Harry and Meghan

[JagLover]

bhstewie said:

When your attitude is "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own" it really doesn't come across as if your primary concern is value for the UK taxpayer.
.

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

[bitchstewie]

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

Public provided security isn't based around level of threat.

They were "Internationally Protected Persons" - a category covered by specific international agreements, and with rules regarding who is deemed such.

They won't be from Q2. Therefore their security needs are their own responsibility.

These things haven't come out of nowhere, they're the culmination of hundreds of years of convention and agreement. The changes aren't a specific judgement on the Sussexes, merely applying the long held rules. If in the UK, there's a potential for a specific agreement to be made - extending police security to them.

However, you cannot have UK police operating in a foreign nation "just because", and the Canadians (or Americans) are under no obligation to fill any void.

[Mort7]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

You're missing the point (again). This isn't about whether or not they will require security, it's about who should pay for it. I consider that it should be them. You clearly disagree.

To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.

And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?

Edited by Mort7 on Friday 28th February 21:06

A quid a year covers the royals I believe.

I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.

When your attitude is "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own" it really doesn't come across as if your primary concern is value for the UK taxpayer.

I doubt we'll agree and people can form a view whether I'm waving a flag singing God Save the Queen or simply suggesting that Harry didn't choose to be born into a family that makes him a target so let's leave it to the security services to assess the risk and any protection required.

Errr....

£20 million per year, divided by approximately 31 million taxpayers (latest figuresI could find) equates to 64.5p per year per taxpayer just for Harry & family if my maths is correct, on top of the existing bill.

You state that you're not a Royalist, and not bothered by this, and yet you do seem to be going out of your way to defend the indefensible. If Harry and Meghan choose to move away from royal life to make their fortunes as private individuals then why should we pick up the bill?

My attitude is not "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own", my attitude is that they are free to do as they wish, but they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to cover the bill simply because of their bloodline. Why can't you grasp this?

My primary concern is for the taxpayer, and for fair play. What they are wanting is to have their cake and eat it.

Harry didn't choose to be born into the Royal Family, but he has chosen to move away from royal responsibilities, and the protection that comes with that position. He (they) should therefore accept and pay for the consequences of that decision.

[bitchstewie]

Mort7 said:

Errr....

£20 million per year, divided by approximately 31 million taxpayers (latest figuresI could find) equates to 64.5p per year per taxpayer just for Harry & family if my maths is correct, on top of the existing bill.

You state that you're not a Royalist, and not bothered by this, and yet you do seem to be going out of your way to defend the indefensible. If Harry and Meghan choose to move away from royal life to make their fortunes as private individuals then why should we pick up the bill?

My attitude is not "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own", my attitude is that they are free to do as they wish, but they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to cover the bill simply because of their bloodline. Why can't you grasp this?

My primary concern is for the taxpayer, and for fair play. What they are wanting is to have their cake and eat it.

Harry didn't choose to be born into the Royal Family, but he has chosen to move away from royal responsibilities, and the protection that comes with that position. He (they) should therefore accept and pay for the consequences of that decision.

This is what you said yesterday.

Mort7 said:

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

To me that's the very definition of what I said above.

You can't choose your bloodline and walking away from some of your life doesn't reduce magically any threat that might be there.

I doubt the £20M/year figure simply because that's £55K a day which doesn't feel right but of course that's just a guess.

If you want them to be in danger or cut corners on their safety then fair enough I guess.

I don't feel bitter enough about their decision to be comfortable with that.

[cb31]

bhstewie said:

A quid a year covers the royals I believe.

I think we are finally seeing the myth of £1 per person per year to cover the royals is an absolute joke. 65M people equals about £75M.

Must be really good value to protect the Queen and the rest of the royal family if it will cost £20M for just Harry, not to mention all the other bills apart from security. I'd rather have my "about a quid" off my tax bill thanks.

techguyone said:

It's not helping that they can't make thnigs easier by being a single family unit, so rather than one team, you have two, possibly three if the baby is somewhere separate to Meagain and Harry is on a different continent.

It's quite believable how the cost would ramp up.

Exactly, at the moment isn't Harry in Scotland, Meghan in London and the baby in Canada? They are taking the piss. If they no longer want to do the job they should pay for themselves.

[amusingduck]

Sway said:

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

Public provided security isn't based around level of threat.

They were "Internationally Protected Persons" - a category covered by specific international agreements, and with rules regarding who is deemed such.

They won't be from Q2. Therefore their security needs are their own responsibility.

These things haven't come out of nowhere, they're the culmination of hundreds of years of convention and agreement. The changes aren't a specific judgement on the Sussexes, merely applying the long held rules. If in the UK, there's a potential for a specific agreement to be made - extending police security to them.

However, you cannot have UK police operating in a foreign nation "just because", and the Canadians (or Americans) are under no obligation to fill any void.

