Is your life any less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

[Dave1987]

Saw a quote on how much Scotland yard spends on "VIP protection" in this country and was talking about this in the mess room at work as well. Scotland yard spends in the region of £120m a year on Royal family protection alone. Considering in that the news is reporting that nearly 2000 notices of imminent danger are given to people in this country each year why aren't those people given the same protection that these "VIP's" are given. I don't see why my children are any less important than fat little Prince George, yet he gets round the clock protection from the police.

Is the lives of us mere mortals less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

 

[Haydn1971]

Is the lives of us mere mortals less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

I see where your coming from on this, but the counter argument is the value that the royals bring to the UK in terms of tourism and trade deals which will exceed the cost of "running them".

To add, I'm not a royalist myself, I don't personally see a place in this modern day for a head of state who has got there by virtue of birth via a long history of theft from both our nation and the world as a whole, but we are where we are and that's all

 

[DarloRich]

Saw a quote on how much Scotland yard spends on "VIP protection" in this country and was talking about this in the mess room at work as well. Scotland yard spends in the region of £120m a year on Royal family protection alone. Considering in that the news is reporting that nearly 2000 notices of imminent danger are given to people in this country each year why aren't those people given the same protection that these "VIP's" are given. I don't see why my children are any less important than fat little Prince George, yet he gets round the clock protection from the police.

Is the lives of us mere mortals less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

I see the point, and agree that in the ideal world such protection would be unnecessary. However there are plenty of nut jobs out there who would happily take a pot shot at royalty or parliamentarians or famous people.

No one is lining up to take a pot shot at me. At least not this week. If there was a clear threat to me i would expect police to offer increased protection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To add, I'm not a royalist myself, I don't personally see a place in this modern day for a head of state who has got there by virtue of birth via a long history of theft from both our nation and the world as a whole, but we are where we are and that's all

I wouldn't mind an elected head of state but only if they hold as little power as the Royals presently do. I don't like US-style presidential democracy as I believe it gives one person too much power.

 

[ExRes]

The police do protect people whose lives are threatened regardless of their standing, I used to live quite close to a criminal who'd done the dirty on his 'colleagues' who had, in turn, tried to do a much nastier dirty to him

All of us law abiding citizens paid for NHS care, his police protection, his floodlights, his CCTV cameras and the attempted prosecution of his former colleagues while he pottered around in his +£50k car with personalised plates

I can't swear to it but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a member of the House of Windsor

 

[Dave1987]

Although I am very anti monarchy and very pro republican this isn't really about the Monarchy as such it's more to do with the huge cost to the taxpayer of the protection squads. If one of them got killed or injured then there would be a huge outcry as to why it was allowed to happen and then even more money would be spent on protecting them. If I turned around to the police and said I feel mine or my families lives are in danger I highly doubt they would immediately put round the clock protection on us. I think it stinks the way these peoples lives are seen as being far more important than the ordinary man or woman on the street.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I believe in an 'equity' system on all things like this, unlike equality which means everyone gets the same amount of police protection, equity means those who need protection get extra and those who don't get none.

So on that basis the Royals being more widely hated, means they need protection and I don't, being unknown. But I have to stress I think the Royal Family is an ancient, unneeded, expensive, undemocratic, tourist attraction, that should be scrapped in favour of a republic system.

 

[DarloRich]

If I turned around to the police and said I feel mine or my families lives are in danger I highly doubt they would immediately put round the clock protection on us. I think it stinks the way these peoples lives are seen as being far more important than the ordinary man or woman on the street.

of course they wouldn't! However they would if their intelligence led them to believe their was a credible and serious threat to you and/or your family

 

[Trog]

It comes down to risk, there are probably loads of people out there with a grudge against society and or the Royals who would be happy to attack one of them. So it is worth putting some effort into protecting them. Me I doubt if five people care if I live or die, so protecting me would be a waste of money.

Think of the Royals etc. as being tall buildings, and humble plebs like myself as garden sheds. Where is the worthwhile place to put a few lightning conductors, so any incoming lighting bolts will be safely earthed so no one short or tall gets hurt.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I totally agree with the sentiment.

But really the police would protect anyone who has a credible threat against their life. Giving someone a new identity, for instance, does not come cheap. And, like it or not, there are plenty of people in this world who'd very much like to bump off a Royal.

I'd agree that the Royals should be paying for their own private bodyguards though, rather than them coming from the police.

 

[ExRes]

I'd agree that the Royals should be paying for their own private bodyguards though, rather than them coming from the police.

I'm one of those that think Tony Blair should be paying for his own protection while he swans off around the world lining his own pocket

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm one of those that think Tony Blair should be paying for his own protection while he swans off around the world lining his own pocket

Yep. And political parties should pay for their own security protection at their conferences, etc etc.

 

[AM9]

Yep. And political parties should pay for their own security protection at their conferences, etc etc.

