Would his bodyguard have to run with him?

Absolutely, Matt.

It goes with the territory.

If your pres-- if your principal, your client, uh, is wanting to participate in a marathon or any kind of, uh, extreme sport, then, uh, your close protection officers are gonna have to keep up with him.

So, uh, I'm sure they did a good time as well.

... do you get in the water, or do you stand on the side of the pool?

[laughs] Well, it really depends, Matt.

I mean, uh, I've, uh, th-there are many occasions, I mean, in my, in my career that I've gone skiing with a client, I've gone scuba diving with a client, I've gone running with a client.

But you know, it, it makes you think whether you are really putting your life on the line to try and make the country a better place regardless of the party you represent.

Yeah.

I mean, I think that's fundamentally the dilemma, David.

It's, uh, it's something that every single MP has to deal with wh- well, at whatever level they may be.

And again, depending on their level will no doubt, um, aggregate against the numbers of threats that they receive.

But let's put it this way.

Threats to MPs has increased three times since 2019, so pretty much in the space of seven years we've just seen an incremental and pretty significant increase.

I mean, the, the difficulty here is that there is a big difference to responding, and you will understand this, in a, in a capital city like London, or indeed in Birmingham, Manchester, as there is to responding in, in the wilds of, you know, rural wherever.

Yeah

... my, my feeling on it is it's, again, another indicator of a kidnapper who doesn't do this as a business.

This is not a, uh, a, a, a, an industry that this individual's been involved in, or these, these people have been involved in before.

Uh, there's a d- a certain degree of professionalism, but to be honest, there's a lot of amateurish approach.

And, and one of the things which is absolutely key is there's so many different factors that can influence even a willing satisfaction of a ransom.

And to put such a defined deadline usually is an indicator of someone who is fearful, is frightened of potentially getting caught or discovered, uh, or captured in some shape or form.

So, you know, them putting in a d- defined deadline of, "You don't deliver by this date, then the hostage is, is gonna be dead," there is a possibility they may have opened up channels to say, "Yes, okay, uh, we have to extend it." Because more often than not, when we're negotiating a kidnapping, the first thing that one will use is referral, and referral will be that we need to try and get a hold of the money.

That, I mean, that would be so mind-blowing, Will.

Wow.

Over here in the UK, it's not quite as clear-cut.

So you have a situation where RAVEC will review it each year.

They'll look at the personal circumstances of each of those former prime ministers.

You know, are they still in the UK? Are they overseas? Are they in a mud hut in the, the, in the middle of Outer Mongolia? You know, what sort of level of security are they gonna need? And there are lots of different components to that security, not just executive protection, as you guys call it, or close protection, as we call it, um, bodyguards, as everyone calls it, uh, for them.

Is, there's gonna be residential security.

There's gonna be special escort group.

Mm

But it does feel that that scenario is being heavily tested right now.

It is being tested, and it has been tested for a while, Ian.

Um, when we look at the number of threats to MPs, 96% of I- MPs, and we're talking about 600, 650 MPs that are out there, 96% have experienced some level of abuse or harassment, and 27% of those have actually received directed threats, uh, to kill, and 37%, uh, directed, uh, threats to harm.

So, you know, understandably, MPs in the wake of Ann Widdecombe, as they were with David Amess, as they were before that with Jo Cox, uh, will feel very concerned.

And in terms of how this problem is addressed or how their concerns are addressed more to the issue, the problem is, is there's four different departments that people have to go through before they even get to RAVEC, and RAVEC obviously being a pretty well-known name now as the, the threat assessors for Prince Harry quite recently, and obviously drawing their own assessment-

If you haven't got accessibility to the people that represent you, then what's the point in having people represent you if you can't meet them?

Yeah, no, absolutely.

They need to be able to carry out their surgeries without fear and intimidation and abuse.

Mm.

So we're looking also from most recent statistics that 96% of MPs in this country have received, um, harassment, abuse of various different types, and then we can take it down to about 37% have received actual death threats.

Um, and the figures continue on with individuals that are stalking them, people who are taking photographs of their homes.

It's a theme emerging on the show.

[laughs] It's a...

Well, I'm just falling into your slipstream, sir.

Uh, is that he should be male.

Uh, Fleming wrote him as a male, and I think he, uh, other than Idris Elba, who is basically my, my, my only, you know, ace card that I'd put on it, I think sadly he does probably need to be white.

Okay

... against, um, him, but a number of other targets as well.

He was on a list of targets, and the way terrorists operate is they will have a selection of ideal targets, not just one.

They rarely ever work on just one.

It's gonna be, unless it's something like a kidnapping, and then you do your research on the target, and you go from there.

But terrorists will look at a, a wide range of targets, and four of these individuals, uh, that are specific to, to Harry, uh, or to this threat, this umbrella threat, uh, are basically unlocatable.

