Prince Harry should fund armed police himself from millions he trousered betraying his family
Wince Harry
PRINCE Harry not asking for “preferential treatment” is one of the funniest remarks we can recall. His entire life has been based on it.
He even tried to extract MORE preferential treatment from our then Queen after tiring of the institutions he was born into.
Unlike other Royals he wanted to cherry-pick jobs to suit him and his wife, to retain the trappings but without all that bothersome graft.
And he is STILL demanding preferential treatment now.
Anyone quitting a job sacrifices the pay and perks.
The High Court has judged that Harry, having quit the Royal Family, cannot automatically expect taxpayer-funded armed police guarding him on his fleeting trips to the country he abandoned. Quite right.
It is bad enough that the public has paid £414,000 to defend the Home Office against Harry’s bone-headed lawsuits.
He should fund it all himself from the millions he trousered betraying his family.
Mob clamp
KEEPING MPs safe should not need guards costing £31million. We just need to enforce the law against extremists and violent trolls.
Politicians’ security is paramount in these febrile times and after the murders of two colleagues. But we should tackle the root cause, as minister Mike Freer, hounded out by death threats, says.
Far-left and Islamist mobs feel entitled to harangue those in the public eye at their offices and homes. They even think intimidating their families is legitimate.
They do so because they are contemptuous of our democracy, or do not understand it. But mainly because timid police let them get away with it.
It is not hard to stop thugs publicly demanding Jewish genocide, supporting terror or threatening MPs.
It simply needs police chiefs willing to send cops, in numbers, to sweep them off the streets and into cells.
Rayn storm
A SANCTIMONIOUS Labour front-bencher who relishes “class war” and berates Tories over their tax bills had better be sure she has paid every penny of hers.
Angela Rayner’s answers look unconvincing. She and her party’s press office desperately played pass-the-grenade with inconvenient questions yesterday.
For years Keir Starmer’s deputy and her then husband owned two houses. Rayner claims hers was her main home when sold, so she did not need to pay capital gains tax on the hefty profit. OK.
Except a married couple can only claim tax relief on one property. Did they do so when they sold the other the next year? If so, they may
have banked thousands destined for the Treasury.
Rayner needs to come clean, just as she would demand of any Tory.
What exactly did she pay and when?