This line of discussion seems to be assuming that everybody who has done something that annoys somebody else should pay for their onw protection.
So does that include anybody who acts as a witness in a murder trial, or who makes unpopular refereeing decisions, or who is driving a train when it crashes, etc. should cough up when the threats start arriving?

 

[Haydn1971]

If one of them got killed or injured then there would be a huge outcry as to why it was allowed to happen and then even more money would be spent on protecting them.

Let's not forget that Prince Charles Great Uncle Louis Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA, the Queen has had several near miss nutters and insurgents in Afghanistan threatened to behead Prince Harry - notwithstanding my views, the royals are probably at much higher risk than the average Joe from terrorist plots.

 

[Dave1987]

Let's not forget that Prince Charles Great Uncle Louis Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA, the Queen has had several near miss nutters and insurgents in Afghanistan threatened to behead Prince Harry - notwithstanding my views, the royals are probably at much higher risk than the average Joe from terrorist plots.

Ow please he went on patrol in the safest part of Afghanistan, and when Bastion air base was attacked he was immediately put in a security bunker and guarded by elite special forces. While several US service personnel were killed in that attack he was no doubt sat with his feet up watching TV or reading a book.

 

[Johnuk123]

On that basis the Royals being more widely hated, means they need protection and I don't, being unknown. But I have to stress I think the Royal Family is an ancient, unneeded, expensive, undemocratic, tourist attraction, that should be scrapped in favour of a republic system.

Your hate for the Royal Family is certainly not the view of the majority as 73% want it to carry on and 86% think the Queen's done a good job.

So who would you have as the republic's president ? Polly Toynbee perhaps or maybe Russell Brand both ideal candidates I would have thought.


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...rchives-Pol-Sun-JubileeRoyalFamily-300512.pdf

 

[Dave1987]

Your hate for the Royal Family is certainly not the view of the majority as 73% want it to carry on and 86% think the Queen's done a good job.

So who would you have as the republic's president ? Polly Toynbee perhaps or maybe Russell Brand both ideal candidates I would have thought.


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...rchives-Pol-Sun-JubileeRoyalFamily-300512.pdf

That's mainly because Buckingham palace and Clarence house have the media singing to their tune. I think the Guardian is the only paper that dares criticise the Royals.

 

[Johnuk123]

Ow please he went on patrol in the safest part of Afghanistan, and when Bastion air base was attacked he was immediately put in a security bunker and guarded by elite special forces. While several US service personnel were killed in that attack he was no doubt sat with his feet up watching TV or reading a book.

My son was at Bastion, Prince Harry wasn't even on the base when that attack occurred he was many miles away, don't believe everything you read.

Guarded by elite special forces ? you've been reading too many comics.

 

[TheNewNo2]

You know what, damn right they're more important than me! As an individual perhaps I'm of equal importance, but I'm not a family member of a head of state, of a politician, of a nuclear weapons specialist... I work in an office doing statistics and am very easily replaceable. My coworkers would be sad for a while, my family and girlfriend likely distraught, but beyond that there would be little to no effect from my death.

 

[swj99]

I see the point, and agree that in the ideal world such protection would be unnecessary. However there are plenty of nut jobs out there who would happily take a pot shot at royalty or parliamentarians or famous people.

No one is lining up to take a pot shot at me. At least not this week. If there was a clear threat to me i would expect police to offer increased protection.

Same here. Although interestingly, according to a precedent case a few years ago, plod cannot be sued for their failure to prevent crime.


Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008)

The Claimant, Stephen Smith, was viciously attacked by his former lover, Gareth Jaffrey, despite having warned Brighton Police repeatedly, by 999 calls and police station visits, that Jeffrey was threatening to kill him. The police failed to act to protect him as they should have done on several occasions, and the only action they did begin to take, namely instituting an investigation, was clearly inadequate and executed with insufficient urgency in the circumstances. After the attack, Jeffrey was arrested for attempted murder, and was then convicted of making threats to kill and causing GBH with intent.

http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=1136

 

[Haydn1971]

Ow please he went on patrol in the safest part of Afghanistan, and when Bastion air base was attacked he was immediately put in a security bunker and guarded by elite special forces. While several US service personnel were killed in that attack he was no doubt sat with his feet up watching TV or reading a book.

Believe what you will, but you are talking bull my dear chap.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Your hate for the Royal Family is certainly not the view of the majority as 73% want it to carry on and 86% think the Queen's done a good job.

So who would you have as the republic's president ? Polly Toynbee perhaps or maybe Russell Brand both ideal candidates I would have thought.


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...rchives-Pol-Sun-JubileeRoyalFamily-300512.pdf

If the public likes the Queen as head of state she would be voted for.
It's matter of principal.
Why should someone get a job because of birthright, it's hardly fair.
And what happens if Queen Elizabeth the 5th is a tyrant and we have to put up with it for however long the royal lives for?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think there's a little bit of royal family envy seeping out from the OP, especially the comment "fat Prince George" :roll:. I actually feel sorry for the members of the royal family that were actually born into the family, they can't do half the things that I can without the media bothering them let alone someone trying to kill them. It's the hangers on who are bereft of talent such as Pippa Middleton who annoy me, indirectly she's made plenty of money off the back of her sister and her brother in law.

