King Charles’ ex protection officer exposes RAVEC’s stance on Prince Harry

There are a lot of questions surrounding Prince Harry’s lack of taxpayer funded security and it’s all because of his status as the King’s second son, despite not being a full-time working royal.

While hypothesizing and calling out RAVEC and the Royal Family over his decision, a expert pointed out the shocking nature of such a decision, and even discussed the dangers their causing at length.

In his view, which he shared over on Linked in, former protection officer to King Charles, was the person who spoke out.

He began his point of view by referencing a claim made by the former home secretaries.

“Protection should be given, and taken away, purely based on timely and objective risk assessments - with neither having been recently completed in Prince Harry’s case,” he began everything by saying.

but “the response that The Government has been ‘too busy’ to hold a RAVEC or RMB process is farcical!”

He even exposed what it actually takes in the following words. Reportedly, “all it requires is representatives from The Royal Household, The Home Office and The Metropolitan Police and a meeting room. One could be convened in hours if it had to be so. I’ve been involved in RMBs in the past and I’ve written protection policy. I know how it works.”

near the end he also said, “RAVEC and RMB processes are tripartite committees. I really cannot believe for a second that The Metropolitan Police could not fail to see the threats and risks to Prince Harry are far greater than those to many of our police-protected former Prime Ministers - and other people who have been in receipt of police protection in the past and probably the future too.”

his concluding words however were nuclear because they saw him pose a shocking question, one that points to something fishy at play. He said, “this can only mean one thing: The decision to not give Prince Harry police protection is a political one. Whether that’s a big ‘P’ or a little one, who knows?”

Check it out Below: