HARRY’S BRAG
Harry moaned about needing security after his boast of killing 25 Taliban in Spare saw him hit by Al Qaeda death threats
The duke's military confessions enraged members of the British Armed Forces who felt it was a 'betrayal'
PRINCE Harry moaned about needing to increase security after his boast of killing 25 Taliban members in Spare saw him hit with death threats from Al Qaeda, court documents show.
The duke lost his fight for government-funded UK security on Wednesday, having moaned he was "at a greater risk" than Princess Diana and had been treated "less favourably" than other royals.
6
6
6
Harry has vowed to appeal the decision after a judge ruled there had not been any "unlawfulness" in the move to pull his bodyguards - funded by the taxpayer.
The decision came the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stood down from working senior royals.
Harry had complained about being unable to return with Meghan, Archie and Lilibet "because it is too dangerous" after their security was dropped.
The High Court heard in May last year how Harry had brought a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
He had won the bid to take the Government to court the year prior.
Court documents revealed today stated Al Qaeda had threatened to kill the duke after he discussed how many Taliban fighters he had killed in his controversial book Spare.
The statement explained why Harry was seeking more security, and read: "In light of various matters, including that he was the son of King Charles III, a brother of the Prince of Wales, and that Al Qaeda had recently called for the claimant to be killed."
Harry revealed in his memoir that he flew six missions on his second tour in Afghanistan in 2012 while serving in the British Army.
Most read in Royals
He claimed he killed 25 Taliban fighters during the war while piloting his Apache attack helicopter.
The Duke was part of a British force which was helping an international coalition to battle back the terror group after they were ousted from power in 2001.
Harry said the technology meant: “I could always say precisely how many enemy combatants I’d killed”.
‘Prince Harry’s memoir isn’t proof,’ argue US lawyers in battle over duke’s visa after he wrote about taking cocaine
He wrote: “So my number: 25. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed.
“In the heat and fog of combat, I didn’t think of those 25 as people. I’d been trained to ‘other-ise’ them.”
Harry wrote that he did not see his victims as real "people" but rather "chess pieces removed from the board".
They were, he added, “baddies eliminated before they could kill goodies".
DEATH THREATS
Harry's explosive military claims sparked a ferocious response from officials in the ruthless Afghan regime.
At the time, Taliban official Anas Haqqani responded online and wrote: “Mr Harry! The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans… these atrocities will be remembered in the history of humanity.”
Taliban police spokesman Khalid Zadran said: "Prince Harry will always be remembered in Helmand - Afghans will never forget the killing of their innocent countrymen.
"The perpetrators of such crimes will one day be brought to the international court and criminals like Harry who proudly confess their crimes will be brought to the court table in front of the international community."
Mr Zadran said Harry's description was "cruel" and "barbaric".
The dukes' confessions also enraged members of the British military.
Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational."
The findings of December's hearing published today
A former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, blasted Harry's comments as a "betrayal".
He stated that the ex-soldier had exposed the Armed Forces, himself and his family to heightened threats.
“This will incite some people to attempt an attack on British soldiers anywhere in the world," he told Sky News.
"The impact on his own personal security is even greater,” Colonel Kemp added.
Meanwhile, Harry's decision to include his military kills was branded "calculated" and purely to "secure extra security" by a defence expert.
Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society think tank, told The Sun: "In truth, he is no more of less of a target than before.
Inside Prince Harry's fury as UK security team was pulled after Megxit
Prince Harry went to officials with many concerns amid his battle to get security while in the UK.
Today's findings have laid out some of them - including how Diana was treated, who's taking responsibility for his family and how he believed threat levels were raised because of 'racism'.
Harry asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as
mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen. I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …”.
The prince also asked if anyone had thought about "the consequences" of the decision to cut his security.
He said: "Prove to me that someone has actually thought about the consequences without being punitive, which is how most of the decisions have been made in the last couple of months."
Harry outlined: "The obvious difference aside from that is the fact that I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the Family”.
"Prince Harry’s claims about the number of Taliban he may have killed - whether true or not - seem calculated to achieve just one objective: to secure extra security for himself at the U.K. taxpayer’s expense.
"All he has succeeded in doing is to allow a despicable regime a free PR hit in response to his poorly framed comments."
LOST LEGAL FIGHT
The findings of December's hearing published today read: "The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020.
"Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.
"The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such
procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant relief.
"This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially
different."
It added: "The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, following the decision of 28 February 2020."
Judge Sir Peter said in his ruling that Ravec's decision in 2020 was "legally sound".
"That evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness, as regards the other VIP category," he added.
It comes after Harry's lawyers told the court in December that the decision to remove his taxpayer funded security had been "unlawful and unfair".
Harry outlined what he believed his "biggest threat" was - but it was redacted from the findings.
He also asked who would be willing to put his family in a position of "extreme vulnerability and risk".
The prince continued: “[It was] a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen.
"I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please."
However, the judge today also said there was "no substance in the contention that the defendant failed to act in a procedurally fair manner".
Prince Harry’s claims about the number of Taliban he may have killed - whether true or not - seem calculated to achieve just one objective: to secure extra security for himself at the U.K. taxpayer’s expense.
Dr Alan Mendoza,
Today a legal spokesman for the Duke stated: "The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.
"In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to The Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis. The Duke’s case is that the so-called “bespoke process” that applies to him, is no substitute for that risk analysis.
"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing."
A Home Office spokesman responded to the ruling today and said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government's position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further.
Read More on The US Sun
"The UK Government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.
"It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals' security."
What level of security protection are working royals entitled to?
A HANDFUL of working members of the Royal Family have 24/7 protection - but others are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Senior officers are assigned to specific members of the household and are supported by others, one expert told The Sun.
He claimed will always be a minimum of one protection officer with a member of the Royal Family, but the protection team is increased according to threat and risk.
King Charles, Queen Camilla and the Wales' family have round-the-clock protection and the monarch also has a corridor officer based outside his bedroom door, the expert said.
The Express reported the likes of Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex are given protection when they are taking part in official engagements - but do not have taxpayer-funded security at their homes.
Prince Andrew had his taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
His daughters Princess Beatrice and Prince Eugenie are said to not have funded security as they are not full-time working royals - and are employed elsewhere.
Robert Jobson, an award-winning royal author, explained: "According to a 1917 Letters of Patent issued by King George V, the title of HRH Prince or Princess is passed to ‘The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.
“Both Harry and Meghan know this. Archie, on the other hand, did not qualify to become a prince automatically.
“In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Letters Patent to expand on a previous decree that granted such a title only to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales."
6
6
6