Over here is a news story about the upcoming Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce wedding. The New York City police are (oddly) complaining it would be a security nightmare.
Along the same lines many Canadians said they were opposed to Prince Harry moving to Canada due to the security costs.
What the heck? Surely the government has a duty to try to keep people safe. If there is a big wedding in town, the city pays for the police directing traffic. Madonna in town for a gig? The government is on the hook for additional police. Michael Jackson dies and needs a funeral?
Can a government prohibit a funeral, a wedding, a famous person moving in on the grounds of security costs? That can’t be right, can it? Surely a celebrity has right to walk through downtown knowing that a team of police are there to try to keep him from being attacked.
Hmm. What if you are, say, a judge, and the Mafia threatens to kill you? Does the state pay for your security, or does it content itself with paying for the murder investigation?
For that matter, if someone wanted to hire off-duty cops for security at their wedding, why is that a security nightmare? Are they getting pulled off regular duty somehow?
The police, let us say in Canada, do have the responsibility and mandate to prevent crime, but I do not believe they have the specific legal duty to prevent you, individually, from getting murdered?
Just falling asleep on it, because they spent what should have been their sleeping time on another job.
No, the police can’t prevent celebrities from showing up, or getting married. But why should celebrities expect to get any more police protection than the rest of the population?
IIRC the police are not required to go out of their way to protect you. When Harry was staying in BC, the Canadian government eventually told him to get his own security. Technically, as he was a family member of the head of state there was a certain willingness to provide security, but they hit their limit. Persistent paparazzi were not a serious threat (except maybe to themselves, depending on how far they’d go to get a picture).
After all, don’t Trump’s immediate family get some level of protection.
In the USA, Harry’s on his own. He’s nobody special.
I’m going to make an uninformed guess that celebrities who would qualify as an “attractive nuisance” are urged to get their own security. The police may not (will not) go out of their way to set up security, unless theres a (paid) deal made. And nobody wants to fight their way through a crowd of protesters or paparazzi while waiting for the regular police to respond. Plus, the celebrity in question is best able to judge the level of security needed, and presumably for bigger events, there are event permits available not unlike closing streets for a parade or street fair, which police and hired security can enforce. (But must be applied for well in advance).
I assume police when hired privately on overtime still have the pwers of police? While I vaguely recall something about “hired on overtime” situation being something locally that was arranged through the police department, thus ensuring officers in that situation have the full authority of the law and no question about what the uniform means.
Around here if there is a big public event that would require extra police the event promoter is billed for the staff. The billing rate is worked out with the promoter long before the actual event.
To maintain integrity the billed amount goes into the municipality general fund, not the budget of the police department.
If the PD can’t supply the staff or feels the situation is not optimal the promoter will have to go another route, such as using private security or asking the county Sheriffs Office.
That’s an odd sentiment. I’d like to have a team of police keeping me from being attacked whenever I walk downtown too, but that’s not realistic. Why should celebrities get free services that aren’t available to anyone else?
ISTR that Harry wanted to visit the UK and offered to pay for off-duty policemen to provide security. The Proper Authorities prohibited this on the grounds that the police cannot be hired by private people.
If Prince Harry moved into your town, he would attract a certain level of paparazzi. They would be a public nuisance. Some people in that mob might actually be dangerous. In fact, if you had to guess where policemen might be needed a good guess would be wherever HRH is at the moment.
Harry would be at more risk than an average member of the public. As a practical matter, he would need more security than the average Joe. Now, ought the public pay for that security?
I know about some Hollywood actor whose residence is secured by ex-military special forces bodyguard types. It is all private security, though. I am not sure why you are hinting that the public somehow pays for it, except by watching those movies.
Now Harry is not in that wealth range and I am not sure what he does for a living or with his time, but he may or may not have hired some security staff if there are really stalkers trying to get into his house at night.
I know in our town (in Massachusetts) if there is a store having a particularly busy day, such that the traffic in and out of their parking lot is causing traffic jams on a thoroughfare, the business had better employ an officer on private detail (or multiple officers) to help manage the situation, similar to a utility crew or construction crew would need to do.
Otherwise, the cops are going to show up and start ticketing your potential customers for obstructing traffic. We had a fast food restaurant that was really popular at its grand opening and they very quickly figured this out when their drive-through overflow was being ticketed by a swarm of police officers. Until they figured out they needed to pay to play. After they paid for the detail, their customers had a 3/4 mile long line of cars on a major state highway, with no one getting forced to pull out by the cops. One cop was almost half a mile away making sure no one cut the line at that traffic light (the drive-through queue went through two traffic lights at some points over the first few days)
Same thing with church services, funerals, fun fair at a school, etc.
I cannot see how how the police can charge someone just for being in the area. Harry (or Oprah or someone) is not doing anything wrong by walking through downtown. If there is, or could be, a danger from a mob, the government ought to take steps to ensure everyone’s safety. Prohibiting them from being someplace seems an unreasonable precaution.
The story said the cops were ticketing people (who were jamming up the road trying to get to an event) for obstructing traffic.
I am fairly confident that it is legal for Harry to have a cocktail at Spago, or for an actual Prime Minister to pop into a pub for that matter, without informing the police.
True. But as a practical matter, they might attract an unruly mob. That being the case, a wise police department would take steps to maintain the peace.
(There was a neat video of Paul McCarthy touring his childhood sites in Liverpool. As they moved from place to place, more and more people appeared with cameras and so on. All in all, it showed what famous people often have to put up with.)
While I believe this is true in the UK and that Harry did indeed lose a legal challenge in 2023 to be allowed to privately hire police officers, most of the legal wrangling was about his downgraded publicly funded security after stepping away from royal duties.
In Canada, and many other jurisdictions, off-duty police can be hired privately to perform various functions from traffic control to site security. When doing so, they’re in uniform and armed and I assume have full police powers to detain and arrest, and are well paid for their services.
I can work private security while off duty.
But I cannot wear my department uniform and, per written policy, I do not have law enforcement authority while I am in the employee of others.
I am not certain about their police powers while employed in a private capacity, but around here (Ontario) they definitely wear their full uniform and carry their weapon and other gear including their radio. They would certainly be regarded by the citizenry as on-duty officers even though they’re being paid privately – at rates that I’m pretty sure have been negotiated through the police union.
If some movie star comes to your town to do movie star stuff, it seems right to charge him to keep him safe and the traffic moving.
But it is right to demand Harry pay a fee just because he is a prince? Surely he should be allowed to live in Canada and have the same expectation of protection against crime as any other Canadian.
If Harry moved to Vancouver and refused to pay for security I would think the local government would just have to find the money to keep him from getting shot.
Private security and police details are two different things around here and in at least a dozen states where we (my employer) operate. Police details absolutely retain many of their police powers. And in most places, so do off duty police officers (e.g. they can identify themselves as police officers and arrest someone committing a crime even while not in uniform, and even using their personal firearm). Police details do not take orders from the organization paying them. They maintain order and traffic flow in public spaces.