times of a deepening recession they should not be surprised if the public very soon starts asking more fundamental questions, eg why not scrap this whole monarchy issue all together.

Eugenie and co face bodyguard cutback as Yard reviews £50m cost of protecting party-going junior Royals | Mail Online

Wisteria 05-14-2009 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 938313)

Unless they do any service for the crown / country security should be their private business. And if the royals, eg Andrew keep ignoring these questions being asked in times of a deepening recession they should not be surprised if the public very soon starts asking more fundamental questions, eg why not scrap this whole monarchy issue all together.

]

This perhaps is the most dangerous situation they are facing. Of course they can go to parties, they can be drop outs if they like, but their father should pay for their security if he feels it is so necessary.
Much as I like these two girls the idea of British taxpayers paying exorbitant sums for protection in the US is ludicrous.

MARG 05-14-2009 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren (Post 923860)
It turned out quite badly. Four people were shot.
See here.

Just think . . . . . . they were the "good old days"! Your average nutter is crazier and better armed in these gentle days of the 21st Century. (Am I right in thinking that the York girls are 5th & 6th in line?) Hmm . . . and the WHO predicts that 1 in 4 people will have been infected by N1H1 within the next 9 months. :ohmy:

Never forget that there's many a slip . . . . . :whistling:

jcbcode99 05-14-2009 09:23 AM

I have watched Bea and Eugenie for some time now and except for the very rare, almost absentminded visit to her mother's charity or tagging along with Dad, I have not observed anything of substance. What I have observed are very late nights out at clubs, participating in fashion shows, having cars stolen out from under noses, drunken behavior, and very very bad fashion (I couldn't resist adding that comment). I will say that they appear to doing some more substantial things, but not enough to warrent defending their behavior. Yes, I know they're young and need to have fun--at that age I certainly had fun, but not at taxpayer expense. There is a difference-the girls (and Andrew) seem to want their cake and to eat it, too. They are HRHs ,which is fine--it's their right. I do wish that Louise and James Wessex were known as such, but I respect and admire Sophie and Edward for their decision that the children will not be known in that way. However, Andrew is adamant that they retain that HRH, with all the perks, but little of the responsibility and it simply does not work that way. He wants them to enjoy life, and that's reasonable. They're in school, they're young, they have friends, etc...they lead lives of immense privilege as royals--but with that comes responsibility; they cannot be considered socialites and say that their lifestyle is ok because they're young. Socialites do not have the public footing the bill for their security and Andrew needs to understand why there are disgruntled rumblings about his daughters. His indulgence of his children and their lifestyle without question portray this spoiled, socialite, party girls image to the public--whether that is all true or not I do not know but they do not allow many other opportunities to disprove this image, do they? If they did we could discuss the balance, but there is not balance in that regard. I personally think that Andrew should pay for at least part of their protection until they decide how much responsibility they want to assume as HRHs.

Claire 05-14-2009 09:55 AM

Personally I feel that although all the security concerns are upon the York girls as they might have have a direct threat.
The reason I say this that they have stopped other members of the royal family - Glochesters, Kents and Wessex's receiving more then two officers when they travel abroad. The Countess of Wessex recently went to Bangledesh with only one officer. albeit no night clubs were on the agenda. As it stands no officier attends pre-school with Louise. Edward is appearing all over London without any security what so ever which I feel is not good. So is it possible that a direct threat has been made that we are not aware of?

Emeralds and Opals 05-14-2009 08:04 PM

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/101120/Vigilance-of-royals-armed-protectors

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/101122/Princesses-to-lose-bodyguards-as-50m-budget-faces-cuts

Zonk 05-15-2009 12:02 AM

I definitely agree that the British taxpayer shouldn't pay for security guards to watch Beatrice and Eugenie party on a regular (not saying that they do just making a general statement).

On the other hand, Beatrice and Eugenie (like it or not) are 5th and 6th to the British throne. And while we won't get into a discussion on whether or not they behave as such. THE FACT remains that they are 5th and 6th to the throne therefore its a little unrealistic IMO to compare the security of Sophie, the Gloucesters, the Kent's, the Wessex children, etc to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Now again, I don't think they need a ton of security guards while they are partying and touring the world but the world is a lot more dangerous than it was when someone attempted to kidnap Anne. Who at the time was 4th in line to the throne (after Charles, Andrew and Edward). And I hate for that point to be made before people realize how serious the threat could possibly be. I am not even talking terrorist...you have mentally ill, crazy and just plain muderous people stalking, hurting every day citizens...can you image two Princesses?