They don't know where they are.

Yeah

Mm

... continual request for royalty protection, uh, standards, which are the same as obviously other members of the serving royal family, which he's not serving in, obviously.

Um, but RAVEC would be involved in obviously assessing and then providing through the home office personal security for Nigel.

Now, the question is, is Nigel doesn't have a say in who his protection officers necessarily are.

He's just given what the home office may decide is given to him.

So him acquiring his own, I totally back.

I think it's very important that a principal has a personal input to say, "Yes, I like these officers.

Yep.

Just looking at the people that died previously, asphyxiation, one had a seizure, what are the risks here?

Well, the risks are, you know, how they've set up the security is they've got these fan zones and they're creating secure tunnels, obviously, between those fan zones and the stadia itself.

So they have like a one kilometre perimeter to the actual stadia and they have various security checkpoints to make sure nobody's bringing contraband in, weapons, that sort of thing.

But the problem you have is always generally after a game.

So depending on the outcome and who won or lost, for that matter, is when they come out of the stadia, go into the fan zones, and then from the fan zones, they go into almost sort of a civilization, if you like, to get back to their respective accommodations, whether that be an Airbnb or a hotel.

And that's where the crowds can spill over, and that's where you will get problems with convergence of people and potentially clashes between fans.

As a security expert who works around the world, I would presume, how dangerous is Mexico City?

Mexico City is still very risky, and only about a month ago there were 60-odd casualties, or I should say fatalities, from cartel actions.

there are legitimate reasons why someone like Taylor Swift would have security privileges that Prince Harry wouldn't.

Yeah, I mean, I know, I know a couple of people who are on Taylor's team.

Uh, and they're very serious, serious security guys.

And, uh, she's got a very capable, very good team.

There's a few A-list Hollywooders who have them, some of which I provide maybe.

Uh, and in terms of obviously what Taylor required, she really...

Uh, she is a very prominent individual, and the Ariana Grande is a fantastic comparable example because obviously the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017 by Alman, uh, Salman Abedi was a, a horrific attack against, uh, not against Taylor necessarily, but against her audience.

It sounds amazing to be born a prince.

How big a deal is that?

That is a morning show by morning that it's a very big deal, to be honest, to allow inspectors to come in and inspect their various nuclear facilities and development facilities is going to be very, very important to determining their advancement towards developing nuclear weapons, but be how they're actually enriching uranium.

And that's going to be really key.

But it really depends on how much access and whether that access is totally free to those inspectors.

Given what you know about the diplomatic process so far, it could take a hell of a lot longer than that.

It could do.

And again, it really comes down to who you believe, whether it be J.D. Vance or whether it be the Iranian publicity.

I mean, certainly there was a lot of rumor around it being somewhat fractious in terms of those negotiations being held in Switzerland, including the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas al-Ghraji, who was, in fact, apparently snubbed J.D. Vance and refused to actually shake his hand, both when he arrived and when he left.

Does this look to just be opportunistic or is it pretty organised crime?

Well, good morning, Nat.

It's generally opportunistic and it's always going to be in the areas more densely populated by tourists.

But when we consider the number of tourists that go to Bali, and I myself have been to Bali a couple of times, it is relatively safe.

But as a tourist, you can't pretty much drop your guard when you're out and about.

You have to be sensible.

And certainly the theft of necklaces, the theft of... mobile phones, but as well as things like drink spiking.

Speaking of which, these snatch and grab criminals are pretty common in the UK, aren't they? What are the tactics?

... she is trying to look like Betty Crocker because she wants you to buy her flower sprinkles for your kid's birthday cake.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I think one of the good points which was raised in the Newsweek article I'd, I'd completely concur withWas the issue of how that child is going to respond and feel about those images later in life when they become far more cognizant about their own, uh, profile and, and their own self-consciousness.

And one of the issues is that there's this kind of, uh, almost fantastical image of, uh, serenity and happiness and togetherness which is, uh, being conveyed through Meghan's pictures.

Mm.

And to say to the child, "Look, I may not be impressed if you get yourself into trouble, but if you come to me, let's work together.

Yes, you'll probably be grounded.

Yes, I'll probably take away your PlayStation," or whatever it might be, "but let's work together on this." And this is the hardest part for most parents is to say, "Don't just react, um, in a, in a, in a visceral way if the child does something wrong," because otherwise they will never come to you again.

Is it any wonder that it's worked its way into the hearts and minds o- of UK people who feel like they are not listened to, um, that economically they are, they are so much poorer, there's no ambition left anymore, and then on top of all of that, they have people coming into their country who do not want to abide by their laws and their values and their beliefs?

Yeah.

I mean, Carl, y- y- you said it yourself.

I mean, you've spent time in various parts of the world.

