Ex-officer rejects Sussex school paparazzi as security crisis

Two men carrying backpacks were seen separately, then together, walking the perimeter of the school attended by Archie, 7, and Lilibet, 5. Private security and school staff watched them stop at points along the boundary and look into the grounds before they left in a white rental van. Police traced the registration and identified one man, through the driver’s licence used to rent the vehicle, as an international European press-agency photographer.

A statement issued on the family’s behalf called the conduct extraordinarily reckless. “There is a world of difference between legitimate media activity and photographers walking the perimeter of a school, stopping to look into the grounds and monitoring children as they go about their day,” it said. “It is concerning enough that certain European paparazzi appear unwilling to respect the privacy of children at school. But to behave in this manner in these particular circumstances, and so soon after the incident at RAF Fairford, demonstrates an extraordinary lack of judgment. Whatever photographs they may have been seeking, this was not only an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of children; it was an irresponsible and ill-considered way to conduct themselves in the vicinity of a school.” The statement did not claim the men entered the grounds. There is no independent confirmation of what images were sought or whether the children were photographed.

The paparazzi sighting came roughly 48 hours after five men were arrested near RAF Fairford on suspicion of Explosives Act offences and later of preparing a terrorist act. No IEDs were found; petrol was recovered. The school is reportedly attended by American children whose families are connected to a nearby U.S. military installation. The Sussex statement used that proximity and timing to frame the photographers’ walk as a failure of judgment that went beyond ordinary press intrusion.

That framing met immediate pushback from someone who once ran the protective detail. Dai Davis, former head of Met Police security for the Royal Family, told The Sun the episode was being inflated. “Every week their so-called security team has to come up with new things. Paparazzi is not a security incident. It is just to be expected. It’s not unrealistic to expect some paparazzi who will chance their arm; the security team can deal with that easily.” He added: “I hope Ravec aren’t swayed and common sense prevails as all the incidents amount to sweet FA. There’s no comparison to Fairford. It’s bordering on shameless but ridiculous as well.” On the broader pattern he said, “If you look at the track record, such as the New York car incident, they are nothing of real consequence.”

The distinction Davis draws is the one that matters for limited government and the taxpayer. RAVEC, the Home Office body that decides royal and VIP protective security, is reviewing the family’s UK status after a 2020 ruling that arrangements would be case-by-case. Since the 2020 move to California the family has relied on privately funded security. The couple returned to the UK on Aug. 26. The children spent two days at an original school before moving to a new undisclosed one, reportedly because of traffic and security concerns during the school run. A further complication followed when Meghan’s phone number was leaked via a parents’ WhatsApp group after another parent screenshotted it.

None of that converts two men with backpacks and a rental van into a terrorist plot. Fairford involved arrests on explosives and terrorism-preparation suspicions. A perimeter walk by press photographers, however unwelcome near a school, is a different category of event. Treating every camera as a national-security trigger collapses the line between genuine threat assessment and publicity. Public protective resources are finite. They exist to meet assessed risk under the rule of law, not to underwrite the comfort of high-profile private citizens who already field their own detail. When a former head of royal protection says the security team can handle paparazzi easily, that is operational judgment, not indifference to children.

The privacy claim itself deserves a fair hearing once. Children at school should not be monitored for commercial pictures, and European agencies that ignore that boundary invite legitimate criticism. Archie and Lilibet are young. Other pupils at the same school, including American children linked to the military base, share the grounds. Intrusion on a school day is poor practice. The answer, in a free society that still expects a free press, is firm private security, clear school protocols, and police action where laws are broken—not an automatic claim on the public purse every time lenses appear at the fence.

Earl Spencer, in a BBC interview at Althorp, compared press treatment of the Sussexes to the experience of his sister Diana. That historical parallel is part of the public argument the family and its allies advance. It does not, by itself, rewrite the 2020 case-by-case framework or turn expected paparazzi into Fairford. Robert Jobson has been named among royal commentators discussing the pressure around the RAVEC review

What remains is a pending decision. RAVEC will weigh residence, routines, school runs, and actual threat information. Davis’s counsel is that common sense should prevail and that the recent incidents do not amount to a case for reopening the taxpayer commitment. The photographers left in a white van. One was identified through a rental licence as a working press photographer. That is the concrete record. The next concrete step belongs to the committee that must decide whether private security and ordinary policing remain sufficient, or whether the public is again to be asked to pay.