Casdon
Isnāt the issue rather that his own security would not be allowed to carry guns, and that they are not privy to any threats there may be?
Thanks for that Casdon( and others). Your comments have made me( try to) get myself better informed about this and , as well, think more clearly about it. You are correct that private security firms cannot be armed in the UK.
It seems that Harry originally appealed against the RAVEC decision to strip him of round the clock taxpayer funded security . If the Judge had not confirmed Ravec's decision then 24hour T/p funded security would presumably have been available to Harry and his wife and children for his new life in the USA as well as any visits to the UK.
The "second leg" of the Ravec decision was that UK security would be available to Harry and , I think to his wife and kids , timing-wise only on prior notice and quality-wise on a risk-assessed basis.
There also seems to be an element of the default Harry UK protection being a lower level ? than 24Hour police protection, that lower level ( whatever it is) being cheaper. It is not clear to me whether that lower quality level would rise in proportion to any raised risk.I would hope so !!
In any event H clearly hadn't bargained for paying for his security at all.
Quote from the original Oprah Winfrey interview
āThat " (signing lucrative Netflix deals)was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford security for usā
Clearly originally Harry expected either the UK taxpayer ( through the original Ravec arrangement) or his father ( its probably taxpayer moneyindirectly through the civil list) to fund the annual security costs which are , literally , millions of squids.