'THREATS to Harry haven't disappeared!' Ex-protection officer calls for security to be reinstated

We are delighted to be joined now by Scott Hamer, who is a former Protection Officer to King Charles when he was Prince of Wales. Scott, thank you very much for joining me here on GB News. So, first of all, Scott, you were Protection Officer for King Charles when he was Prince of Wales, as I said. What did that role teach you about the risks associated with members of the royal family, depending on no matter what rank they were? Well, everything in life is a risk. Crossing the road is a risk, and what you do is you manage those risks as best as possible. I think people sometimes think that Protection Officers eradicate all risks, and that's not the case. It's impossible to do. Public figures need to be in the public arena. They need to be seen. They need to meet people. That's the whole reason raison d'etre. So, the role of Protection Officer is to manage those risks, and I think a very good Protection Officer understands that's what they have to do when you've finished your bodyguard course. You think you've got to keep everybody away and lock these public figures up in rooms so that they can't be seen or can't be harmed, and that's not the reality. You have to go out and you have to manage those risks as best you can. So, there's always a residual risk. Yeah, and on a day-to-day basis, what would that role entail in terms of managing that risk that you talk about? Well, you get as much information and intelligence as you can. You see what's available to you. You see what you can find out. You take advice of people who are in the jurisdiction that you're in. You may be abroad. I mean, I'm abroad at the moment, so you need linking with the law enforcement and the agencies in the country that you're in or even just the region of the UK that you're in, so you can have as much information. Information really is key, but of course, there's always that unknown risk that always exists, and when we're talking about protection, a lot of the work of protection officers, having done all the research, the reconnaissance, the preparation, is you're really protecting that what I'd call the last 10 feet for that random person that's not on the intelligence framework that nobody knows about, who's just decided on their own that they're going to rock up and try and attack your principal, and that's what the last part of the job is. I mean, so there's kind of so-called lone wolf attackers, which you can't really And of course, Prince Harry, his security was downgraded when he stood back as a working royal five, six years ago. He's now, of course, come back, but just parking what's happened in the last couple of weeks to the side. When his security was downgraded, despite the fact he does come back to the UK fairly regularly before, of course, this point, what was your initial reaction to that news that RABEC, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, had made that decision? It was one of shock. Protection should always be afforded on objectivity and the threats and risks that exist. And I don't think, and I don't think any reasonable person would think that just because he stepped away from being a working royal that those threats and risks have changed. They've not, they still exist. He's second son of the king, he's fifth in line to the throne, and his, what he did in Afghanistan has been widely reported. So he is a terrorist threat. That didn't change overnight. So what would be, if what you're saying, what you're saying is essentially it should solely be down to the risk associated with one individual, and that's your understanding. So presumably, as you said, the risks didn't change, and therefore it warrants the question, well, has, is there another factor that was being kind of talked about by the RABEC committee or those close to the committee? And I think there must be, because like I said, that risk could change from, you know, that one day in January, whenever it was, to the second, the next day in January. Also, to be clear, there's impact on mobility, the impact of the second son of the king, or attack against him, you know, that would impact on UK PLC. Yeah. And, of course, you've talked about the kind of credible threats of terrorism because of his, his links to, well, obviously fighting in Afghanistan, the fixated individuals risks. And we know, of course, he's also got, got a stalker. So all of that, we know is in the, kind of in the public domain anyway, a risk management board was carried out at the end of July. So what would, do you think is happening behind the scenes now that that assessment has been carried out? What is RABEC assessing here? Well, I'd like to hope that they're objectively assessing the, the threats and risks and the inability to, a lot of this seems to be this phrase, non-working Royal, which, which, you know, I wasn't really aware of until a few years ago. The fact that he's not working in the Royal capacity doesn't change the threats and risks that exist to him. You've already mentioned it. We've got a terrorist threat. We've got fixated threat. We've got people far right who would also be a threat to him as well. And, you know, the police and the intelligence service know those, those threats. But for me, I liken that to, to prime, you know, former prime ministers. You know, we're protecting eight former prime ministers at the moment who are non-working prime ministers. The threats and risks still exist to those