 

[ExRes]

If the public likes the Queen as head of state she would be voted for.
It's matter of principal.
Why should someone get a job because of birthright, it's hardly fair.
And what happens if Queen Elizabeth the 5th is a tyrant and we have to put up with it for however long the royal lives for?

You're almost there with a valid argument, until your final sentence that is, then you start to live up to your 'star trekker' label

I very much suspect that if Queen Elizabeth V ever takes the throne then we will all have been 6 feet under for many a long year and not need to be concerned about it

People would simply not put up with a tyrannical monarchy in this day and age and with the minimal levels of Armed Forces and Police we have now there would be no overpowering force to keep them in control

I assume that you would rather go down the Presidential road, so are you prepared to argue that tyranny would not happen in a Republic ? or perhaps the jolly friendly attitude of a Communist committee would shine through and share out the assets of the country without favour to any elite ?

At least the British Monarchy brings a very large amount of money into this country, why ?, because most of the visitors would give their eye teeth to have our system rather than their own and come here simply to see it in action

 

[Kernowfem]

Ow please he went on patrol in the safest part of Afghanistan, and when Bastion air base was attacked he was immediately put in a security bunker and guarded by elite special forces. While several US service personnel were killed in that attack he was no doubt sat with his feet up watching TV or reading a book.

Ouch. Now I'm no royalist but I do not agree with this at all, sorry. Like another poster on here I have family who served at Bastion with Captain Wales during his second tour with the AF (Apache Force) and they have nothing but praise for him and the work he did...as an equal to the lads and lasses out there with no royal title.

Even I have to admit he's done a tremendous amount for the veterans and continues to raise awareness of their plight. I can understand why people have problems with the royal family in general. The Kents for one are on my list for being useless hangers on, there are worse targets for your argument than Harry

I pity the queen, its not a life id want for myself. Having to remain neutral with no opinions or emotions or freedom to express either. Nor would I want her schedule (which for someone in their 80's must be a nightmare)

In honesty I'd rather my tax money went towards protecting her than giving Maxine Carr and Jamie Bulgers killers a new identity. I'd be interested to know how much protection for the royal family costs against protection for our politicians.

 

[NSEFAN]

If the public likes the Queen as head of state she would be voted for.
It's matter of principal.
Why should someone get a job because of birthright, it's hardly fair.
And what happens if Queen Elizabeth the 5th is a tyrant and we have to put up with it for however long the royal lives for?

I agree with you in principle, although there's nothing to stop an extremist government from taking power and becoming just as oppressive. It's happened all over the world throughout history and still happens today. These days, selective reporting in the media makes it very easy to manufacture consent and swing the will of the people into loving/hating certain ideas. People power only works properly when those people aren't ignorant/stupid/too distracted with the daily struggle to stop and think about the bigger picture.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This line of discussion seems to be assuming that everybody who has done something that annoys somebody else should pay for their onw protection.

If individuals need protection because of a specific threat then the police should do it.

If individuals want protection because they feel more secure with it, then they should pay for it.

Northumbria Police (and, by extension, me) are still paying for the policing at the Labour conference that was held in Gateshead. Look at how much the policing at the Tory conference in Manchester cost. Anyone else would have to have their own private security, why not political parties?

As for Blair, it's a tough one. I think he should get protection whilst in the UK, because there certainly would be a credible threat against him. But when he's abroad on business he should be stumping up the readies.

 

[Butts]

If individuals need protection because of a specific threat then the police should do it.

If individuals want protection because they feel more secure with it, then they should pay for it.

Northumbria Police (and, by extension, me) are still paying for the policing at the Labour conference that was held in Gateshead. Look at how much the policing at the Tory conference in Manchester cost. Anyone else would have to have their own private security, why not political parties?

As for Blair, it's a tough one. I think he should get protection whilst in the UK, because there certainly would be a credible threat against him. But when he's abroad on business he should be stumping up the readies.

As far as I am aware all ex- Prime Ministers are afforded a certain degree of protection once out of office. How far this extends and it's practicalities I am unsure of.

 

[Seacook]

So who would you have as the republic's president ? Polly Toynbee perhaps or maybe Russell Brand both ideal candidates I would have thought.

Since the role of President would be as a figurehead as opposed to an executive, surely the most appropriate candidate would be Helen Mirren?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't see why my children are any less important than fat little Prince George, yet he gets round the clock protection from the police. Is the lives of us mere mortals less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

Why did you use the word "fat" above when describing a small child. Is obesity something you disagree with strongly? Obesity is often found in the poorest of families these days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While several US service personnel were killed in that attack he was no doubt sat with his feet up watching TV or reading a book.

And your source for that statement that you have committed to print on this thread is...?