Duke of Marmalade 05-15-2009 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 938707)
On the other hand, Beatrice and Eugenie (like it or not) are 5th and 6th to the British throne. And while we won't get into a discussion on whether or not they behave as such. THE FACT remains that they are 5th and 6th to the throne therefore its a little unrealistic IMO to compare the security of Sophie, the Gloucesters, the Kent's, the Wessex children, etc to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Common sense would be, and I think that this is something the wider public would agree on, that apart from the monarch and the consort the monarch's children (Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward) plus their spouses plus the 2nd and 3rd in line (William and Harry) should get protection paid for by the taxpayer - provided that they actually work for the crown or are being prepared to work for the crown (a certainty in case of William and Harry).

Everyone else's security should be paid for in private - and I guess if this was made a fact, some minor royals would suddenly realize that they actually don't really need a constant security officer by their side :rolleyes:

In some cases it's just another status issue / exploiting the system and in times when the expenses scandal rocks Westminster to the core bottom the royals better be careful with their demands on taxpayer's money - the atmosphere can easily shift to disapprovement of the whole constitution if the public senses another abuse situation.

Amelia 05-15-2009 08:42 AM

I have to say this whole security issue confuses me. If Scotland Yard are saying that there is no need for the York Princesses to have the level of security that they have then shouldn't that be the end of it. The press seem to be implying that Andrew has said no way to a reduction in their security but surely a decision like this is out of his hands and up to the Government, on the advice of Scotland Yard, to decide.

Zonk 05-15-2009 03:48 PM

I would take that "Andrew has said no" with a grain of salt. Unless someone has legit proof that Andrew said that his daughters need the level of security that they currently have its just speculation. The same with Scotland Yard. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect Scotland yard to be truly forthcoming in regards to security. They might say yeah they don't need as much, but they wont get into numbers. Who wants to let potential threats know everything?

Mermaid1962 05-15-2009 08:34 PM

This is exactly why I think that the York Princesses should have protection officers, not simply bodyguards. Protection officers have access to information threats that "bodyguards" wouldn't have. Unless one of us here is in that official network, we really have no idea what threats are out there. Anyone with an HRH is close enough to the Queen to be a target.:flowers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 938707)
I am not even talking terrorist...you have mentally ill, crazy and just plain muderous people stalking, hurting every day citizens...can you image two Princesses?


Zonk 05-15-2009 09:14 PM

And thats exactly my point. They do need some protection.

jcbcode99 05-18-2009 10:04 AM

They do need some protection, I agree but I have to say that if I were a taxpayer in Great Britain right now with the economy like it is I would be very irritated about bodyguards for princesses who don't perform any duties and who spend their evenings out partying or going to fashion shows. The princesses are acting more like socialites than members of a monarchy known for its service to the country.

muriel 05-18-2009 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 939835)
They do need some protection, I agree but I have to say that if I were a taxpayer in Great Britain right now with the economy like it is I would be very irritated about bodyguards for princesses who don't perform any duties and who spend their evenings out partying or going to fashion shows. The princesses are acting more like socialites than members of a monarchy known for its service to the country.

I am no fan of the York girls, and I do think that some of the criticism that they are subject to is not unreasonable. That said, I think the issue of security is not one for either Andrew, the "court of the Daily Mail" or even the Palace to determine - it is for the government of the day / Scotland Yard to make a risk assessment and decide.

As regards the girls travelling or partying, I dso think it is undreasonable to stop them. If the government / SY decide that they need security, then so be it. Lets not make them prisoners in the palace just because the giovernmet has decided that the girls need security.

Jacknch 05-18-2009 10:56 AM

IMO security and the level of it for members of the Royal Family should be a matter for the relevant government agency/Scotland yard to decide. Whilst certain members of the Royal Family do not act (or appear to act) in an official capacity on behalf of the Monarch, a risk assessment is likely to have been made and security measures set up accordingly.

jcbcode99 05-18-2009 03:33 PM

I agree that there should be a measure of security, but I also firmly feel that they need to do something productive besides partying, traveling abroad, and having their cars stolen right out from under them.

Filippos 05-20-2009 10:40 AM

I think the "minor royals" need protection. No matter how they are acting, party animals or working princes or princesses. The fact is, they are close relatives to the Chief of State, and its succesor(s). So, any threat to their integrity can put these persons in a weak position. Not a desirable scene for national symbols...

jcbcode99 05-20-2009 11:12 PM

But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.

Duke of Marmalade 05-21-2009 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 941082)
But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.

and, of course, who ends up with the bill.

jcbcode99 05-21-2009 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 941129)
and, of course, who ends up with the bill.

Exactly.

The Associated Press just ran a story on Britain's debt outlook and how it has been downraded from stable to negative. Now, I agree, the Princesses security detail has not plunged the country into their recession, but the public is going to begin looking at expendable expenditures and I would assume that the security detail for partying princesses is going to be one of the first Royal expenditures is closely looked at. I agree, they need security, but until they are higher profile royals, they do not need what they are currently getting. Unless Mummy and Daddy want to foot the bill.

wbenson 05-23-2009 07:17 PM

BBC NEWS | UK | Reporters 'paid way into Palace'

Buckingham Palace has said it is investigating allegations undercover reporters were given access to highly sensitive areas of the Palace.

Two reporters from the News of the World newspaper are said to have been waved inside, without security checks.

wbenson 05-24-2009 12:16 PM

BBC NEWS | UK | Palace suspends 'tour' chauffeur

Buckingham Palace has suspended a chauffeur after undercover reporters claimed to have gained access to highly sensitive areas of the building.

Zonk 05-24-2009 02:18 PM

This is really serious and quite sad.

If there is a lack of security regardign the Queen and Buckingham Palace, can you imagine what could possibly happen if security is reduced for the royals as a whole?

Again, its Buckingham Palace and these reporters just walked in. No check of the bags, ID's, etc. NOTHING!

Skydragon 05-25-2009 04:30 AM

Royal chauffeur Brian Sirjusingh has been suspended after he allegedly allowed undercover reporters posing as Middle Eastern businessmen into the grounds of Buckingham Palace.

Queen concerned after Palace chauffeur triggers alleged security breach - Telegraph

Alberto2244 05-25-2009 02:52 PM

Cops aren’t cool for young royals
 
CALLS for round-the-clock police protection for the Duke of York’s two daughters to be reduced amid growing concern about the escalating costs of royal security have met with support from a surprising quarter… the girls themselves.

Daily Express | Columnists :: Cops aren’t cool for young Royals

Elspeth 05-27-2009 11:57 AM

Timeline of royal security breaches:

BBC NEWS | UK | Timeline: Royal security breaches

Al_bina 05-28-2009 12:24 PM

It appears to me that royal security breaches are a favourite pastime of the British mass media outlets and private citizens. I find British perseverance to breach the royal security again and again peculiar. We do not hear about security breaches in other European royal houses often. One can do it once or twice, but more than a dozen incidents may bespeak incompetence on the part of the people in charge of the Royal security.

Emeralds and Opals 05-30-2009 10:43 PM

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6395951.ece
"Royals get 150 extra guards to end overstretch."

Skydragon 05-31-2009 09:57 AM

The Scotland Yard unit that protects the Queen and other members of the Royal family is to be bolstered by up to 150 armed protection officers to ease long hours of work and cut excessive overtime payments

Royal protection unit boosted by 150 extra armed protection officers - Telegraph

PrincessofEurope 06-13-2009 11:26 AM

Head of Scotland Yard begs Home Secretary to boost VIP protection fund | Mail Online

Skydragon 09-22-2009 10:02 AM

It is a role that demands a highly specialist set of skills.
Police officers applying to join the elite royal protection squad must be highly trained in personal protection, willing to travel, work 12-hour shifts and be constantly on the alert for any hint of danger to the Queen and her heirs to the throne.

muriel 02-15-2010 04:57 AM

Should "minor" HRHs have royal security protection?
 
Just wanted to get people's views on whether some of the more "minor" HRHs (eg Princess Alexandra, the Kents, Gloucesters etc) should still have state funded royal security cover?

Iluvbertie 02-15-2010 05:32 AM

I was under the impression that they usually only had it when on official duties these days.
And yes I do think they should get it - even more so now - they are the cousins of the Queen and therefore a definite target, possibly more so than those directly descended.

Any terrorist group worth its salt knows that to go directly for the Queen, Charles, William or Harry (or any of the Queen's children or grandchildren) would loose them support amongst their own people but to attack the royals by going after one of her cousins would still show that they can reach that high but not upset so many people (like the IRA going after Mountbatten - Philip's uncle and thus the Queen's uncle by marriage - showed how high they were prepared to go without totally getting people offside by attacking the Queen directly.)

wbenson 02-15-2010 11:12 AM

If they're deemed to be in enough danger, I think so. But I think any person should be entitled to that if it's truly necessary for their protection.

Al_bina 02-15-2010 12:10 PM

:previous:
Much as I like the Kents to have security, I do not think that they are under immediate threat of physical attack/kidnapping/etc. Additionally,the current economic situation will not allow to justify security of the extended royal family funded by tax payers.

muriel 02-18-2010 12:15 PM

My own view is that the title of HRH is not what should determine the level of security provided, but the view of actual or perceived threat by the Home Office or a competent authority. The competent authority may well determine that for example, the Gloucesters and the York girls do not need security but say, Princess Michael does. I do think this sort of review is necessary and will help manage costs better.

Al_bina 02-18-2010 12:51 PM

:previous:
Is there any particular reason for you to think that Prince and Princess Michael need to have a security?
Even if the above couple is threated, providing a taxpayer funded protection will definitely cause an uproar among the British people, who will demand the above couple to hire their own security personnel as other individuals of means do.

muriel 02-19-2010 08:21 AM

Firstly, I had used the names (of the Kents, Yorks and Gloucesters) purely as examples, as I stated in the post. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, all HRHs have some level of security protection that is tax payer funded. This includes Prince & Princess Michael.

Al_bina 02-19-2010 08:42 AM

I have not been aware of the fact that HRHs from the Kents and Gloucesters families have got tax-payer funded security. I was under the impression that their security was cut as a measure to reduce costs.

muriel 02-19-2010 09:08 AM

I coujld be wrong, but I think they still do have some level of security, though it may have been scaled down.

Iluvbertie 02-19-2010 03:40 PM

When they are one official duties e.g. the Duke of Kent at Wimbledon they will have tax-payer funded security.

They no longer have around the clock security.

Zonk 02-19-2010 04:12 PM

And I think that is the right thing to do....I might even argue that they deserve greater security.

When you have crazy people who stalk and kill regular people (i.e Jill Dando and Rebecca Scaeffer - an relatively unknown American actress) what is being done to stop people from targeting the Duke of Kent. Due to the increased importance and usage of the internet and the dumbing down of society, the world is a scary place. Plus for any terrorist organization, being able to kidnap and potentially harm a member of the BRF could be a bonus and bring a lot of attention to their cause.

Let me explain my comment. In today's society, we have extreme and dangerous type of journalism. The facts don't matter. When you have newspapers coming up with inflammatory headlines and reporting everything but the facts, you have a society who are making opinions based on outdated and erroneous facts. Some of the British newspapers, seem to enjoy reporting on negative facts about the British Royal family. Take for example, Prince Andrew and hitting the man with the car...if you based your opinion on that particular incident in a particular newspaper...Andrew was driving 60 miles an hour and drove over the man, backed up, and drove over him again. Now Andrew is not perfect, and certainly he could have been instructed by Scotland Yard to continue driving and don't stop (cause I am pretty sure he had a bodyguard in the car) but you have potential of DM readers out for blood. What's to stop someone from acting on that particular hate?

Al_bina 02-19-2010 10:06 PM

Additional information about Prince and Princess Michael's security
 
Quote:

Scoltand Yard and Buckingham Palace are facing serious questions over Prince and Princess Michael of Kent being given armed police protection costing taxpayers more than £250,000 a year.
The couple carry out no official duties but are given their own Metropolitan Police bodyguards when attending social events both in this country and abroad.
They also receive round-the-clock protection at their five-bedroom, five-reception apartment at Kensington Palace.
At the same time it is pointed out that
Quote:

"Unlike other members of the Royal Family they [Prince and Princess Michael] are not given a personal protection officer round the clock,' the source said. 'It is allocated on a project-by-project basis in the UK and overseas based on guidelines that stipulate there should be a "work" aspect to the visit.
Read more: No official role, so why is Pushy's security bill £14m? | Mail Online
Given the article, does it mean that only Prince and Princess Michael receive tax-payer funded police protection? Do Prince and Princess Michael receive the round-the-clock protection because of the place (i.e. the Kensington Palace) they reside in? I am confused at this point. What about the rest of the Kent clan and the Gloucesters?

muriel 02-22-2010 08:43 AM

I am glad to hear they have security on a part-time basis only. I suspect the arrangements from the rest of the Kent clan and the Gloucesters is the same.

NoorMeansLight 02-22-2010 04:00 PM

:shock: 250,000 for the Kents? :censored: Can anyone, please, total the annual security expenses for the whole BRF? I mean, the real numbers.

tommy1716 03-14-2010 04:59 AM

Scotland Yard alarm at cost of guards for Eugenie - Times Online

SCOTLAND YARD officers have expressed disquiet about the huge cost to the taxpayer of protecting Princess Eugenie and other “party-loving” minor royals

NoorMeansLight 03-14-2010 06:54 AM

:previous: Thanks Tommy! It doesn't open for me, but I'll google the Times later.:flowers: It is outrageous! Let's see if they also have some 'real numbers'.;)

muriel 03-15-2010 01:26 PM

I really do not think the York girls need any state funded security. It seems like a complete waste. That said, if the intelligence services felt they needed protection, then it would be justified.

