Queen Must Pay Her Own Security Bill

Started by cinrit, June 28, 2014, 12:09:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

cinrit

June 28, 2014, 12:09:51 PM
QuoteWhen Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the Royal Family's security two years ago, no one had any idea just how far reaching it would be.  Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.

Buried away in the Monarch's annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.

Four police officers guarding Kensington Palace, home to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and St James's Palace, made way for lower-paid security guards last year, it can be revealed. 

Officers protecting the Royal Mews, where the Royal Family's travel arrangements are made, will soon be replaced, too.

More: SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill | Mail Online

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

Windsor

#1
June 29, 2014, 01:50:14 PM
The State expects the Queen to carry out her duties as Head of State, as such it should cover the cost of such endeavour, including security.

DaFluffs

#2
June 29, 2014, 02:15:07 PM
I totally agree.  The government should be footing the bill for security period. 

And not because of the individual royals (Charles, Kate, William, Andrew) but because of the royal role (Prince of Wales, William second heir to the throne, etc.).

A terrorist strike at them would represent a strike against the government of the UK which is what the royal roles represent.  Thats why they need protection.....


Windsor

#3
June 29, 2014, 02:28:49 PM
Exactly!

Royal Security in fact could do with an improved strategy and perhaps even funding, as there have been far too many security scares lately.

Limabeany

#4
June 29, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: Windsor on June 29, 2014, 01:50:14 PM
The State expects the Queen to carry out her duties as Head of State, as such it should cover the cost of such endeavour, including security.
I agree that it should cover her and her heir, but as the heir to the heir is not expected to work until he wants to, why should the British taxpayer foot the bill for his protection? It should come from the royal's pocket, if he is not a public servant, then he is not the public's problem.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

DaFluffs

#5
June 29, 2014, 02:48:17 PM
Hmmmm......Is there a middle ground in this debate? 

Perhaps William & Andrew should not receive round the clock protection UNTIL they get off the couch, put on their shoes and actually perform royal duties?

And then when they return home the protection ceases until their next function?


Limabeany

#6
June 29, 2014, 03:47:46 PM
 :goodpost: Everyone but HM and PoW pays for their own security detail when not doing royal work...  :thumbsup:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Macrobug

#7
June 29, 2014, 03:53:11 PM
If the less senior members of the royal family are expected to perform royal duties and charities then they need to be protected.  If they are not given the perks then no one should expect them to perform.  And if they are not protected because they are private citizens then no one can stalk them; it is illegal to take their photos doing private things and no one can criticize their actions.

Goes both ways.  If they have to put up with the invasion of privacy when doing nonpublic things then they also get protection.  All the time.
GNU Terry Pratchett

Limabeany

#8
June 29, 2014, 03:54:42 PM
Invasion of privacy is moot for this point because they are public personalities...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Macrobug

#9
June 29, 2014, 03:55:39 PM
If they are public persona then they need protection.

Give and take
GNU Terry Pratchett

Limabeany

#10
June 29, 2014, 03:56:36 PM
Only when in public working, otherwise they pay their own.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

TLLK

#11
June 29, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
Quote from: DaFluffs on June 29, 2014, 02:15:07 PM
I totally agree.  The government should be footing the bill for security period. 

And not because of the individual royals (Charles, Kate, William, Andrew) but because of the royal role (Prince of Wales, William second heir to the throne, etc.).

A terrorist strike at them would represent a strike against the government of the UK which is what the royal roles represent.  Thats why they need protection.....
I agree and at this point in time George has to be added to the list as well. 

Limabeany

#12
June 29, 2014, 03:59:45 PM
No security expense can be mentioned without also mentioning the need for them to WORK, why is it so difficult for some to demand royal duties from and not just relish royal perks for William.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Macrobug

#13
June 29, 2014, 04:00:10 PM
Then when they are not working no one can complain that they are on vacation, no photos or pap stalking when out shopping.  No critisim of how much is spend on Anmer Hall, a private home. 

We are claiming ownership over the RF because we pay for them.  If we are not paying for them during their private times, we can't have ownership then, too.
GNU Terry Pratchett

Limabeany

#14
June 29, 2014, 04:01:04 PM
They need to work more than they play as they are public servants, not public vacation servants...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Windsor

#15
June 29, 2014, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on June 29, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
why should the British taxpayer foot the bill for his protection? It should come from the royal's pocket, if he is not a public servant, then he is not the public's problem.

The very nature of the set up means the entire family is a target for extremist, and therefore all members require some sort of protection from the State. Just like the Family of a President in a Republic gets security, so should the Royal Family. In fact, anyone considered to be under threat of any sort in the UK gets Police protection, even a regular Joe!!

Limabeany

#16
June 29, 2014, 04:04:05 PM
Simple, then they should work like regular joes... Expensive security at the taxpayer's expense for an ambulance pilot is unacceptable...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Macrobug

#17
June 29, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
I agree that the RF SHOULD be contributing to their security.  But I strongly disagree that the senior members should only have protection when on duty.  Some crazy person intent on hurting the RF isn't going to differentiate between private time and public duty.  Remember when the Queen had her midnight chat with the guy  sitting on her bed?

GNU Terry Pratchett

TLLK

#18
June 29, 2014, 11:23:55 PM
 :goodpost: The monarch and heir(s) closest to the throne would be prime targets for terrorists etc..Those charged with protecting the BRF and members of the government would be aware of the threats and have to make the necessary decisions.

DaFluffs

#19
June 30, 2014, 02:06:39 AM
So if there are some who are charged w/protecting the BRF and members of government, why is the Queen being asked to pay for this expense?  Are they asking the PM to cough up some funds for his protection and the protection of his family?

And if there are some in the government who are responsible for the security of the BRF & members of government, how would the communication of classified data (i.e. potential terrorist plots) take place if the Queen has to hire her own security via an outside firm????

This just doesn't make sense any way you look at it.....

But it does sound like no branch of the government has any money (expenses are rising and budget allotments are going down) and is trying to pass expenses along just to keep their own departments/branches afloat.  Its sickening really.


cate1949

#20
June 30, 2014, 03:21:17 AM
aren't they talking about private security for buildings not the actual people?  The royal mews (where they keep horses carriages etc) KP and some other buildings? 

I could see private security for those places but no private security for people.  Plus - is there not an issue re: communications?  How would Metro Police make sure these private security guards know if there is an increase terror alert?

Limabeany

#21
June 30, 2014, 04:53:44 AM
Quote from: DaFluffs on June 30, 2014, 02:06:39 AM
So if there are some who are charged w/protecting the BRF and members of government, why is the Queen being asked to pay for this expense?  Are they asking the PM to cough up some funds for his protection and the protection of his family?
I doubt the PM requires protection for as many family members as HM.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Eri

#22
June 30, 2014, 07:52:16 AM
So why aren't other Heads of State asked to pay for their security bill? Until then Liz shouldn't either ...

Curryong

#23
June 30, 2014, 11:26:26 AM
If you read between the lines it appears that the Met/ Home Office has refused to pay ALL the £128 million bill. It doesn't say they are not paying some of the bill and I would bet they are. It goes on to say that HM has agreed to cover SOME of her own security costs. IMO it appears that it is now a shared arrangement. Not very fair, I agree, but at least the Queen's not shouldering all of it. Charles will probably be making some contribution towards his own costs too.

TLLK

#24
June 30, 2014, 03:30:01 PM
I agree Curryong. I believe that the RPOs will still be provided to ensure the protection of HM and her working family members along with those the Met/Home Office believe need full time protection ie: Prince George. However, it does seem that private security firms will be handling some of the protection tasks now outside of residences/offices.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions