Tje former close protection officer for Princess Diana Ken Wharfe, said yesterday that Princess Diana’s private protective detail was responsible for her death. Wharfe, a member of Scotland Yard’s Royal and Diplomatic Protection Branch (SO-14) was Princess Diana’s government provided personal protection officer for seven years.
In a recent interview on the Today’s Show, Wharfe blames Princess Diana’s private security detail for their decision to try and evade the paparazzi who had staked out the Ritz Hotel in an attempt to get a picture of Princess Diana and her companion Dodi al-Fayed. Wharfe said “What was wrong was the bodyguards failed to communicate with the
paparazzi to strike a deal,” Wharfe said. “All they wanted was a
picture.” Wharfe said the effort to leave out the back door of the Ritz was a mistake.“These games are the sort that never work,” Wharfe said.
Wharfe knows what he is talking about. He spent seven years as Princess Diana’s personal protection officer during the most high profile period of Princess Diana’s life. Wharfe dealt with paparazzi on a daily basis. Calling the paparazzi “a nuisance,” Wharfe recognizes that public celebrities must learn to find some accommodation with the paparazzi in an effort to gain some modicum of privacy as opposed to continually trying to outwit them which is a losing proposition. A total blackout on the paparazzi, particularly for someone with public interest on the level of Princess Diana is neither possible nor realistic particularly when the protectee interacts with the public on the level that Princess Diana did.
At the time of her death, Diana had dismissed her government provided protective detail for a private detail. Hence the normal security resources which existed while she was under the protection of the government were not longer available. Had Princess Diana been under the protection of the government, her SO-14 detail could have asked the French government for assistance. There is no doubt that the French government would have taken control of the paparazzi, if asked. The French government might be a socialist government but they know how to wield security when it’s in the interest of the government. Clearly Diana’s private detail did not enjoy that sort of relationship or maybe more accurately, like Wharfe is suggesting, poor security practices are responsible for Diana’s death.
Without mentioning Trevor Rees by name, Wharfe implicates Rees for Diana’s death. Wharfe suggests that by communicating with the paparazzi prior to departing the hotel, Rees could have negotiated with the paparazzi for a photo opportunity, in exchange for privacy. Of course, all of this assumes that the paparazzi would have agreed, and abided with, the terms of the negotiation but obviously Wharfe must have had some success in negotiating with the paparazzi in situations such as the one that existed that fateful night.
Wharfe says trying to evade paparazzi “never work.” Wharfe has a point. There was far more paparazzi then protective personnel plus the paparazzi were just as mobile as the protective detail. Trying to evade the paparazzi would only guarantee the paparazzi would get more aggressive in their effort to get their picture at the next stop or next opportunity. Considering the small protective detail, there was absolutely no way Diana’s detail could have effectively controlled all potential vulnerabilities that the paparazzi could have exploited to get their picture.
Wharfe’s comments also lead to me to return to that question that has been troubling me. If, as Rees claims, and most investigations support, Paul was in fact noticeably drunk, why did Rees allow Paul behind the wheel? The other question I have is why did Rees use Paul to being with? This was not the first time Princess Diana had been to Paris. In
my experience, I use previously proven and trustworthy local personnel to support my protective details if I did not or could not, bring adequate protective personnel with me. It seems strange to me that Rees would use someone he did not know or trust with his life or his protectee’s life in such a critical function. The limo driver is the lynch pin in vehicle movements. The single most dangerous event for a protective mission is vehicle transportation. That is Executive Protection 101. At the absolutely least, using an obviously intoxicated driver as Rees claims Paul was, makes Rees negligent in that respect, never mind the question of how to best handle paparazzi. The actions of paparazzi were a large unknown but the selection of the driver was well within the control of Rees. Even assuming Rees couldn’t tell Paul was drunk, did he not “vett” Paul prior to using him? Still, why did Rees not have a relationship with a trusted local driver?
I’ve also got to question, why Rees thought his only option was to out drive the paparazzi? For example, did he not consider setting up a holding area for the media which is an accepted practice in Executive
Protection. This allows the media to get their pictures yet facilitates security. Even certain protective formations allow
for photo opportunities. Open formations such as the “box formation”
allow for pictures yet still provide 360 degree security.
In the emergency medical world there is an axiom which says, “do no harm” meaning don’t create a more serious medical situation than the one you are responding to. In this case, it seems a greater harm was created than the one the security was intending to prevent.
An interesting side note: Some media reports indicate that Trevor Rees is in Iraq these days ostensibly working a personal security detail.
Diana’s former bodyguard blames security detail – Diana: 10 Years Later – MSNBC.com
Technorati Tags: executive protection, body guard, executive protection training, Princess Diana, Royal Protection Branch, Scotland Yard, SO-14, Ken Wharfe, Trevor Rees, Henri Paul, Paris, Hotel Ritz Paris
