Harry starts High Court legal battle today

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you not understand the difference between the police having a presence (unarmed) at an event in order to maintain the safety of the public, for which the promoter must pay as without the event there would be no danger of public disorder, and one rich person demanding armed police protection trisher?

As I said previously you can regard the Sussexes as a business or a brand if you wish.
I don't think there was any qualification in the statement Gsm it was simply Our police are not for hire well yes they are!

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.

It’s my opinion that Harry didn’t really understand what being a private individual means. Of course Harry and Meghan stated when they left that they wanted to be half in, half out of the royal family. The Queen made it abundantly clear to them and the public that they won’t be able to do that. It’s in, or it’s out. Clearly he doesn’t understand that he really is out. A loved family member, but no longer involved in royal duties. So no longer entitled to the perks of royal duties. We understand it, why doesn’t he? It smacks of huge entitlement.

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?

Do you not understand the difference between the police having a presence (unarmed) at an event in order to maintain the safety of the public, for which the promoter must pay as without the event there would be no danger of public disorder, and one rich person demanding armed police protection trisher?

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.

Instead of moaning about his childhood Harry should learn
about his grandfather’s childhood ,

Rosie51

trisher

Peasblossom

The Police are not hired by Football clubs. The Police decide if their presence is needed, attend and charge the Club for their attendance.

As I said before Harry is not POTUS or close to being any kind of State visitor.

Neither of those statements are accurate or relevant.

If you charge for something aren't you being hired?
Couldn't the police decide where protection is needed cost it and charge Harry?
Apart from the fact that football clubs are big businesses making millions what is the difference?
If you like you can argue that the Sussex family is similar in that they are a commercial business, not just individuals.

trisher you are surely aware that the police who are employed for public order at football matches and the like (mostly outside the ground) are unarmed and not protecting the chairman of said club, but the general public?

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.

Nothing to do with not liking Harry. Everything to do with applying the usual rules.

If they still support any UK charities they do so as private citizens who are not entitled to armed police protection.

Callistemon21

trisher

I think the problem is that some can't see the difference between having a private life where you decide exactly when and where you will make things public, and having a life where you are organised and supervised by other people who decide what will be public and you are just expected to go along with things.

I respect Harry's decision to lead a private life but I have no respect for him constantly standing up in public criticising the life and the people he left behind.

Just ride off into the sunset and disappear from public life.

He is nasty, bitter and very, very immature.

But the very nature of what he is now doing requires a public presence. What you are in fact saying is that because he left the RF he should therefore abandon all the charities he and Meghan have supported, because like it or not fundraising requires a public presence, and they are still fundraising and supporting charities. So in fact you want these charities to suffer because you don't like Harry.

trisher

Peasblossom

The Police are not hired by Football clubs. The Police decide if their presence is needed, attend and charge the Club for their attendance.

As I said before Harry is not POTUS or close to being any kind of State visitor.

Neither of those statements are accurate or relevant.

If you charge for something aren't you being hired?
Couldn't the police decide where protection is needed cost it and charge Harry?
Apart from the fact that football clubs are big businesses making millions what is the difference?
If you like you can argue that the Sussex family is similar in that they are a commercial business, not just individuals.

trisher you are surely aware that the police who are employed for public order at football matches and the like (mostly outside the ground) are unarmed and not protecting the chairman of said club, but the general public?

Cheeky so and so! I think he vastly overrates his importance to the great British public and I do wish the media would stop running stories about him and his tiresome wife! They’ve upped sticks and gone and should have thought about the repercussions before they did-after all they have a whole team of advisers to help them if their poor little brains can’t cope with it all-they are nursing their ‘mental health’ after all. My ‘mental health’ doesn’t want to be compromised by their constant whingeing and my pocket certainly doesn’t want to pay for it!

Well said Elegran you have articulated over a few posts a rational understanding of the situation.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Nor any so devious as those who conflate totally different and unrelated situations because there is no other way to try and score their point.

varian

Surely Harry and his family can fly in, then transfer by helicopter to Windsor or wherever the Queen is, then stay with the Queen throughout their stay, where they would be protected by the royal protection squad.

Exactly, Prince Charles also offered him and his family his hospitality if he wanted to visit, they would have had PC’s security in that case. Much ado about nothing,

He doesn't have a life where he is organised as you describe, Trisher He did the equivalent of abdicating from that, so as to be a private individual who does what he likes - but he doesn't like to extend that freedom to being responsible for his own security. He wants to return to being a cossetted part of "the firm" without the work that it would entail.

trisher

I think the problem is that some can't see the difference between having a private life where you decide exactly when and where you will make things public, and having a life where you are organised and supervised by other people who decide what will be public and you are just expected to go along with things.

Most of the members of the royal family organise their own security, unless they are going about official royal business. Harry is not going about royal business, and he himself has chosen not to be a part of the royal firm so he is visiting this country as a private individual

At major public events involving the Queen, there will be a strong armed police presence, which won't differentiate between a threat to Her M and a threat to any of the others present (including Harry and his family) bcause a threat to one present is a threat to Her M and all the rest.

If he wants the privilege of armed police protection granted to royal representatives, he has to take on the responsibility of representing the Queen at public events. He doesn't want to do that.

I think you're going to need a bigger spade, trisher

Hear, hear Callistemon.

Peasblossom

The Police are not hired by Football clubs. The Police decide if their presence is needed, attend and charge the Club for their attendance.

As I said before Harry is not POTUS or close to being any kind of State visitor.

Neither of those statements are accurate or relevant.

If you charge for something aren't you being hired?
Couldn't the police decide where protection is needed cost it and charge Harry?
Apart from the fact that football clubs are big businesses making millions what is the difference?
If you like you can argue that the Sussex family is similar in that they are a commercial business, not just individuals.

trisher

I think the problem is that some can't see the difference between having a private life where you decide exactly when and where you will make things public, and having a life where you are organised and supervised by other people who decide what will be public and you are just expected to go along with things.

I respect Harry's decision to lead a private life but I have no respect for him constantly standing up in public criticising the life and the people he left behind.

Just ride off into the sunset and disappear from public life.

He is nasty, bitter and very, very immature.

But, Trisher at football matches and so on the police are there to keep public order, not to protect a wealthy individual who wants the kudos of being surrounded by the official armed police of the country, instead of hiring his own private protection.

If Harry is present at any public event of that kind, he would have the same police presence as any other private citizen attending it.

trisher, police attend events such as football matches for the sake of public order. They are keeping the general public safe, not a self-important rich individual. And of course they protect visiting heads of state. You’re on your own on this thread, trying to be provocative - why don’t you stop digging that socking great hole?

He no longer has a role in Royal duties so is just an ex-pat attending his grandfather’s memorial. That’s all he is now.

trisher

Callistemon21

trisher

Anniebach

Another chapter for his book, or an Oprah interview or another
interview on a double deck bus ,

Bloody hypocrite, attend a memorial service for a man he publicly criticised whilst the man was near the end of his life.

So everyone should keep quiet about dead people and not criticise them, no matter how racist, sexist or vile they are?
You can recognise someone's faults speak openly about them and still love them.

Not trash their memory to the whole world, not if you loved them. It would be difficult to love some who is racist, sexist or vile too.
Who do you mean?

Who exactly was vile?
Do you mean Harry? It is pretty vile to trash your family on worldwide tv.

It's a purely objective question. If someone behaves badly do you forget their bad behaviour because they are dead? Is there some sort of limit to that? Or is any behaviour just acceptable because the person is dead?
Personally I'd hate to think anyone put me on a pedestal and didn't speak about my faults after I died. I'd rather be remembered as a curmudgeonly old so and so than be spoken of as if I was some sort of saint.

Why speak of someone at all after their death if you didn't much like them or respect them?

Perhaps they would rather forget all about you.