I, I've operated in conflict zones and combat zones, and, and I've worked amongst and against individuals that would see no qu- quote quibble in chopping someone's head off if they thought it was necessary to, um, excuse the pun, execute their, their desires or their agenda.

So, uh, to integrate individuals like that and that don't choose to assimilate, who don't want to assimilate, who want to come into our respective countries, and that's Australia as well.

I mean, only in the last few months did we see, uh, your Premier Albanese going to a mosque and getting booed out by the [laughs] individuals there, and he went in for a photo op.

So, so where else is the change gonna come from?

Uh, is it just an unrealistic goal to think that you can have that type of security everywhere in the world?

Well, I think it's going to be impossible for him to recreate it for many, many reasons, and, uh, we've covered this on, on previous, uh, shows.

And it- that's really the sovereign level of security which is afforded to the royal family, and the royal family is a brand that has been in existence for hundreds of years, and it's something which is very carefully managed, both in terms of how that brand is presented, but over and beyond which, what are the levels or measures of security that can be afforded around it? Now, if you're a private individual, and I've had many Hollywood actors and actresses and people in the public eye who are their own personal brand, whether it be the movies that they're in or whether it's the products they're endorsing.

And by direct correlation, the problems that you face are more likely to be third party, uh, in many regards.

So that's gonna be disclosure of information.

A good example of this was when Harry and Meghan did their interview for Netflix a- and they did their series where, albeit they filmed it in a neighbor's home, there were some 70 or 80 crew members that were involved in that process.

And they created a map of the entire area of Montecito, marking out obviously key areas where they were going to, uh, uh, plan and schedule some of the filming.

Mm-hmm.

Are you alarmed at the fact that someone with ill intent could get so close to the President of the, of the United States? Walk me through what your thought process is when you see the headlines coming out of, um, the White House Correspondents' Dinner and the, the shooter.

Well, so much I could potentially cover on here, uh, Kinsey, but obviously I know you're limited for time.

I think fundamentally there are so many failings in the security, both in the planning and in the subsequent implementation, that it raises some astounding questions, uh, of the responsibilities by both Homeland Security in how it categorized it, uh, in terms of, uh, a risk profile, and secondly, the implementation by the United States Secret Service.

Um, those guys, they've been called out before.

They're getting called out again.

Uh, we must recall President Reagan was also targeted outside that hotel and outside that event, uh, historically, so it's not like it doesn't come with its own history.

I think the key issue for me, and, and again I'm, I'm often looking after people who are prominent in the public eye, a few former heads of states and ro- royal families, and the one thing that I would say is, you know, why they didn't take complete control and primacy of the hotel I have no idea.

Right.

Why-- I mean, Will, can you expand on your theory that this guy, he may in fact be the actual kidnapper or connected to the actual kidnapper?

Yeah, that's not uncommon, Megan.

Uh, you will have individuals that will try and take on various different personas.

Uh, and it's, it's almost like casting a, the widest net they possibly can to see who is gonna bite and under what particular narrative are people going to bite.

But I'm with James on this one.

I think this individual is a, is a scammer.

Uh, there's a lot of desperation behind this, and there's no substantive evidence that's been given to support his claims that he's either seen Nancy or he's actually, he knows her specific whereabouts.

It, would the, would the advice always have been not unless they can provide proof of life?

Um, Will, did you have any questions for Susannah or comments?

I do, Megan.

Thank you again for the invite on the show.

Um, I think one of the things that we were discussing last week, the three of us, was about the, the, the control of the scene of crime, you know? And how they were taping off this area and how well protecting or preserving they were of the evidence, and that was one of our biggest concerns, particularly when they lifted, obviously, the tape around the property.

Literally, I think it was a day or two after the actual, uh, disappearance of Nancy, and then there was that instance of, uh, one of the neighbor's dogs having a pee on the, on the front steps of the actual property itself.

And, and so the question that I would have really for Susannah is, uh, what question is there to the, the degradation of DNA integrity is there? Because one of the biggest concerns is if, if they were so haphazard potentially about controlling the scene, uh, of crime, w- what they were actually doing in terms of gathering that evidence, how well they gathered it, uh, whether there could've been a huge amount of cross-contamination on that DNA, or is it precise enough that it, it would be preserved for a good period of time, and how long would it last, do you think?

in the news.

I mean, to me, I- i- it seems...

Um, and there's been a lot of speculation, as you know, about whether that guy was, whether what was in his pocket, uh, the, the patio suspect, was a Wi-Fi jammer.

Yeah, so the first thing I'd wanna check, Megan, is the timestamp of the neighbor's outage of their Wi-Fi to see whether there is any indication of this corresponding at the same time as Nancy's being taken out or, or being utilized.

I mean, using Wi-Fi jammers is not that difficult.

Um, you can get them in a reasonably small size, but you can also check them.

