Harry starts High Court legal battle today

I find it odd that a certain poster on this thread, started another, about Harrys brother and his wife, entirely based on rumours for ‘a reaction’. Why defend one brother who has behaved badly and courted controversy, and castigate the other, a happily married man and loyal to Queen and country ?

Rosie51 You can't set a precedent for Harry Windsor
Well it has been done for the rest of his life so it wouldn't seem to be impossible. I don't think there is another person who is the GS of a monarch, the DS of one future monarch and the brother of another one. You see he can walk away from the job but the family connection remains.

This is interesting
Special police services

Section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996 S.25(1) states:

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 local policing body of charges as may be determined by that body…”

Jaberwok

The Chinese were somewhat more important than Prince Harry.

As was POTUS - would anyone want an international incident on British soil. Not at all the same thing as an entitled man who walked away from his royal heritage but still wants to be treated like royalty.

Did "Uncle David" get personal police protection (free or paid for) on his very infrequent visits to this country?

Maybe. I can’t say I’m looking forward to that “Brave New World that has such people in it”

The Tempest

trisher

Germanshepherdsmum

As Annie says, rock bottom and still drilling.

I love this comment it's always made when someone has no where else to go!!

I think it's a great comment.

But not everyone understand it.

I'm not sure that Harry and his family would be getting the same support from some posters if he, and they were supportive hard working loyal members of the RF. I think perhaps republican support for these two is because their actions, might, just might help to contribute to the downfall of the monarchy? I could be wrong of course.

trisher

Rosie51

Quite maddyone

trisher do you actually believe that any individual should be able to hire armed police protection if they feel the need? How are we going to recruit and train the number of officers that will be required when every narcissistic celebrity thinks they are important enough to need the kudos of visible armed protection?

No Rosie51 I think here we have an interesting situation which has never happened before (think I have already said this) and which may require a little thinking outside the box.
But the hugely inaccurate and untrue statement made on these threads sometimes require a little correction.
Things like "You can't hire police"-yes you can!
or
"Security men can't carry guns in this country"-well some can!.

Perhaps if the football clubs paid the full cost of their security we would have more police officers.

There's a hell of a lot of hair-splitting going on here. You cannot 'hire' the police in anyway that is normally understood by the term 'hire'. If you hire a gazebo, it's not because the gazebo management have told you you need a gazebo, they will supply it but you have to pay. Nobody gets to phone the police and book a police presence, whether they are prepared to pay or not. With football clubs they pay a compulsory charge for a presence they have no control over and haven't requested. I agree they should pay the full cost, but don't pretend they've made a decision to 'hire' the police.

there is a huge difference between supporting something and correcting statements. Say what you will, you certainly seem to be supporting that some elite people should be able to hire armed police for their personal protection. You can't set a precedent for Harry Windsor that isn't available to anyone else who can pay and thinks they are important enough or vulnerable enough to need the same.

Anniebach

If armed police officers are for hire only the wealthy could afford to hire. trisher you are supporting this , I never, ever
thought this of you

Annie there is a huge difference between supporting something and correcting statements.

If armed police officers are for hire only the wealthy could afford to hire. trisher you are supporting this , I never, ever
thought this of you

Rosie51

Quite maddyone

trisher do you actually believe that any individual should be able to hire armed police protection if they feel the need? How are we going to recruit and train the number of officers that will be required when every narcissistic celebrity thinks they are important enough to need the kudos of visible armed protection?

No Rosie51 I think here we have an interesting situation which has never happened before (think I have already said this) and which may require a little thinking outside the box.
But the hugely inaccurate and untrue statement made on these threads sometimes require a little correction.
Things like "You can't hire police"-yes you can!
or
"Security men can't carry guns in this country"-well some can!.

Perhaps if the football clubs paid the full cost of their security we would have more police officers.

Quite maddyone

trisher do you actually believe that any individual should be able to hire armed police protection if they feel the need? How are we going to recruit and train the number of officers that will be required when every narcissistic celebrity thinks they are important enough to need the kudos of visible armed protection?

It may well be that Presidents and Heads of State are given protection from the Met, when they visit this country in an official capacity. The same protection is not offered to the grandchildren of Presidents or Heads of State if they visit Britain. Harry is a non working grandchild of our Head of State. He is no different than Zara, Peter, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, or James. They are all grandchildren of our Head of State and do not receive any funded protection. Nor do they pay for it from the Met.

trisher

Germanshepherdsmum

We don’t want people with guns on the streets, other than our police. He can bring his people but they must leave their guns at home.

There's a picture earlier on this thread of the protection for POTUS plainly carrying guns.
Of course the Chinese were refused permission and the Met covered their security.
Amazing how flexible some rules are isn't it?

He isn't a state visit.

trisher

Elegran

He can afford to donate millions to any charity he wishes, without risking his precious life appearing in person - and what makes him think that his life is any more at risk when working for a charity than the life of any other wealthy celebrity?
If his presence is more valuable than his money, he (or the charity) can hire his own security for his appearance, as can any business mogul, international author or celebrity chef who is on the board of a football team or other charity. He can buy the best - but it should not be a police force which is not available to hire for any other private individual. A British police force is not meant as an instrument in a family quarrel.

Didn't he offer to bring his own?

Yes, he can bring his own. I believe that was stated long ago but they cannot be armed He wants his security team to be armed, but that is not permitted for private security firms, only for official police, who even then must have special authority to carry weapons. He wants to bring American gun laws to Britain. The number of deaths by shooting in the States is the highest in the world - and they include many deaths of innocent people at the hands of security personnel.

I love this comment it's always made when someone has no where else to go!!

Indeed Trisher!’

Obviously the ‘half in’ part was the security detail and waving on balconies and the ‘half out’ was the work required.

The Chinese were somewhat more important than Prince Harry.

Germanshepherdsmum

As Annie says, rock bottom and still drilling.

I love this comment it's always made when someone has no where else to go!!

Harry just wants to keep himself on the front pages trying to remain relevant and newsworthy. It's getting difficult now because people, even in the States are getting bored with him and his constant whining and whinging usually about the RF and his dreadful deprived child and early adulthood . How many times can one person drag up yet more detrimental family gossip and not expect people to yawn? Hot gossip soon turns into cold gossip and interest turns into boredom very quickly. Why can't he understand that he is fast becoming yesterday's person and is becoming totally irrelevant. He is now a private citizen visiting this country and of no particular importance,so if he feels he needs protection, then he must do what others do and organise it himself and pick up the bill without making yet another drama. He also needs to recognise that a good proportion of the population find him deeply unpleasant, unpopular and along with his wife don't want him to set foot in this country again

Germanshepherdsmum

We don’t want people with guns on the streets, other than our police. He can bring his people but they must leave their guns at home.

There's a picture earlier on this thread of the protection for POTUS plainly carrying guns.
Of course the Chinese were refused permission and the Met covered their security.
Amazing how flexible some rules are isn't it?

As Annie says, rock bottom and still drilling.

He could bring his own trisher but they wouldn’t be entitled to carry guns. That’s because that is the law in our country. We have laws about gun ownership and about the storage and handling of guns.

The nature of what he is doing - or what he says he wants to come to Britain for - does not require a public presence, except as a member of the public who wishes to be at the same public event as his family. At any such event, there will be police protection enough and to spare, without him getting an extra helping of it.

He can visit his relations to chat and show off his children without appearing in public. A helicopter can land him in their back garden without the public even knowing that he is there.

But he doesn't want that. He wants to arrive in a blaze of publicity, for the benefit of his reputation in the USA.

trisher Quite what has that to do with "Our police are not for hire"?
Yes they are. You can pay for them and they come. They may decide what is needed, they may set the numbers and the equipment required but they turn up for money. That is what being hired means- employed for a short time to do a particular job.
Because they are not "for hire" in the normal sense of the word. You as a private citizen cannot ring your local station and request a police presence for which you will pay, and you know that, even if you like to pretend you are ignorant of that fact. You are contorting things so as to accommodate your frankly ludicrous argument. If the police decide Harry needs them around for a public order situation then they will be there, rather as they were when he got married.