A petition calling on the UK Government to provide appropriate protective security for Prince Harry and his immediate family when they are in the United Kingdom.

**SECURITY BEFORE STATUS.
EVIDENCE BEFORE PREJUDICE.
RISK BEFORE RANK.**

We call on the UK Government to ensure that Prince Harry receives appropriate armed police protection when a credible threat assessment determines that such protection is necessary.

This petition is not about whether you support Prince Harry.

It is not about whether you support the monarchy.

It is not about whether Prince Harry is a working royal.

It is about security.

And security should have one fundamental principle:

Security before status. Evidence before prejudice.

Prince Harry is the son of the King, fifth in line to the throne and one of the most recognisable British public figures in the world.

He has also faced serious security threats throughout his life, including threats associated with his military service, his public profile and his family.

Yet after stepping back from royal duties, his access to state protection was substantially reduced.

Harry has attempted to find a solution himself. He has made clear that he is willing to contribute financially towards his family's security. But armed police officers are not private security personnel that an individual can simply hire.

If the state controls access to armed police protection, the state carries a responsibility to ensure that protection is available when the evidence demonstrates that it is required.

That is the central issue.

 
WE ASK THE GOVERNMENT: WHAT HAS CHANGED?

If an individual presents a significant security risk, why should that risk disappear because their employment or constitutional status changes?

Threats do not consult an individual's job description.

A terrorist does not ask whether someone is currently a “working royal.”

An extremist does not distinguish between a working and non-working member of the Royal Family.

A stalker does not suddenly become less dangerous because someone has stepped back from public duties.

Risk is risk.

And therefore the question must be:

What does the evidence say?
Not: Is he popular?

Not: Is he a working royal?

Not: Do we approve of his decisions?

Not: Has he criticised the institution?

And certainly not: Do we think he deserves it?

Security should always be a response to risk.

 
A MATTER OF CONSISTENCY
The UK has long recognised that people can remain at risk after leaving public office.

Former prime ministers have continued to receive protective security after leaving Downing Street when their assessed threat warranted it.

So we must ask why the principle should be fundamentally different for Prince Harry.

If protection is determined by threat, then threat should be the starting point.

If protection is determined by risk, then risk should be the deciding factor.

If protection is determined by evidence, then evidence should be allowed to speak louder than status.

 
THIS IS NOW AN URGENT ISSUE
Prince Harry, Meghan and their children are now spending time in the United Kingdom.

This is therefore no longer simply an argument about a previous security arrangement.

It concerns the safety of a family who are currently in Britain.

We do not ask the Government to reveal classified intelligence.

We do not ask for operational details.

We ask for something much simpler:

An objective, evidence-based assessment of the threat to Prince Harry and his immediate family, followed by the level of protection that assessment requires.

 
WE CALL ON THE UK GOVERNMENT TO:
1. Put security before status.
Conduct an urgent and genuinely independent assessment of the current threat to Prince Harry and his immediate family while they are in the UK.

2. Put evidence before prejudice.
Ensure that decisions about Harry's protection are based on intelligence, threat and risk — rather than his decision to step away from royal duties or public opinion about him.

3. Provide appropriate armed protection where the evidence requires it.
If the threat assessment establishes that armed police protection is necessary, provide it.

And if Harry wishes to contribute financially towards the cost of appropriate protection, the Government should examine every lawful mechanism available to facilitate that contribution.

 
THE PRINCIPLE IS BIGGER THAN PRINCE HARRY
Today it is Prince Harry.

Tomorrow it could be another former public servant, prominent individual, campaigner, journalist or member of a high-profile family facing credible threats.

We should not create a system where protection depends upon whether the Government approves of the individual concerned.

We need a system in which the threat is assessed first and the person is assessed second.

That is what fairness looks like.

That is what consistency looks like.

And that is what a serious approach to national security should look like.

SECURITY BEFORE STATUS.
EVIDENCE BEFORE PREJUDICE.
RISK BEFORE RANK.
We therefore ask the UK Government to review Prince Harry's protective security arrangements urgently and to provide the appropriate level of armed protection if the evidence demonstrates that it is necessary.

This is not about giving Prince Harry special treatment.

It is about making sure he does not receive lesser treatment because of who he is, what decisions he has made, or whether some people disapprove of him.

When the stakes are potentially life and death, personal feelings must never outrank evidence.

SIGN THE PETITION.
Security before status.
Evidence before prejudice.