MI5 in (Northern) Ireland
The Press Association has Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement on national security, as noted yesterday – not yet now online elsewhere Adds Statement on No 10 website Updated linkFrom the PA report
“There has been some concern over the arrangements set out in Annex E, which was published along with the St Andrews Agreement. The Government is therefore issuing a new statement in relation to national security.
“This will help bring Northern Ireland into line with a European approach which would provide a consistent and co-ordinated response to the threat from international terrorism which concerns us all.
“The threat presented by international terrorism to citizens was graphically illustrated by the train bombings in Madrid and on the streets of London in July 2005. The loss of life was horrific and completely unacceptable.
“The handling of national security intelligence throughout the European Union, including Northern Ireland, is designed to provide a consistent and co-ordinated response to the grave threat posed by international terrorist groups such as al Qaida.
“The PSNI and the Security Service will be completely distinct and entirely separate bodies.
“All necessary interaction between the Security Service and the PSNI, for example in response to the threat of international terrorism, will, as directed by the Chief Constable, by way of liaison. No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.
“The small number of police officers who act in a liaison capacity with the Security Service will be PSNI Headquarters staff acting in that role for fixed time-limited periods to the extent that the Chief Constable deems necessary for them to perform their duties.
“Policing is the responsibility solely of the PSNI. The Security Service will have no role whatsoever in civic policing.
“Leadership and direction of all police work is the responsibility of the Chief Constable who will remain accountable to the Policing Board.
“All PSNI officers will be employed by the PSNI and will be accountable solely to the Chief Constable and to the Policing Board and upon transfer to the Ministers for Justice.
“The Patten policing reforms will be maintained and there will be no diminution in police accountability.
“When the Policing Board establishes a special purposes committee under section 28 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 the Government will make any necessary statutory provision to ensure it will be representative of all political parties on the Board.
“Future Justice Ministers will receive the same level of information as does the Board and the special purposes committee.
“The Ombudsman will have statutory powers to hold to account all police officers. The Ombudsman will also have statutory access to all information held by the police.
“The Ombudsman`s Office and the Security Service will agree arrangements for the Ombudsman`s access to sensitive information held by the Service, where necessary for the discharge of the Ombudsman`s statutory duties.
“Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will invite Lord Carlile, and any successor, to review annually the operation of the arrangements for handling national security-related matters in Northern Ireland.
“In the course of his review, he will consult the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman, as well as taking into account any views which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and, in due course, Justice Ministers may put to him.”
Does this say anything new?
The minister in Parliament live now on TV as just made the point that Dissident Republicans still pose a major threat to British interests in Northern Ireland.
He asked that all parties who sign upto policing join together to defeat Dissident Republicans.
Martin
It tells us that the UK’s Security Service remains responsible for er, security services issues throughout the UK. Another tremendous victory for Gerry’s handlers, er, I mean Sinn Fein.
martin,
with respect when the statement says:
No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.
yesterday you were bellowing the opposite.
care to clarify?
Yokel.
No change.
Police = Civic policing.
MI5= Intelligence duties.
SOS Confirms triple lock in place.
Live now.
Ding Ding
Martin
Parcifal.
yes will clarify once statement finished.
SOS makes clear the IMC will monitor Sinn Fein`s progress and implementation of their co operation in the CRJ? very interesting.
Ding Ding
DUP is counted out of the game, this is a Brit Govt – SF deal. Just counting time for SF Ard Comhairle to call an Ard Fheis now all the ducks are lined up…
From Sunday Business Post…
“Somebody from outside the North’s assembly could be appointed to oversee policing and justice if the political deadlock on the issue is not resolved, Peter Hain said today.
The Northern Ireland Secretary warned that the May 2008 deadline for devolution of powers to a Northern Ireland justice minister must be adhered to.
He was speaking after addressing the Assembly’s Policing and Justice Committee in Belfast today.
“This is a backstop, the overwhelming preference is to do this by consent under the agreed proceedings.
“If we get to the stage where this process is deadlocked, perhaps around May 2008, then you have to look for an alternative legislative vehicle.â€
Mr Hain added that the appointee could be “somebody from a party outside the Executive or from outside the Assemblyâ€.
Democratic Unionists have said they will share power with Sinn Féin once they are sure of that party’s commitment to policing and law and order.
