#Lord West of Spithead

[dadsinsuits]

Alan West

[saintmeghanmarkle]

DM EXCLUSIVE: Fury as budget contains no defence spending rises but pledges 26million to Prince Harry's Invictus Games as military expert warns 'if the armed forces are under-equipped a lot more people will become eligible for those games' by u/Von_und_zu_

DM EXCLUSIVE: Fury as budget contains no defence spending rises but pledges £26million to Prince Harry's Invictus Games as military expert warns 'if the armed forces are under-equipped a lot more people will become eligible for those games' Hmmm. Interesting allocation of funds in the budget. Experts highlighted how the 'bizarre' plan appears to be at odds with Invictus' aims to provide support for ex-servicemen and women and warned that members of the already cash-strapped military could be put at risk. Lord West of Spithead, who is a former Royal Navy Admiral, told MailOnline: 'I am absolutely amazed that the government have not increased defence spending in this budget. It is extraordinary.'They have said that we could soon end up in a war and that we should be prepared to fight. In that event the armed forces will be under-equipped and there will be a much greater number of those eligible for the Invictus games.''Invictus is a wonderful thing and it is important to invest in our ex servicemen but I think the government have "lost the plot" as regards what is crucial for defence.'Not suprisingly, the article and the experts say very nice things about Ingriftus itself. Richard Fitzwilliams: 'No one would deny that Harry’s creation, based on the Warrior Games in America, which helps wounded or injured servicemen and women, is a truly remarkable project.  Not to nitpick, but I think that many might deny that Invictus is, in fact, "Harry's creation." 'That Invictus, a superb creation, should nonetheless be singled out in this way is simply bizarre. https://ift.tt/cYJAsM6 post link: https://ift.tt/8y6b40w author: Von_und_zu_ submitted: March 07, 2024 at 08:27PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit Disclaimer: All views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments or reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[aimeedaisies]

Court Circular | 28th February 2024

Buckingham Palace

The King was represented by the Rt. Hon. Carwyn Jones (former First Minister of Wales) at the Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of the Lord Morris of Aberavon KG (former Secretary of State for Wales, Attorney-General and Lord-Lieutenant of Dyfed) which was held at St. Margaret's Church, Westminster Abbey, London SW1, today.

The Princess Royal was represented by the Hon. Dame Shân Legge-Bourke.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were represented by Admiral the Lord West of Spithead.

St. James's Palace

The Princess Royal, Patron, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, this afternoon attended the Emergency Medicine Trainees' Association Annual Conference at Hilton Newcastle Gateshead, Bottle Bank, Gateshead, and was received by His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Tyne and Wear (Ms. Lucy Winskell).

Her Royal Highness, Royal Patron, Motor Neurone Disease Association, later attended a Rugby League Reception at Leeds Rhinos Rugby League Football Club, Headingley Rugby Stadium, St. Michael's Lane, Headingley, Leeds, and was received by His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of West Yorkshire (Mr. Edmund Anderson).

[qudachuk]

Lord West of Spithead said undersea cables and pipelines could be vulnerable to hostile activity

[misslisterkeepsajournal]

1831 Thursday 6 October

8 3/4 10 20/..

Ready at 9 5/.. at which hour Fahrenheit 64°. and small rainy morning as it has been since 6 a.m. - rather unlucky - an end I fear to all my walking schemes - breakfast at 9 1/4 to 10 5/.. - saw and spoke to the man the waiter recommended as guide to walk with me - much more like postboy than guide - would not do at all - went to a bookseller's shop close by - Bought Brannon's guide and miniature map of the island and saw a 4to. [quarto] volume of views of his (50 views) at 40/. with text - not dear - ordered a one horse car -

Cameron and George inside with me, and off from West Cowes at 11 20/.. - still raining - a hopeless day - yet better as we proceeded and not rain to wet us tho' our has only a square top over our heads, and all the side curtains undrawn - west and East Cowes with the castle of the latter (Mr. Nash) peeping out from the trees, very pretty - losing sight of these no beauty to Newport about a mile before the town (right) pass the barracks, like a square village of one story brick houses - the 14th. regiment there - a little farther (left) the neat large good looking brick house of industry or, as we in Yorkshire should call it, workhouse for the whole island -

