"SHUT HIM UP!" | Prince Harry Is 'The Author Of His Own MISFORTUNE'

How do you solve a problem like Prince Harry?Two former justice secretaries have criticised the Duke of Sussex for attacking the judge who presided over his hacking case against the publishers of the Daily Mail, a case that he famously lost.Let's get the views of Dai Davis, who is the former head of Royal Protection.Good afternoon, Dai.

Good afternoon to you.You know, there's a lovely saying, engage brain before opening mouth.Or, I may look stupid, but don't confirm it by opening your mouth.And I'm afraid in both those cases, Harry fulfils that saying.He opens his mouth wrongly, foolishly, on numerous occasions.And here we go again, attacking the judge.

Well out of order, as far as I'm concerned.

And Prince Harry has previous on this die, referring to the decision by the UK authorities not to grant him armed royal protection whilst in the UK as an establishment stitch -up, which was not the case.They were simply following the rules.

Absolutely, and as we saw, his wife and his family were able to come, apparently, to Highgrove, see the King, and you and I and the rest of us didn't know anything about it, which has been the case that I've been making.so often on this channel and others that if they go quietly to various places then we wouldn't know and it's perfectly possible.He is the author of his own misfortune time and time again and sadly he is neurotic as far as some of my friends who are reporters on the Daily Mail and I've known them for 30 years and I would trust them implicitly.That's my faith in the ones I know.

Well, it's quite shocking, isn't it, Dai, how intemperate the Duke of Sussex's language was after losing the election.case against the publishers of the Daily Mail.He described it as a complete and obvious whitewash.He said the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.He said the judgment relies almost exclusively on the evidence of journalists and senior executives at associated newspapers whilst dismissing compelling evidence from others.Well, I'm not sure how compelling that evidence was.

For example, Dai, his claim that he didn't know anything about Charlotte Griffiths, the editor -at -large of the Mail on Sunday, before cutting off contact.Well, a rather intimate set of exchanges would demonstrate the opposite was the case.

Well, that's the trouble.If you're going to go to court, you better get your story right.And clearly, on a number of occasions, he got it completely wrong.And the judge, who's a very, very experienced media judge, who sits as a chair of a variety of committees, he is an excellent judge by all accounts.I don't know him.But seriously, he spent a lot of time, and I think there are over 400 pages, broken down in about 250 paragraphs, which I haven't read.

But each one of them exonerates those men and women who are as decent, I'm sure, as Harry thinks he is.In fact, I know so many of them.And they are decent people.And if decent people give decent, honest opinion and evidence, then the judge is entitled to believe them.97 claims die.

97 claims against the Daily Mail were thrown out.

Yes, because the evidence wasn't there.And as we've learned, suspicion is one thing.I've got a lot of suspicion about Harry and his teams.I really do.But that's not evidence.And you can't go to court.

So it's amazing that the lawyers and I'm50 million for this case extraordinary.Somebody is milking the system, and it should be looked at.How on earth you can gather 50 million?And that basically must go on lawyers on each side.It is extraordinary.

And it's not the best use of court time either, Dai.

Well, it isn't.There are so many pressing issues in this country.And again, Harry has to accept now after seven years.of constantly in the headlines for a variety of different reasons.And unfortunately, the Mirror didn't fight the case to the level that the Daily Mail did, or Associated Press.And Piers Morgan was saying on his channel, you know, I wish they had shown the same gumption as the Daily Mail, because they're a decent paper.

They make mistakes, of course they do, we all do.Well, as far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of their reporters are decent, honest, and their evidence was believed, and I'm delighted to hear that.

Alex Chalk, KC, served under Rishi Sunak as Justice Secretary Dai, and he said expressing disagreement with the judgment is perfectly reasonable, but Prince Harry's attack on a High Court judge was over -the -top, personal and unacceptable.Judges act in the same name of the king as...Sorry, judges act in the name of the king and swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign.That's how our constitution works.As Harry should know better than most, however disappointed he was with the result, insulting one of His Majesty's judges is a line he should not have crossed.Sir Robert Buckland has said the tone and content of the attack was not appropriate.

The King won't be happy with these remarks.

I wouldn't have thought so.If I was his father, I wouldn't be very happy either, and I would have counselled him a long time ago not to go there.But he did.He insisted.Hehas a thing about the press, rightly or wrongly, in his opinion, that he's entitled to opinion.

