Harry and Meghan

[Mort7]

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

[Camelot1971]

There's plenty of high profile and/or high risk people who pay for their own protection. With the millions they will clearly make selling their wares to the public, they can afford it.

[bitchstewie]

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

[hutchst]

bhstewie said:

It isn't about whether they're still royals it's about if the security services think there is still a threat because they were royals.

Let's cut to the chase do people want to see them harmed?

I'd presume not.

In which case perhaps accept that just as the likes of Brown and Blair and Major are no longer politicians they still get security because of what they were.

I think the proper term is care in the community for those three amigos.

[Ayahuasca]

Camelot1971 said:

There's plenty of high profile and/or high risk people who pay for their own protection. With the millions they will clearly make selling their wares to the public, they can afford it.

Absolutely. They need to factor in security as one of their costs. Theirs, not ours.

Looking at a 20 million house in Malibu? Why not look at a 10 million one and pay for your own bodyguards.

[TPSA7514]

It's just an idea................
But if Megsie could do a design for his n hers body armour and do a tie in with a leading security firm
Her and Harry could then model their respective Megscurity clothing and the security firm could put their names along the battenburg on the range rovers
The security firm would just need a nice slogan and job done

[Mort7]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

Not to me. And not, I suspect to others. There is no vindictiveness on my part, just a desire for fair play. If they want to do their own thing then fine - as long as they pay for it themselves from the huge amounts of money that they are likely to make benefiting from their royal celebrity status.

If, however, you are the sort of impressionable person who is prepared to stand in the rain outside their private church on the Sandringham estate, in order to catch a glimpse of your 'betters', then you probably won't agree.

[bitchstewie]

Mort7 said:

Not to me. And not, I suspect to others. There is no vindictiveness on my part, just a desire for fair play. If they want to do their own thing then fine - as long as they pay for it themselves from the huge amounts of money that they are likely to make benefiting from their royal celebrity status.

If, however, you are the sort of impressionable person who is prepared to stand in the rain outside their private church on the Sandringham estate, in order to catch a glimpse of your 'betters', then you probably won't agree.

I'm nothing of the sort quite honestly and I certainly don't consider them my "betters".

The sort of people who might wish them harm aren't the sort to stop and think "Hmm well he did say "call me Harry" so he clearly doesn't want to be a royal any more so let's forget about harming him and his wife and child".

It isn't his fault he was born into that sort of life and in terms of any threat to him or his family he can literally do nothing about it.

Apparently though by some logic either if they want protection they need to work as royals or we will pay for security but if they step outside of the UK the additional cost is on them.

It literally makes no sense.

[Mort7]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Not to me. And not, I suspect to others. There is no vindictiveness on my part, just a desire for fair play. If they want to do their own thing then fine - as long as they pay for it themselves from the huge amounts of money that they are likely to make benefiting from their royal celebrity status.

If, however, you are the sort of impressionable person who is prepared to stand in the rain outside their private church on the Sandringham estate, in order to catch a glimpse of your 'betters', then you probably won't agree.

I'm nothing of the sort quite honestly and I certainly don't consider them my "betters".

The sort of people who might wish them harm aren't the sort to stop and think "Hmm well he did say "call me Harry" so he clearly doesn't want to be a royal any more so let's forget about harming him and his wife and child".

It isn't his fault he was born into that sort of life and in terms of any threat to him or his family he can literally do nothing about it.

Apparently though by some logic either if they want protection they need to work as royals or we will pay for security but if they step outside of the UK the additional cost is on them.

It literally makes no sense.

It literally does. But the logic seemingly escapes you.

Edit: It would probably escape this lot too.

Edited by Mort7 on Friday 28th February 17:55

[amgmcqueen]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

Why the hell should the British tax payer have to fund these two scroungers...?!

They want to got it alone and become 'independent' then they can bloody well fund it themselves!

[anonymous-user]

Can someone remind me what happened to his mum after she gave up Royal Protection and went for private security instead?

[SpeckledJim]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

I’ve an idea how many lives of people without names £20m a year can save.

And it isn’t ‘two’.

[_dobbo_]

Crossflow Kid said:

Can someone remind me what happened to his mum after she gave up Royal Protection and went for private security instead?

fk me this is toxic even for this thread.

[mike-v2tmf]

Crossflow Kid said:

Can someone remind me what happened to his mum after she gave up Royal Protection and went for private security instead?

She was killed by a drunk driver trying to prove speed kills

[bitchstewie]

SpeckledJim said:

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

I’ve an idea how many lives of people without names £20m a year can save.

And it isn’t ‘two’.

Presumably you draw only the minimum wage that you need to live and give the rest to charity because any excess could be used to save lives?

It's a pretty weak argument.

[SpeckledJim]

bhstewie said:

SpeckledJim said:

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.

The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.

We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.

Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.

Do you have any idea how daft and plan vindictive that sounds?

I’ve an idea how many lives of people without names £20m a year can save.

And it isn’t ‘two’.

Presumably you draw only the minimum wage that you need to live and give the rest to charity because any excess could be used to save lives?

It's a pretty weak argument.

How big does the number need to get before you say “hang on, there are actually more important things we can do with our money”?

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Hmm, pretty sure a MetPol RPO wouldn’t make the same mistakes.

[bitchstewie]

SpeckledJim said:

How big does the number need to get before you say “hang on, there are actually more important things we can do with our money”?

It's a fair question and I don't know how you put a figure on it.

But I don't think the quid or so a year the royal family cost me is it.

A question back, they get told "Pay for your own security even though it's not your fault you're a target" and they cut corners and end up dead.

Is that outcome worth all the fuss over what it costs?

[SpeckledJim]

bhstewie said:

SpeckledJim said:

How big does the number need to get before you say “hang on, there are actually more important things we can do with our money”?

It's a fair question and I don't know how you put a figure on it.

But I don't think the quid or so a year the royal family cost me is it.

A question back, they get told "Pay for your own security even though it's not your fault you're a target" and they cut corners and end up dead.

Is that outcome worth all the fuss over what it costs?

They could also get told “ you’re a multimillionaire even though you’ve done nothing to deserve being a multimillionaire”.

Not spending £20m on security does not = ‘M&H at home with ISIS’ videos. Let’s not forget they are hugely rich, and their gran is a billionaire.

Yet I could definitely save three lives a year for £20m. Maybe 30 lives. Maybe 300. Maybe 3000.

We’re supposed to be a democracy.

[bitchstewie]

SpeckledJim said:

They could also get told “ you’re a multimillionaire even though you’ve done nothing to deserve being a multimillionaire”.

Not spending £20m on security does not = ‘M&H at home with ISIS’ videos. Let’s not forget they are hugely rich, and their gran is a billionaire.

Yet I could definitely save three lives a year for £20m. Maybe 30 lives. Maybe 300. Maybe 3000.

We’re supposed to be a democracy.

We are a democracy so I don't quite follow you on that one.

I'm not even a royalist so I take the point entirely that the queen is rich.

My concern is that we seem to be plumbing the depths a bit over how petty and spiteful we can be here to two people who've done nothing to deserve it by any sensible standard.