Glad to hear - eminently sensible way of doing things.

[rxe]

The key question is whether they are part of the royal family, not whether they face an arbitrary threat.

They’re not the Royal family, so they don’t get the benefits.

Tamara Ecclestone is not part of the Royal family, she’s a high profile target, and she pays for her own security. She doesn’t get a Royal protection squad every time she steps outside the house, even though arguably she’s a bigger target than Harry and Meghan. It’s not her fault that Bernie is her dad, and to be honest, she’s working very hard at making herself “not rich”.

I think it would be reasonable to taper security off rather than cut it instantly, but it needs to be gone in a year or two. They then decide how to live their lives - if they want their face in the papers every day, then no doubt they’ll have to fund security - just like every other famous person does.

[amusingduck]

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

You could argue that former politicians chose to serve the public, whereas the ex-royals have chosen not to. There's nothing wrong with that choice, but they shouldn't get to keep the perks that they like. They've more than enough money to pay for their own security - expecting the people that they've just shunned to pay for it is, you might say, not a good look

[bitchstewie]

amusingduck said:

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

You could argue that former politicians chose to serve the public, whereas the ex-royals have chosen not to. There's nothing wrong with that choice, but they shouldn't get to keep the perks that they like. They've more than enough money to pay for their own security - expecting the people that they've just shunned to pay for it is, you might say, not a good look

You could argue it but it would be a bit daft assuming we want to be governed by publicly elected officials and I'm fairly sure we had a vote on that and decided that we do.

I don't see anyone making a sensible argument that those former politicians should pay to protect themselves against threats that only arose because of their public service.

There doesn't seem to be common sense here just some vindictive Daily Mail style "How dare they" thing going on.

[cb31]

bhstewie said:

You could argue it but it would be a bit daft assuming we want to be governed by publicly elected officials and I'm fairly sure we had a vote on that and decided that we do.

I don't see anyone making a sensible argument that those former politicians should pay to protect themselves against threats that only arose because of their public service.

That is a matter of opinion, take Tony Blair for instance. I accept that he needs some security but when he is jetting off all around the world earning millions it is a bit much. A team of people having to jet around the world to facilitate his money making? I think he should pay for anything above 'standard protection in the UK'.

[amusingduck]

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Only getting paid when you are doing a job sounds very much like getting value for the taxpayer to me.

Does the threat stop when you stop doing the job?

Apply the same reasoning you would use if asked the same question about former Prime Ministers and other high profile politicians when they step out of public life.

You could argue that former politicians chose to serve the public, whereas the ex-royals have chosen not to. There's nothing wrong with that choice, but they shouldn't get to keep the perks that they like. They've more than enough money to pay for their own security - expecting the people that they've just shunned to pay for it is, you might say, not a good look

You could argue it but it would be a bit daft assuming we want to be governed by publicly elected officials and I'm fairly sure we had a vote on that and decided that we do.

I don't see anyone making a sensible argument that those former politicians should pay to protect themselves against threats that only arose because of their public service.

There doesn't seem to be common sense here just some vindictive Daily Mail style "How dare they" thing going on.

Former PMs get a £115k security allowance - is that what they're asking for? Blair has to pay towards his security costs too, why shouldn't they?

[JagLover]

amusingduck said:

Former PMs get a £115k security allowance - is that what they're asking for? Blair has to pay towards his security costs too, why shouldn't they?

That sounds more like it. Enough to pay for some security if they want to live somewhere reasonable quiet and secure. If they want to jet off around the world, and need security costing £20M, then they can pay for the rest.

[bitchstewie]

cb31 said:

That is a matter of opinion, take Tony Blair for instance. I accept that he needs some security but when he is jetting off all around the world earning millions it is a bit much. A team of people having to jet around the world to facilitate his money making? I think he should pay for anything above 'standard protection in the UK'.

So how does that work in practise?

"The public elected me which is how our democracy works and I ended up Prime Minister for over a decade and now all I want to do is go and live in a hut on a beach in Australia but you want me to pay for my own security because I'm outside the UK?"

Or is that OK so long as he isn't "earning millions"?

It's starting to sound a bit politics of envy.

[bitchstewie]

amusingduck said:

Former PMs get a £115k security allowance - is that what they're asking for? Blair has to pay towards his security costs too, why shouldn't they?

I'd be interested where you got that number from as I'd be fairly sure the security of any former Prime Minister costs more than £115K/year.

[cb31]

bhstewie said:

So how does that work in practise?

"The public elected me which is how our democracy works and I ended up Prime Minister for over a decade and now all I want to do is go and live in a hut on a beach in Australia but you want me to pay for my own security because I'm outside the UK?"

Or is that OK so long as he isn't "earning millions"?

It's starting to sound a bit politics of envy.

It's very easy to spend taxpayers money, much harder to spend it wisely. If the PM went to live on a beach in Australia a local firm could be hired at a reasonable cost and I don't think anyone would object to that.

Very different to embarking on a lecture tour of the US which has the primary aim to make lots of money and is entirely optional. I think a lot of people would have objections to the taxpayer facilitating such an endeavour.

[bitchstewie]

cb31 said:

It's very easy to spend taxpayers money, much harder to spend it wisely. If the PM went to live on a beach in Australia a local firm could be hired at a reasonable cost and I don't think anyone would object to that.

Very different to embarking on a lecture tour of the US which has the primary aim to make lots of money and is entirely optional. I think a lot of people would have objections to the taxpayer facilitating such an endeavour.

I'd have no problem with that if they met the standards required by our official protection services.

And if people were handed a rulebook before they put themselves up for public office spelling out the jobs they are allowed to do after leaving office and the list of the countries they are and aren't allowed to travel to and how long they can stay in each one and how much money they can make before they're judged to be expected to pay for their own security we might have a solution that I'd have no problem with either.

Don't be surprised if you don't get so many people wanting to do the job though.

I don't like a lot of things we spend public money on but some of them are just stuff that has to be paid for.

[cb31]

bhstewie said:

And if people were handed a rulebook before they put themselves up for public office spelling out the jobs they are allowed to do after leaving office and the list of the countries they are and aren't allowed to travel to and how long they can stay in each one and how much money they can make before they're judged to be expected to pay for their own security we might have a solution that I'd have no problem with either.

Don't be surprised if you don't get so many people wanting to do the job though.

I think it all boils down to reasonability. We accept that we have to pay for certain things but if people want to take the mickey then the purse strings get tightened. Same for Harry and former PM's. I would suggest Harry is starting to take the mickey and Canada has pulled the plug. I hope we do too soon, if they want the jetset lifestyle then I don't have a problem but either they or their family should pay for it.

[Mort7]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Errr....

£20 million per year, divided by approximately 31 million taxpayers (latest figuresI could find) equates to 64.5p per year per taxpayer just for Harry & family if my maths is correct, on top of the existing bill.

You state that you're not a Royalist, and not bothered by this, and yet you do seem to be going out of your way to defend the indefensible. If Harry and Meghan choose to move away from royal life to make their fortunes as private individuals then why should we pick up the bill?

My attitude is not "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own", my attitude is that they are free to do as they wish, but they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to cover the bill simply because of their bloodline. Why can't you grasp this?

My primary concern is for the taxpayer, and for fair play. What they are wanting is to have their cake and eat it.

Harry didn't choose to be born into the Royal Family, but he has chosen to move away from royal responsibilities, and the protection that comes with that position. He (they) should therefore accept and pay for the consequences of that decision.

This is what you said yesterday.

Mort7 said:

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

To me that's the very definition of what I said above.

You can't choose your bloodline and walking away from some of your life doesn't reduce magically any threat that might be there.

I doubt the £20M/year figure simply because that's £55K a day which doesn't feel right but of course that's just a guess.

If you want them to be in danger or cut corners on their safety then fair enough I guess.

I don't feel bitter enough about their decision to be comfortable with that.

You really do seem to have a problem understanding what I have written and putting it into its correct context, don't you.

Mort7 said:

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

How is that in any way unreasonable? Continuing with their royal duties will see them protected by the state. If they run away to become celebrities and their free security is removed, and they then pay for their own security they will also be protected. If their security is removed and they refuse to pay for their own, and suffer as a result, then of course it will be their own fault. Don't forget that they will always have the option to return to royal duties should they wish.

Here's an alternative suggestion. Crowdfunding (or maybe that should be crown funding). If they lose their state protection then they could use their Instagram account to ask for support. Royal sympathisers like you could then support them on a regular basis, without taking money from the Treasury, and detractors like me, who feel they should fund all aspects of their new life wouldn't have to contribute a penny.

Not sure that they would raise enough to fund their requirements though, as the prevailing attitude seem to be 'no duties, no money'. All of which is a moot point anyway, because the reality is that they will continue to be funded, and the Royals and the Government will do their utmost to suppress the truth from those of us who will be supporting their opulent, wasteful, self-indulgent and hypocritical lifestyle.

[RB Will]

Here is my take.

If Harry had decided he wanted out as a young lad / teenager he could have slipped pretty much into the shadows and had a relatively normal life.

But he did his duty and became a major Royal / celebrity / media personality and was welcome to all the support that requires as a life kinda forced upon him. The problem is now he wants out of the life but is relying on us to fund the support which is a bit off considering the resources he / his family has and his projected earnings.

Kinda had to stick with the path chosen, realise he is amazingly fortunate and carry on or go fully self funded.