But what he's not entitled to do is to allege a judge is corrupt.A judge is part of the whitewash of the establishment, which he constantly alleges.That's a serious allegation.He's very foolish, because the same judge is going to afford the costs.And I'd be very surprised if he didn't get the large majority of it.I hope he does, because it might just shut him up for once.

What do you make of the Duke of Sussex's mental state at the moment, Di, and his judgment?I know you're not a mind reader, but it seems based upon his actions that he's not in a good place at the moment.

well he doesn't appear to be and it's sad because you know people would like his father the king to reconcile in one sense i mean that's quite a big ask really of the royal family given what harry has written about claimed and all the rest of it and i've said many times on your program and others if they just kept quiet got on with their lives in the united states left the rest of us to get on with our lives he would not be under this so -called paranoia fear of threat.I've looked at some of those threats, and frankly, they don't stand up to scrutiny either.And I speak with half a century of experience in policing and security worldwide.I don't know who's advising him legally, security -wise, and all the rest of it.But what I would say is, if there was an iota of real threat perceived in this country, he would get the appropriate security.No ifs, no buts.

So you think that he's safe in the United Kingdom in the absence of official royal protection?

I do indeed, and I stake my professional reputation on it.The last time royalty protection had to use their firearms was in 1974 when Princess Annealmost kidnapped.And again, even when now Queen Camilla was going into a riot and somebody put a pole almost taking her head off, the officers didn't pull their guns.So the reality is, Yes, you never know, because you can never be 100%, but if you look at VIPs across the board now, and we have a big discussion, who should get protection?But there's a limit to how many officers are trained to do it, how many can do it.

So we've got to have a system and structure, which is called a RABAC, the committee that looks at these things.They are advised by intelligence, by the police, and those who have the knowledge.So we have to accept there has to be a structure.He doesn't, unfortunately.

Dai, if it's not about safety, what might have motivated Prince Harry's campaign to have armed cops in the UK?

Well, it's the fact that if you have them, they're very good.and they can make things happen very quickly.They can take appropriate measures to fly you through from airports and VIP, which I'm sure he gets anyway.You can go through traffic with blue lights and all the rest of it.It allows you to have others to make the travel arrangements for you, to review it, to structure it, and so on and so forth.When it works, it's first class.

He doesn't, in my opinion, now deserve it, because he's here quite often on commercial...

Is it a flex?Is it an ego trip?

Well, you might think that, and I might agree with you, but at the end of the day, it has to be about safety and security.I worked in LA, as I've said many times, it's hugely dangerous.There were nearly half a million violent attacks in the last five years, and yet he chooses to live in LA.You couldn't make it up.in my opinion.

Dai, before I let you go, we haven't spoken since the horrific murder of our very good friend Anne Whittakam.What is your appraisal of what has happened, the investigation?We know that the cops have just got to get on with their job now, we don't want to speculate, but can I just ask for your view of what happened?

Well, it's horrific.And my condolences to you.And because I knew you knew her very well.I've met her once or twice.She was charming.Everybody who actually knew her says what a lovely lady she was.

So I take great up for people who try and decry her.But that's one thing the police have a job to do.Devon and Cornwall, I'm sure, were doing their best in the circumstances.Who advised them to say some of the things they did?I've always learned, keep an open mind.And that's what I'm saying to you.

I'm keeping an open mind as to the motive behind this individual.Clearly, something sparked them because he was arrested for further terrorism offenses.And they don't do that lightly.So I presume there must be evidence to indicate preparation, et cetera, et cetera, of alleged terrorism, which includes attacking a reformed spokesman.And quite often, we miss the fact that she was a reformed.Everybody says she was a Tory MP.

Well, we all know that.But she was a reformed spokesman, an important one.So clearly, we have to look at those issues, whether reform are more targeted than other, to Tories or even left.You know, I would imagine some of the former extreme left people could be equally under threat, given that we have so many nutters.Lastly, I'll tell you is there are nearly a thousand on the current fixated threat assessment.Twenty percent of them, as I understand, are dangerous.

That doesn't include people who are terrorist motivated.are clean skinned.So we've got a bit of a problem in this country and I hope the police in whatever shape and form are tackling it.They've got seven days or less now, five days to interrogate this man and I'm hoping they find out what his motive was and therefore we can then apply common sense and the appropriate.There's a strange word in today's world isn't it?Common sense.

apply it when you're doing anything about protection and security.It works wonders.

Amen to that.Dai, thank you for your time and your expert insight.Dai Davies, former head of Royal Protection.