Comments

• chrisstiles Hell Host

  February 9

  Because there's a history of covering up such things in order to protect various institutions.
• stetson Shipmate

  12:24AM

  What does "dps" stand for?
• Doublethink Admin, 8th Day Host

  6:24AM edited 6:34AM

  Diplomatic Protection Squad, they are the police officers who provide close personal protection for the royal family and other public figures in the UK.
  
  (I have emailed my mp to ask him to ask what police and security services knew - there were active terrorist attacks on the UK mainland during this time, you would expect they were vetting people and places the royal family went for safety and security reasons.)
  
  It seems like they were either incompetent or complicit.
• Basketactortale Shipmate

  8:56AM

  I am not a royal or a policeman. I doubt that the police bodyguards are there to take notes on anything they observe. Their only role is protection. Turning a blind eye is likely part of the job description.
• Basketactortale Shipmate

  9:00AM

  On the wider turmoil in British politics, I suspect that the main reason that Starmer is still in post is because everyone else in Cabinet has an extensive history with Mandelson, who was a widely visible fixer within the Labour party. If Starmer is stung by his choices, everyone else is too.
  
  The irony of this whole situation is that crazy people have been saying for decades that there are a bunch of princes, oligarchs and powerful people who meet together to do disgusting things. Turns out they weren't wrong.
• North East Quine Purgatory Host

  10:13AM

  To "turn a blind eye" is to be complicit.
  
  Given the presence of the dps, it beggars belief that Andrew's actions were not widely known and regarded as acceptable within his circle.
• TheOrganist Shipmate

  10:26AM

  I suspect that the original brief was - still is - that Personal Protection Officers (PPOs) are there to keep the principal secure from external threat, not to either prevent or report on dubious or risky behaviour. IMO this should have been reviewed and changed after hte things they must have seen with Harry in his early 20s.
  
  It is definitely beyond time that the protocols for PPOs are reviewed and updated because it is obvious that they have been present when principals have crossed the line from dubious to criminal behaviour.
• Alan29 Shipmate

  10:30AM

  Maybe the PPOs have been told that one of the things they must protect is reputation.
• Basketactortale Shipmate

  10:33AM

  Alan29 wrote: »

  Maybe the PPOs have been told that one of the things they must protect is reputation.

  
  I remember years ago when Princess Anne was in court, I think for speeding. She got a fine which was ten-pence-ha'penny, far below what ordinary people got in the same situation.
  
  The law hasn't touched the royals and their cohort for a very long time.