people. That didn't change the day they stepped out of office. So this non-working Royal title seems to be used, in my opinion, as a reason to not give protection. And again, in my opinion, that's wrong because it should purely be based on threat and risk on an objective, in an objective process. Now the Home Office are not commenting on this, but we do understand that Harry's been given what they describe as a police liaison telephone number. What's your experience of that? What does that actually mean in practice? Well, I think I've already commented on that, you know, essentially if something happens, so, you know, attacker presents themselves in the street, then the protection officers would be required to telephone, you know, somebody on the end of that. That's probably a protection officer. Let's hope you get through to them. You know, they might be in, you know, the cafe, they might be in a meeting, you know, it's, it's not even a 999 response. In fact, you get a better response by dialing 999 because that's an immediate response. And of course, his private security team, they can't carry firearms like they can in the United States or even, you know, by UK law, you can't even carry a baseball bat or a butter knife, really, because if it's perceived as a weapon, you're not allowed to carry it. So what, what, what can the private security team that Harry pay for actually do to protect their principal? Well, I'll say I'll correct you Cameron there slightly. I used to work in in law, it is possible for a private citizen to possess a firearm for protection purposes in law. Now that hasn't been done in the past, to the best of my knowledge, but there is a facility for that to be done. Now, you know, Prince Harry's protection officer, at least one of them, the team leader is, is a former, you know, royalty and specialist protection officer. So he's, you know, he's carried a gun for most of his career. So, you know, in theory, if the government wanted that, then they could do it. You know, that's a political decision. I very much doubt that would ever happen, but there is a, there is a possibility for that to happen. Otherwise, as you say, they are considered as everyone else is in the land and they're not, they're not allowed to possess weapons. Now, there's been lots of public polling on this and lots of commentary around the Duke and Duchess of Sussex coming back to the UK and this argument that they need to pay for their own protection. Now, of course, we know that Harry isn't allowed to pay for Metropolitan Police protection because that would set a dangerous precedent and High Court judges have already ruled he cannot do that. But a lot would be, well, a lot have kind of said that they would be pretty annoyed if taxpayer funded money would be going towards their security. What is your view on taxpayer funded money being used to protect both Prince Harry and Meghan? Well, again, it should be done objectively on the threats and the risks. And, you know, the government's first priority, the priority of any government is to protect its citizens and Prince Harry, you know, remains, remains a British citizen. So if, if the public has to pay for that, then that's the way it is. Unpalatable protection aspects may be, I mean, you can look at politicians, you know, people we can, we can mention Nigel Farage, who, you know, is probably at most risk of any politician. You know, certainly I would argue at the moment, but yeah, he's not in receipt of state protection. You know, Salman Rushdie was in receipt of state protection a number of years ago. There are other people, there are criminals and, you know, really bad people are in receipt of police protection because there is a serious threat to their life. So that should always be based objectively and not on personality. Otherwise, you know, that's very, very wrong. In a year's time, if I was to talk to you again, Scott, what would you hope has changed when it comes to Harry and Meghan's security? So in relation, you mentioned that Prince Harry offered to pay for policing services. And again, that's a very political thing to consider, but policing is paid for in everyday life. You know, every Saturday and Sunday, football matches, football clubs pay for their policing. Heathrow Airport is a private company, Heathrow Airport Limited. The policing at Heathrow is not paid for by the taxpayer. It's paid for by a private company. So in theory, you know, somebody could pay for their own protection. But again, it's a political thing. It's a change to the norm. And, you know, that would probably take some debate. And do you hope that the Duke and Duchess will get some level of protection? There's obviously different stages, 24-7, armed guards, or just when they're on public engagements. Do you think there's a happy medium or do you think they have to have full-blown protection 24-7? Well, I've worked with Prince Harry. I've worked with his father. You know, I was in the police for 30 years. I understand the very real threats and risks that exist to public figures. All I would hope, irrespective of personality, irrespective of what people think about them, their, you know, RMB should be held, and it should be based on threats and risks and not personality. That's not how protection works. That's not how the British government, you know, in my opinion, that said, the first duty is to protect its citizens, and that responsibility should be taken seriously. Okay, Scott Hamer, thank you very much for joining me.