I have used them myself, uh, on operations and projects, and what you can find is it will knock out not just the Wi-Fi, but 3G, 4G, 5G as well, and you can test it remotely.

You don't have to necessarily go up to the target location and test it there.

You would generally have it on you.

What day are we on? 35?

[clears throat] But, I mean, what kind of a person would put the, the whole mask over the head and walk up on the stoop and apparently do nothing, and then only to come back?

Well, I mean, I, I think it follows what we, what we were saying a little bit earlier, Meghan, that, uh, this is what we would call a soft probe reconnaissance, which is, uh, just a wa-- it could be a walk past of the actual property itself.

It's looking at neighboring properties.

Again, depending on the sophistication of, uh, of the perpetrator, and again, depending on what their ultimate objective might be.

But i- in a, uh, a basic level, it will be looking at what security there is, what intrusion detection there might be, whether it be light salons or otherwise.

Um, but it will also be looking at, uh, if it gets more sophisticated, could be looking at local neighbors, seeing if they've got cameras, the aspect obviously onto the front of the property.

So if, let's say, um, that speculatively they were going to remove Nancy from the property, again, it was looking at who else would be able to capture or record this, what kind of devices there were, how sophisticated it might be.

And you tell me, Savannah saying her mom was taken from her bed seems to tell us that Savannah believes that, too, which means that's what law enforcement told her.

Love the cynical side.

[laughing] Well, my cynical side to this is Google is a incredibly capable organization that works primarily and entirely on data, and that's data collection and data transferal and distribution.

So in terms of things like trends, my cynical side would be that they allegedly would have the capability to capture the IP addresses of any kind of search in any particular kind of area.

And we saw, certainly by some of the Snowden releases, uh, certainly in terms of prism and, uh, that operation, which was capturing lots of people's private data without their knowledge, that allegedly they may have the capability to be able to do so.

So I think Fox clawing back on their statement, yes, perfectly understandable, and unless we knew exactly what the back end is to the trend system, it's very difficult to say either way whether they could or they couldn't.

But I think the issue for Google would be, there is a certain amount that they need to keep behind the curtain.

Um, if I was a big data company like them, uh, certainly I wouldn't necessarily be revealing all the things that I could potentially do.

Go ahead, Will.

The sheriff is a little ambiguous, but we believe he's also said that there's no match to CODIS from the DNA they found in the house, and also the fact that now they're getting around to the neighbor's Ring cam on the floodlight.

Well, I think they've got, I think they've got to sort of process any evidence that they potentially can gather and, uh, either see it as valid and viable, and it actually leads them to perhaps another piece of evidence that they can potentially springboard from, uh, to trying to identify and, and obtain the identity of who that individual was that was at Nancy's house.

Um, but ultimately, it is, it's pepper seeds.

It's, uh, it's all this intelligence, all these little bits of evidence, uh, they will all gather together, hopefully in a big picture, that can then form a, a better understanding of exactly what went on and who was possibly involved.

I agree with Fitz entirely on the camera on the neighbor's house, and why they're doing it right now, uh, really does surprise me.

Because I would have hoped one of the first things that would have been done by even a junior officer would be to go around, map up every single house that had a camera, to inquire with the homeowner whether it was still working.

And there's a chance they may have been up on the ladder because maybe the user or the home, the homeowner that the camera was attached to their residence, uh, may not have registered their details, maybe didn't have a live connection or had lost it at some point and logged out.

What do you make of it? Well, you're shaking your head, yes.

Do you think it would be relatively recent, Will, that they'd be, that, that they'd be asking Walmart to search? Because, like, if this guy bought this stuff five years ago, Walmart's not gonna have that.

that....

Yes, no, I mean, it really does depend on whether he's, uh, had it already in his possession, it was something that he'd been using.

But again, that's where it's going to be, you know, on a day-to-day basis.

But that's where it's gonna be kind of interesting, certainly when they start joining up CCTV from neighborhoods, from various other areas, and to see some sort of lifespan of this individual.

Now, they've hopefully got some sort of clear identification, uh, certainly on what he was wearing, that they can try and join all these pieces together.

You know, as James was saying, it's a, it's a jigsaw puzzle, and, and I would concur that I think this is a much more of a, a, a non-professional, uh, in terms of the individual that's behind it.

Go ahead, Will.

Sorry, keep going.

No, sorry.

Yeah, not at all.

Uh, James's point a- about the advanced reconnaissance or the pre-operational surveillance is so valid.

The one thing which obviously is very scary, and what's scary for you, Megan, and you running off, I think other than asking the Secret Service to let you back in, was the best other action you could have taken.

You know, you could have frozen on the spot and, and been rendered, you know, immobile.

So the fact that you did run off was probably a good thing.

Uh, sorry, go ahead, Will.