Newport a tolerably good looking town - neat Ionic porticoed town hall with market and shops on the ground floor - goodish looking old gothic church - Charles the 1st's. 2nd daughter Elizabeth who died at Carisbrook castle was buried here - her lead coffin found about 30 years ago - Carisbrook Castle about a mile beyond Newport - drove up the hill to the castle gate or heavy wooden door of the time of Edward 3 and therefore said to be about 500 years old - 3/4 hour there - mount 40 steps up to the Keep tower said to have been built by the Romans - a well at the top said to be 300 feet deep, covered over for fear of accident - very fine view - Carisbrook (Cary's brook) a picturesque little town at one part Newport and its river medina (medeena) the town-like barracks, looking very well - could have seen portsmouth and Spithead -, and the tower of Xst.chch. [Christchurch] church but too hazy and very windy - the inside of the tower grown round with the most magnificent tree-like ivy I ever saw - Lord Bolton the late governor laid out a great deal of money on the castle planted the trees, and shut it up - it was open to the public before who did much damage - Lord B- [Bolton] had thought of making a gallery from one of the house windows (he lived in it) to the Keep Tower - would have spoilt the look - Lord Malmesbury present governor £1200 a year and a lieutenant governor at 20/. a day - the tilting ground taken in by queen Elizabeth and converted into a bowling green for Charles 1st. when prisoner here is now turned to an archery ground and the archers dine in the great dining room now only used for this purpose - the duchess of Kent and princess Victoria at the last meeting - Miss Ward whose father had so much property in the island and whose brother is M.P. for the city of London won the last prize - the best lady archer here as at Southampton (at Southampton ladies bows 30lb. [pound] for 50 yards gents. [gentlemens] 50lbs [pounds] for 80 yards) -

Carisbrooke Castle [Image Source]

A farm of 300 or 400 acres belonging to the castle and some forest land - have planted some of the latter with firs - say oaks will not grow - the castle yard small and rather choked up with building - saw lamp let down to the water's surface of the fine old Roman well 300 feet deep - cut thro' solid rock at about ten or 12 yards from the surface of the castle yard - 90 feet deep of water - saw the poor ass turn the wheel - this one 3 or 4 yards [sic] old - much trouble to teach it - the last about above 40 years old - the window from which Charles tried to escape is stone mullioned in 3 divisions above and 3 below each division having 3 iron stauncheons - this suite of rooms quite gone - saw the little white wainscotted room in which the princess Elizabeth Stuart died - the 2 little round towers in advance of the great entrance gate the most perfect part of the remain -

Old looking gothic church at Carisbrook - from the hill above the town (on our road to Freshwater gate Inn) very fine view of the castle - narrow good downy road - at least, down for the most part and 1 or 2 farm houses left right and fields and very thinly scattered farmhouses and cottages were on the right - not much wood to be seen save once or twice round gentlemens seats - distant views of Newtown and Yarmouth and the sea (right) -

The village of Freshwater merely a few scattered cottages and farm houses - the neat little picturesque Inn 1 1/2 mile off close on the sea at Freshwater bay - a bold high perpendicular chalk recess in the cliffs - from here to the needles a very fine bold range of chalk cliffs - went into the 2 caverns close by here which can be entered at low water a fine arch in the cliff, but caverns of no great extent -

Then took George and off at 4 and in an hour walked over the down (3 miles) to the Lighthouse -  a circular 2 story high round tower - 10 fixed reflecting lights - burn 500 gallons oil a year - the people man and his wife and 6 children have 20/. a week and coals and house found them - much sitting up at night - lamps must be trimmed every 3 hours in winter -

Lighthouse at Freshwater [Image Source]

The woman went down with me to the needles point (3 needles) - the little bay (left i.e. south) that looked like a fantenil from Hengistbury or Xst.chch. [Christchurch] head is Scratsell Scratchell's bay at the bottom of which the cavern not so large, the woman said, as the cavern at Freshwater gate in Freshwater bay and she had been in both - was in the former in August last - could only be entered in a boat when the water was very smooth - It is in this bay that the sea gulls build in such numbers and the men are let down by ropes to get the eggs - the Eider duck too comes here, and the men seek the down - the bay on the right north is alum bay - very pretty little bay - the western half precipitous white chalk the Eastern half streaked all colours with coal, clay, pink sand, etc. etc.

The Needles at Freshwater [Image Source]

35 mins. [minutes] at lighthouse and looking about and back again at the Inn in 8 mins. [minutes] under the hour at 6 27/.. - tea at 7 - settled accounts - wrote the above of today till 9 1/2 -

[Margin] Rainy day till about 1 1/4 afterwards pretty fine - very high wind on the down this evening - Fahrenheit 66°. now at 9 1/2 p.m. at which hour went to my room -  

Reference: SH:7/ML/E/14/0128

[sachkiawaaj]

Boris Johnson’s plan for military to tackle Channel crossings will aid people smugglers, says ex-Navy chief

Boris Johnson’s plan for military to tackle Channel crossings will aid people smugglers, says ex-Navy chief

Boris Johnson’s plan to put the military in charge of tackling migrant boat crossings will help people smugglers, the former head of the Royal Navy has warned. Lord West of Spithead said giving the Navy command over the operation in the English Channel would backfire by providing a more “efficient conduit” for the work of traffickers. Labour also accused Mr Johnson of trying to “distract” from…

[straightnewsonlinecom]

PETER HITCHENS: Falklands hero Lord West is 'insulted' by the Foreign Office

PETER HITCHENS: Falklands hero Lord West is ‘insulted’ by the Foreign Office

Britain’s most senior naval officer last night complained that the British Government had insulted him in a row over intelligence and security. Admiral Lord West of Spithead, 72, a decorated Falklands veteran, former First Sea Lord and a Security Minister under Gordon Brown, was denounced on the record by the Foreign Office for engaging in ‘disinformation and propaganda’ and for helping to…

[dadsinsuits]

Alan West

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

Harry scores again - he criticized the defense cuts. But this he will get kudos from the military folks and some of the public the cuts are insane. He looks happy as usual without Markle but pale and his skin is starting to look blotchy. Drinking all night?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/933019/prince-harry-defence-cuts-uk-armed-forces-budget-defence-government

Wait, there is actually a “Lord West of Spithead” who was “First Sea Lord”? This is for real?

[myeclecticcollectorblazeus]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB

[worldviraltrending]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB

[supertrendingnewsarticles]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB

[ltwilliammowett]

Bataille d'Ouessant. / The first Battle of Ushant  27 July 1778  Œuvre du XIXème siècle, vue par Théodore Gudin 1848

Britain had been at war with the American independence movement since 1775. In 1778 France took sides with the Americans and there was a war with Great Britain. In France they intended an invasion of Great Britain. For this purpose, however, the canal fleet had to be beaten decisively.

Augustus Keppel, who as Whig and member of the House of Commons had been opponent of the war course of the government before, received the command over the canal fleet as an admiral. From the beginning it was problematic that Hugh Palliser had received a subordinate command under Keppel. He was a lord of the admiralty and a supporter of the government.

Keppel hoisted his flag on the HMS Victory as his flagship. When he arrived at the fleet at Spithead, it was in poor condition. Only a few ships were operational. According to the official declaration of war, the number of operational liner ships could be increased to twenty. With these he sailed in June and attacked two frigates off the French coast. This was the first act of war between France and Great Britain. Keppel returned to England to strengthen his fleet because he had learned that thirty-two French warships were ready in Brest.

With a fleet of now thirty ships of the line, six frigates, two cutters and two fires, Keppel left again and met at Ushant the French fleet under Louis Guillouet, comte d'Orvilliers. It had left Brest on 8 July. It consisted of 32 liner ships and 16 frigates.

After the fleets were in sight for the first time on 23 July, a hurricane-like storm prevented a battle for several days.

It was not until 27 July that the two fleets met again, some 130 kilometres west of the island of Ushant. The weather was good. There was a strong southwesterly wind. The English vanguard attacked the French rearguard, tried to break the French line to separate the rearguard from the main power. This attempt failed after a bitter gun battle lasting about two hours. The battle and other circumstances had loosened the British line and Keppel could only deploy twelve ships to renew the battle. Another reason was that his signals had been partly ignored. There was another artillery duel.At times D'Orvilliers hoped to cut off the English rearguard from the main power. This chance could not be used, because the sub commander of the Louis-Philippe II. Joseph de Bourbon, duc d'Orléans had not immediately obeyed an order. Keppel tried to take the opportunity to attack the enemy rearguard with a superior force. D'Orvillier was able to prevent this with a manoeuvre because the French ships had better sailing qualities and the damage to sails and rigging was not as great as on the British side. The avoidance manoeuvre resulted in the fleets moving away from each other. At nightfall the gunfire was stopped.

The meeting of the two fleets had almost no military consequences. Neither side could conquer or sink a ship of the enemy. Both fleets returned to their ports.The French and the English accused each other of avoiding each other. In Britain, the fruitless battle sparked a fierce public debate over responsibility. The debate focused on Keppel and Hugh Palliser. Both also blamed each other. The trial of the court-martial against both opponents was viewed differently depending on the party’s opinion. The trial against Keppel lasted a total of five weeks and was widely discussed in public. All in all, however, public opinion and that of the Navy was more on Keppel’s side.  There were even violent protests in London. Both accused were acquitted, but lost their posts. The performance of d'Orvillier was hardly less critically judged in France. He was relieved of his command and entered a monastery. 

[45news]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB

[weopenviews]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB

[ngulliepija]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to be protected at taxpayers’ expense against the threat of terror attacks and kidnap for years to come, security experts have said. Police and former security chiefs fear the couple will continue to be at risk from organised terror groups, political fanatics and lone obsessives long after they separate from the Royal family. Talks are understood to be taking place at senior levels over the best way of providing protection for Meghan and Prince Harry as they divide their time between Britain and their new life in North America. But there are fears among some experts that palace and government officials may be underestimating both the potential threat and what is required to protect the couple against it. Dai Davies, who was Head of Royal Protection from 1994 to 1998 and former Chief Superintendent (Divisional Commander) Metropolitan Police Service, said: “We have to learn the lessons of history and act on them. Anyone in charge of security has to think the impossible and then think it again and I fear there is not enough of that going on by the experts currently in charge. “One thing you can be sure of is that terrorists and others who pose a threat are thinking about it all the time.” Mr Davies said the three main threats come from jihadist terrorists targeting Prince Harry, who also served in Afghanistan; lone ‘fixateds’ and royal obsessives; and right wing extremists with an hatred of Meghan as a woman of colour marrying into the royal family. Minister and senior police officers are thought to be determined to avoid the mistakes made over Diana, Princess of Wales, who in 1993 turned down publicly funded police protection except when she was with her sons William and Harry or staying at Kensington Palace. That left her relying on private security at other times, leading to her being in the hands of the Ritz Hotel’s head of security Herni Paul on the night she died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass as he tried to evade photographers following Diana. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones was badly injured in the crash, on 31 August 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana's royal protection officer for six years, resigned from the position in 1993, has since said that if he and his team were working with the Princess in 1997, they may have been able to prevent her death.  Mr Davies, who said there have been far more plots against the Royals than publicly acknowledged, added: “We don't want the situation where Harry and Meghan are being followed, without protection, by paparazzi or people with a fixation and we need to be sure that protection is of the highest level.” But he added that the high cost of providing security may cause resentment among British taxpayers if the Sussexes begin to earn large sums of private income outside of any Royal duties they continue to carry out. “The question is whether the British public will wear the cost of security, even if it is miniscule in real terms, over a long period,” said Mr Davies, who was in charge of protection for the Queen and the Royal family throughout the UK and worldwide. Lord West of Spithead, who was a security minister from 2007 to 2010, said that Harry and Meghan would be expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their security should they start earning a large amount of private income. But he said there was no question that high levels of police protection would have to be provided by the British government into the future. “We have got an obligation to provide security for one of the Queen’s sons and his family and that’s a long term obligation,” he said. “It would be nice to work out an arrangement with the Canadians, but we can’t not provide that protection ourselves, regardless. Mike Penning MP, who was police minister from 2014 to 2016 and went on to serve as justice and Armed Forces minister, said: “It doesn’t matter who they are, if they are at risk we have a duty to protect them, it’s as simple as that. That requirement should be based on any risk assessment made by our intelligence services and by the Canadians.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/38op2AB