Lumutqueen 03-15-2010 01:46 PM

Scotland Yard chief's fury over royal security bill for Princess Eugenie and 'B-list' royals | Mail Online

:ermm:

tommy1716 03-17-2010 05:22 AM

Scotland Yard's spending on 'minor royals worth 130 police on streets' - Telegraph

Scotland Yard has been forced to spend £4million - which could fund 130 extra frontline officers - on protecting VIPs including minor members of the Royal family, it emerged.

NoorMeansLight 03-17-2010 08:16 AM

In other words, 130 young men could have had a decent job and/or even start a family... :whistling:

Sereta 03-18-2010 06:36 PM

Well if Zara and Peter never had bodyguards then I don't see why Beatrice and Eugenie need to have them. They are all the Queen's grandchildren.

sophie25 03-18-2010 08:00 PM

It's been consistently reported that Prince Andrew has been vociferous in defending his daughters right to have this protection and I can believe that. I think he still thinks that he is the senior Royal he was considered to be in the 1980's when in the publics eyes he just isn't anymore. He is a second son and Beatrice and Eugenie are simply the children of a second son just like Prince Joachim of Denmark's children are and they are not seen as major Royals either. Fergie also seems oblivious to the passage of time where her daughters are concerned saying on T.V. shows that she tells the girls to smile as "the public" don''t want to see unhappy looking pricesses, how patronising is that? Dosn't she realise that most taxpayers don't want to pay for them either?

Iluvbertie 03-19-2010 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd255 (Post 1060897)
Well if Zara and Peter never had bodyguards then I don't see why Beatrice and Eugenie need to have them. They are all the Queen's grandchildren.


The difference is closeness to the throne and the HRH.

Beatrice could easily be acting as Cousellor of State, effectively doing the job of the monarch at times in the future (the Counsellors are the next five adults over 21 in line to the throne and the spouse of the monarch).

She will continue to hold this senior position until such time as either William or Harry have a child reach 21 years of age (and once the Queen dies there will need to be two such children).

That is hardly a minor royal in my mind.

Both William and Harry are doing training to serve in dangerous situations and it is perfectly possible to envision one or both of them dying in the service of their country - leaving Beatrice as the eventual Queen.

Until William or Harry have children Beatrice is certainly not a minor royal. Given the animosity on here to her father and to her I think her security needs to be strong as there are too many idiots out there who would think nothing of taking her out (not saying anyone on here would but if the level of animosity here is an indication of the attitude amongst the general public, many of whom are anti-monarchy, it is possible).

We don't know what threats there have been against these two girls but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been.

Imagine the reaction of the Queen if one of her grandchildren was killed due to the reduction of security.

Mermaid1962 03-20-2010 12:15 AM

You make very good points, Iluvbertie. I hadn't thought about Beatrice being Counsellor of State, but the idea of her perhaps being Queen Regnant one day has occurred to me.

I've also noticed the negativity toward the Yorks on the comments sections of online newspapers. Sometimes it seems to be close to hatred.

Given the number of would-be terrorists there are in the world (including home-grown terrorists), I think that the York princesses need the best protection available--and that means official protection.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1060986)
The difference is closeness to the throne and the HRH.

Beatrice could easily be acting as Cousellor of State, effectively doing the job of the monarch at times in the future (the Counsellors are the next five adults over 21 in line to the throne and the spouse of the monarch).

She will continue to hold this senior position until such time as either William or Harry have a child reach 21 years of age (and once the Queen dies there will need to be two such children).

That is hardly a minor royal in my mind.

Both William and Harry are doing training to serve in dangerous situations and it is perfectly possible to envision one or both of them dying in the service of their country - leaving Beatrice as the eventual Queen.

Until William or Harry have children Beatrice is certainly not a minor royal. Given the animosity on her to her father and to her I think her security needs to be strong as there are too many idiots out there who would think nothing of taking her out (not saying anyone on here would but if the level of animosity here is an indication of the attitude amongst the general public, many of whom are anti-monarchy, it is possible).

We don't know what threats there have been against these two girls but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been.

Imagine the reaction of the Queen if one of her grandchildren was killed due to the reduction of security.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises