Royal police bodyguards forced to swap guns for Tasers
POLICE bodyguards who protect Prince Charles and Prince William have expressed grave concerns over moves to strip junior royals and other VIPs of armed protection, according to a bombshell leaked report.
Officers who have to rely ‘solely’ on Tasers to stop someone being attacked are ‘playing Russian roulette’ with their lives and those of the people they are protecting, it adds.
The report, seen by the Daily Mail, accuses police chiefs of putting costcutting above the safety of VIPs, the officers who guard them and the public.
It says the lessons of the Westminster and London Bridge terror attacks –
‘A reckless trade-off of cost versus safety’ ‘Playing Russian roulette’
where police were attacked by knifewielding jihadis – have been ‘quickly forgotten’ and that ‘a reckless trade-off of cost vs safety has taken place’.
The Daily Mail can reveal that security measures have been downgraded for a number of senior politicians, community leaders and others previously deemed vulnerable to an attack. Diswho cussions have also taken place about removing armed cover for some former leading political figures, sources said.
Details of the damning report by royalty and specialist protection officers in the Metropolitan Police Federation – which represents rank and file officers in the force – can be disclosed days after a terror suspect, allegedly acting alone, stabbed three men to death in a Reading park.
Khairi Saadallah, a 25-yearold Libyan who was previously on the radar of MI5, is accused of going on a bloody rampage armed only with a knife.
The Federation report – also endorsed by officers based at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle – spells out the dangers facing those involved in the close protection of VIPs or on the frontline.
‘We are living in times of unprecedented uncertainty around terrorist threats,’ it says. ‘ In a hostile, premeditated attack on a Principal with intent to cause death or serious injury, the most likely weapon of choice would be a knife or other pointed or bladed article.
‘ Taser, ASP ( expandable batons) or CS spray are not fit for purpose to defend against an attack of this nature. One only has to read the witness testimonies from the London Bridge attack inquest relating to the “have- a- go heroes” struck down and murdered by terrorists armed with nothing more sophisticated than pink ceramic kitchen knives, purchased for £4 each from Lidl, duct-taped to their hands.’
The report continues: ‘A protection officer relying solely on a Taser to neutralise an imminent threat to life is quite literally playing Russian roulette with their life and the life of their Principal.’
Under the plans, which follow a Home Office cost- cutting review, Prince Andrew was due to have his armed police cover downgraded to officers carrying just Tasers. But he has reportedly been allowed to keep his taxpayerfunded police protection team, which carries firearms, after complaining to the Queen. It is claimed that armed cover for other royals,
the Mail has decided not to name, has also been earmarked for downgrades.
The measures are part of a wide- ranging reduction of police protection for junior royals, politicians and diplomats. Met Police personal protection officers guarding the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles and Prince William, as well as other royals, will continue to carry pistols.
The Royalty and VIP Executive Committee, a Home Office group, decides who gets armed protection.
The damning report was submitted to Scotland Yard chiefs last November. It sets out a range of new security measures – known as ‘Option 5’ – for those who will lose armed protection. The Mail has chosen not to outline these in detail.
We have also decided not to name the officers who put their names to the report.
Details of the row emerged after the Mail published two damning investigations last month into the 2017 murder of PC Keith Palmer by a knifewielding terrorist at the Palace of Westminster.
Scotland Yard declined to answer any questions about ‘Option 5’ and royal and VIP protection. It said: ‘We do not discuss matters of security.’