Prince Harry’s Ravec risk assessment will be done without ministerial input

For years, Prince Harry was fighting with Ravec through the British courts, arguing that the “bespoke security” arrangement was insufficient for his needs and his family’s needs. While the Sussexes were technically under that same bespoke arrangement when they came to the UK for the Jubbly in June 2022, Queen Elizabeth II stepped in and personally guaranteed the Sussexes’ safety. It was reported that year that she even had her own RPOs protecting the Sussexes for their brief visits in 2022. That completely changed when QEII died and Charles became king. Charles made it a million times more difficult for Harry to visit, and of course Charles didn’t want to see Meghan or the children. Not only does Harry have to provide 30-days notice for any security request, his requests during his father’s reign have been rejected more often than they’ve been fulfilled. Even Harry’s most recent visit to the UK in September, the same visit where he met his father for tea, did not come with any royal protection. All of which to say, the problem with Ravec has never been the government. The problem has always been Charles, William and the courtiers. But someone wants us to know that Harry’s new security risk assessment will not have any input from government ministers.

Ministers will have no role in deciding whether to reinstate Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded armed police protection when he visits the UK. The royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), which is overseen by the Home Office, has launched a fresh risk assessment of Duke of Sussex’s security, sources have confirmed.

A decision is expected next month, before the duke’s scheduled visit to the UK in February, when he is expected to give evidence in his court case against Associated Newspapers.

The decision to reassess the duke’s security risk comes after a letter he wrote to Shabana Mahmood , the home secretary, in September calling for a new threat assessment to be carried out. He asked Ravec to “abide by its own rules”, which state that a risk-management board should be conducted for each member of the royal family and other qualifying VIPs every year. The duke even called on the prime minister to “step in”.

Harry’s last threat assessment was carried out in 2019, before he withdrew from royal duties, and in May this year he lost a High Court battle to reinstate police protection.

However, The Times has been told that no minister will be involved in any process of the new risk assessment or the final decision on whether to reinstate his security. Ravec includes security officials from the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the royal household, who work together to advise the independent chair to make decisions on who should be given protection and at what level. While Ravec authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, the chair’s decision is independent of ministerial involvement.

The Home Office has legal responsibility for the committee’s decision and successfully opposed the duke’s appeal in May. After the High Court decision the Home Office said it was “pleased” the court had found in favour of the “government’s position in this case”.

[From The Times]

A British person or a security expert could probably explain this better, because I feel like I’m missing some subtext? Why is it a big deal that ministers won’t have input on the risk assessment? I would actually feel more comfortable if the risk assessment was made by ass-covering bureaucrats and police higher-ups as opposed to the motley crew of sycophantic royal courtiers sitting on Ravec, the same courtiers who have clearly pushed for the Sussexes to be put in mortal danger since 2020.

Camilla Tominey and Tim Stanley spoke about all of this on the Daily T, Tominey’s batsh-t crazy talk show. Tominey endlessly recycles through the royalist talking points, blaming Harry for increasing the threats against his family, saying outright that the Sussexes aren’t famous enough for the kind of private security they have, and claiming that the real reason Meghan refuses to visit the UK is because she’s afraid of being booed. But once they pay the Sussex Tax, the rest of the conversation is slightly interesting.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

14 Responses to “Prince Harry’s Ravec risk assessment will be done without ministerial input”

  1. Happy Peregrine says:

    Maybe it’s because I’m not familiar with the British government and political structures – but what are they even saying?

    That Harry’s risk assessment will be done by Ravec and no one else?

    Who is even on Ravec and what on earth makes them qualified to make these decisions?

    Are they saying that they won’t be hearing from experts familiar with the active and continuing threats against Harry and his family?

    It seems, yet again, to be purposefully opaque and convoluted.

  2. jais says:

    Even if it’s proven that Harry’s risk assessment is high, RAVEC can still choose to not protect him for any number of reasons. So yes, it does go back to the decision of the people on RAVEC, the people appointed by Charles and William.

    I tried to watch some of clip, but I can’t make it thru. Tominey starts talking about how Harry made himself a target by discussing how many Taliban he killed. While very purposely choosing not to mention that the tabloids had already made him a target by previously reporting on that number. The BM made him a target first and he corrected the story. From what I could tell, the man she was talking with had good questions and she would agree some and then push back with misleading answers like the one I mentioned.

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      Firstly, he didn’t make himself a target. He was a target and they had to smuggle him out of an active war zone due to the extreme threat to his life and the consequences such actions would have regarding his unit. I’m so sick of the media acting like this never happened.

      Secondly. A veteran who is in danger because of his actions taken on behalf of his country should get security! It’s absolutely insane the way that it’s not being phrased as veteran and his family still under threat due to his actions during deployment. As opposed to – oh he thinks he’s so important! He doesn’t want to be killed by obsessed individuals or terrorists! Wah wah wah!

      • Blithe says:

        Yeah, through no fault of his own, Harry was born a target. While toxic press and military service may have substantially increased his risks, any risk assessments of Harry, Meghan, and their kids needs to start with the reality that Harry was born a target.

  3. Here we go.. says:

    I saw stalker C Ship post the yougov poll and people want H to have police protection if he pays for it .. uh Didn’t H say he would pay for the protection.?
    well carnival of so called experts claimed H couldn’t pay for it because no one does. Crazy right.

    • Sunniside up says:

      It is the job of the Police to protect people in danger, People do not pay for police services except through their taxes. It would be the thin end of the wedge if the rich did start paying, it would be more difficult for the poor to get protection.

  4. Is that so? says:

    It makes no sense to me. BUT I imagine IF they reverse the security decision they can make it seem as if it were ministerial input that kept the Sussexes unprotected. OR maybe they won’t reverse and they don’t want Labour having the information on how bad the security situation is when they continue to deny the family protection.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I don’t think anybody from the Palace should be on RAVEC. They’re compromised.

  6. one of the marys says:

    I feel for Harry that this is happening, of course, but I’m so glad he’s using all the courts and government procedures to shine light on his situation. And hopefully he will get satisfaction. He refuses to go quietly and he refuses to let his father/ courtiers hide their wrongdoing. God knows what William is capable of. The card he hasn’t played yet, as far as we know, is blackmail because he must know some terribly embarrassing and damaging stuff about those people

  7. tamsin says:

    I don’t understand the “no ministerial input.” It doesn’t sound good for Harry. Shouldn’t the decision be made by the police with intelligence input? It was the palace that took away Harry’s security. Sounds like another stitch-up.

  8. Saucy&Sassy says:

    “Ravec includes security officials from the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the royal household, who work together to advise the independent chair to make decisions on who should be given protection and at what level. While Ravec authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, the chair’s decision is independent of ministerial involvement.”

    I wonder if the chair of Ravec is from the royal household? I doubt I’ll hold my breath waiting for them to approve security. Alternatively, they could go back to the case-by-case basis and will say no whenever they choose. When people show you who they are . . .

  9. IdlesAtCranky says:

    I don’t understand enough about the UK government setup to get how the “no ministerial involvement” idea will affect this issue.

    I also don’t normally watch any videos like this one or read any of the floods of UK H&M tabloid screed.

    This time I watched that video. I already knew Tominey was a liar and a professional hater, but my G*d!! The way she presents herself as objective and calm while every word out of her mouth is either biased, hypocritical, a lie of omission, or an outright lie, really verges on the openly psychotic.

    I thought I understood, at least fairly well, how bad the harassment of the Sussexes by the “press” has been and is. I think now I truly had no idea how far into Hell these people have sunk, in making a bob or two off the backs of the Sussex family. It’s unutterably appalling. Honestly I feel sick.

  10. Fran says:

    So, normally ‘without Ministerial involvement’ would mean that this is not a political decision and would be based on an assessment by civil servants and security professionals, who are subject to the civil service and police/intelligence codes, based on the evidence.
    I therefore think this is about distancing whatever recommendation is made from the risk assessment from Home Office Ministers and the Home Sec, regardless of which way it goes. So that they can say, ‘it wasn’t my decision’ if either H or Charles complain.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment