The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/)
-   -   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021- (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-and-family-news-and-events-6-august-2021-a-48857.html)

Duc_et_Pair 01-16-2022 10:04 AM

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

MonacoRoyalFan 01-16-2022 10:06 AM

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

Denville 01-16-2022 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 2447841)
That article is 20 years old (Camilla) but even then it is pretty shocking that in a country with Met, Scotland Yard, MI5 and MI6 it depends on someone's private purse to have security.

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

MonacoRoyalFan 01-16-2022 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2447844)
the police have limited resources. Senior royals get round the clock protection but many royals only get it when on duty. The police cannot provide 24 hour protection for everyone in the country



Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

Hallo girl 01-16-2022 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 2447835)
I would say the raison d'ętre of a state is give protection to the citizens. That is why states have police and military forces. It is not correct that a Diana or a Harry had/have to provide in their own protection. This are not mediaeval times in which Maid Marian has to travel through Sherwood Forest...

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

It is neither practical or affordable.

Lee-Z 01-16-2022 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2447811)
.... I am surprised to hear that private security provided by non-state agents is illegal in the Netherlands. Are you sure your infornation is correct?

..

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

Claire 01-16-2022 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447846)
Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

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

Hallo girl 01-16-2022 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447846)
Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

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

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

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

Tatiana Maria 01-16-2022 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447839)
The thing is, there are just endless examples of the royals paying for their own security by Met.

Attachment 302871

Thanks for the screencaps!

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447839)
In addition, there are endless examples of anyone being able to pay Met for security.

Attachment 302872

Moreover, it’s literally something that they do!

Attachment 302873


Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, which your last screencap cites, says:
25 Provision of special services.

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

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

(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/25

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447842)
Peter Hunt described this situation perfectly. He said “Harry’s many media critics will be dismissive. Royal sources will be active. The faux outrage generated will distract from the risk to Charles and William that any judicial review could present them as having been petty and uncaring at the Sandringham summit in January 2020.”

Who is said to be outraged and by what?

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

Heavs 01-16-2022 11:28 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Denville 01-16-2022 11:48 AM

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

Alison H 01-16-2022 11:59 AM

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

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

Denville 01-16-2022 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2447863)
In 2017, a terrorist murdered 22 people, many of them children, at an Ariana Grande concert three miles from my house. Only yesterday, a number of people were taken hostage at a synagogue in Texas. A terrorist could walk into a school, a shopping centre, a supermarket, a cinema, a theatre, a cafe, a railway station, a place of worship or anywhere else in the next few minutes. It's terrifying. The world is a dangerous place. But there are just not enough police to guard everywhere and everyone.

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

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

Moran 01-16-2022 12:08 PM

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

Osipi 01-16-2022 12:40 PM

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

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

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

Marengo 01-31-2022 04:57 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Claude
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/enter...gbr/index.html

Quote:

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

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

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


TLLK 01-31-2022 05:43 PM

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


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

US Royal Watcher 01-31-2022 08:33 PM

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

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

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

UglyAmerican 01-31-2022 09:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

yukari 01-31-2022 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2447834)
(...)
Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 2447773)
I seem to remember a very acrimonious occasion when the removal of his Met PPO's was discussed. […] Many of those threats were deemed credible at the time and Harry had a valid question to which the Met replied, no. His threat level had not decreased but his position in relation to the British royal family had and, as a result, he no longer qualified for protection.

Could I have a link to that story, please? :flowers:

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 2447849)
Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447846)
Yet somehow Kate Moss got police protection for her wedding!

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2447853)
Quote:

Originally Posted by MonacoRoyalFan (Post 2447839)
The thing is, there are just endless examples of the royals paying for their own security by Met.

Attachment 302871

Thanks for the screencaps!

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

(…)

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises