Markmywurdz · 61-69, M
View 1 more replies »
LadyShagw0rthy · 36-40, F
AdmiralPrune · 46-50, M
AdmiralPrune · 46-50, M
This message was deleted by its author.
Waveney · M
@AdmiralPrune it can’t be. Harry was born in 1984 but Diana didn’t even meet Maj. James Hewitt until 1986 at the earliest.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
Just take them back! America can’t stand them.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Royrogers Some idiots bought her jam, but her show was cancelled.
Pretzel · 70-79, M
I'm not a Brit but I'm wondering if the idea is the King's?
Royrogers · 61-69, M
@peterlee too true. Starmer ( no respect for him so only his last name) hides behind rules. But HM had offered accommodation so there would be security. I assume he used his own when he came to attend court cases. In any event if harry kept his mouth shut about coming then the need for security would be far less. If insists on telling the press of his plans in advance then a loon can plan to have a go at him whether it just be heckling or more. If harry says nothing to anyone just talks to his dad no one will know
emmasfriend · 46-50, F
@peterlee
There is a security committee which decides these things.
Starmer will never make a decision to over-rule the committee to which decisions are delegated; still less now, having resigned as leader of the labour party, the position which entitled him to his current role of PM.
The only time he tried to over-rule something which was supposed to be independent - court sentencing following "riots" and "free speech" after Southport - it ended in tears.
There is still time for one last U-turn, but it will not be on this subject.
There is a security committee which decides these things.
Starmer will never make a decision to over-rule the committee to which decisions are delegated; still less now, having resigned as leader of the labour party, the position which entitled him to his current role of PM.
The only time he tried to over-rule something which was supposed to be independent - court sentencing following "riots" and "free speech" after Southport - it ended in tears.
There is still time for one last U-turn, but it will not be on this subject.
peterlee · M
@emmasfriend Starmer knows the Law better than we do, being the former Director of Public Prosecutions. On their heads be it, if something happens to Harry or his family. No doubt the learned committee would hide under the cloak of collective responsibility..
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
He resigned his position (which was in any case a fairly minor one within the Royal Family) and is no longer automatically entitled to police protection, certainly not on a private visit. He challenged this in the courts last year and lost.
Perhaps if Farage, Musk, "Tommy Robinson" et al refrained from inciting violence, there would be money left over in police budgets for doing more positive things. To be fair, Farage is not entitled to taxpayer funded protection either (so he accepted a £5m "gift" from a tax exile instead), so there is at least consistency.
Perhaps if Farage, Musk, "Tommy Robinson" et al refrained from inciting violence, there would be money left over in police budgets for doing more positive things. To be fair, Farage is not entitled to taxpayer funded protection either (so he accepted a £5m "gift" from a tax exile instead), so there is at least consistency.
peterlee · M
@SunshineGirl As much as I detest his actions and those of his wife, there is an opening here for reconciliation.
I recall standing in the Mall watching this little boy walk past behind his mother’s coffin.
Our country is not safe at the moment, I would not want anything to happen to him or his family.
Long gone are the days when Princess Anne protected her protection officer and saved his life. Or the late Queen sat quietly on the bed before a nutter could be taken away.
I recall standing in the Mall watching this little boy walk past behind his mother’s coffin.
Our country is not safe at the moment, I would not want anything to happen to him or his family.
Long gone are the days when Princess Anne protected her protection officer and saved his life. Or the late Queen sat quietly on the bed before a nutter could be taken away.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl I gather the same tax exile also made a big contribution to the Reform Party, and in the past, the Conservative Party.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Their intended visit, which they've apparently now cancelled, was not an official function. Although the couple were to have attended some charity events it was really only a family visit.
Any bridge-building is not a monarchical or constitutional matter, but one for the Royal Family itself, within itself.
Although the split is sad, as any family rift is, I don't have too much sympathy for Prince Harry and his missus. They chose to cut and run, to try to be mere "celebrities" in the USA; and be no longer constitutionally relevant to the the United Kingdom.They can afford their own security, too!
Any bridge-building is not a monarchical or constitutional matter, but one for the Royal Family itself, within itself.
Although the split is sad, as any family rift is, I don't have too much sympathy for Prince Harry and his missus. They chose to cut and run, to try to be mere "celebrities" in the USA; and be no longer constitutionally relevant to the the United Kingdom.They can afford their own security, too!
Royrogers · 61-69, M
There is some committee who decides these things. It would be unfair to expect his dad to tell the metropolitan police service to provide security. It has also gone to court too. He father’s offer of accommodation will provide some security too. Why would there be a need for protection. Mmm maybe he wants publicity
This message was deleted by its author.
Markmywurdz · 61-69, M
@SnickersDOM How are things going with your elected president?
This message was deleted by its author.
Markmywurdz · 61-69, M
@SnickersDOM I was simply making the point that your alternative is no better, since you saw fit to go off-topic to disparage ours. But then you just reached straight for the “straw man” deflection.
MrVintage71 · 51-55, M
So the tax payer has to pay the bill..I'm sure the king could afford to pay
Royrogers · 61-69, M
@MrVintage71 no the tax payer is paying nothing. Because harry is not getting any protection. The king might afford it but the metropolitan police are not for hire
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MrVintage71 · 51-55, M
@Royrogers of course they are...If rich enough