Republicans had agreed to call an Ard fhéis by the end of January to endorse the policing structures but party president Gerry Adams has accused the DUP of failing in its own commitments to agree a timetable for devolution.
Both parties have experienced dissent from members concerned about the shift in policies.
Mr Hain said the March deadline for restoration of government was absolute.
“People know that on January 30 Stormont either dissolves permanently or power is devolved, it is the last chance.
“If there is wilful obstruction, some kind of deadlock almost despite the best intentions of the parties then we will have to look at another way through, but that is very much second best.â€
He added that the dates for power sharing and fresh Assembly elections in March and devolved policing powers by May 2008 were achievable but said there was no point in holding elections if there was no agreement on devolution.”
To be fair to Martin I think what he said was that secondment was totally different than people transferring to a new job within MI5. So no secondments, big deal. They’ll just find any skills and capacities they need in another way because that i assume is what secondments were really about, mundane needs for skills.
Given fair numbers of branch people are now working for MI5 and the old boys club could well be intact.
In short nothing has changed really.
What this may be about is the republican theory about dark forces controlling everything. By stating that MI5 don’t control the police its stating the obvious of what already exists but for SF members it may feel like a re-assurance.
Whilst these organizations worked together and so forth, equally there were rivalries between them and I’m sure they each defend their own patch with some ferocity. I can think of one senior republican who was shot, he was an SB informer but apparently the military intelligence people had wind of the attack and dint do a thing about it.
Saying the two are separate organisations is stating the obvious but perhaps is designed for Gerry to take to members and say ‘the PSNI is not controlled by dark forces fo MI5′.
Eolas.
Keep up…..
Parcifal.
Yes, exactly as I reported on a number of occassions on this board recently.
The Officers have transfered and are now on the establishment of MI5.
A secondment is a temporary measure.They are not seconded. To do so they would remain upon the establishment of the Police .The police would be required to fund them and they would be liable to the Ombudsman for their conduct. The last two years has seen a lot of Police taking EARLY retirement from the jobs. Many of these have sought new employment in the civil service(MI5).
MI5 new all UK based role has meant a 100% increase in their man power. They have NOT sought to second but to RECRUIT.
This process is now complete.They are now ready to rumble.
In relation to Liason Officers L/O it is once more exactly as I reported yesterday upon how a L/O works and operates. These individuals ARE seconded to their role in “smoothing” the coming together of various agencies working together.
Thanks to the PM for that collateral to my post of last night.
The important Fact reinforced today in both the above PM statement and the SOS live in Parliament today is the role and activities of MI5.
The SOS confirmed their role in combatting terrorism. That means they will be targetting their resources against ( and he mentioned them) dissident Irish Republicans.
The SOS confirmed that Sinn Fein and their supporters will be expected to inform the police in respect to this activity.The IMC will monitor their comittement in this respect in the coming months and years(that is a direct quote).
That is a very clear statement.
Hope that helps Parcifal. In summary. NO CHANGE.
Ding Ding
Martin
Yokel.
yes agreed.
I thought the DUP & Tory spokesman pushed the boat a touch too far.The SOS was clearly uncomfortable.
That said we did get clarity! BUT at what price?
Martin
It is clear from the lack of ‘military’ successes by armed dissident republicanism over the last few years, that the primary objective of such dissidents is not to get the Brits to withdraw but to cause embarrassment to Sinn Fein because of their perceived abandonment of traditional Republican values.
(As an example, check out the weekly articles by Anthony McIntyre in the Blanket emotively declaring that before long Sinn Fein will be assisting a ‘British constabulary’ in the ‘jailing and criminalising’ of ‘young Irish republicans’.)
Now, recent resignees from Sinn Fein such as Laurence O’Neill and Davy Hyland presumably agree that the armed struggle is no longer viable, since they stayed with the Sinn Fein leadership throughout the decommissioning process. They are of course entitled to express their differences of opinion with SF on the policing issue but they should think carefully before aligning themselves too closely to those who would continue to exploit impressionable young republicans and consign them to several years incarceration PURELY for the purpose of embarrassing Sinn Fein.
If anyone reading this intends to go to next week’s gathering of republicans in Derry, where no doubt the fierce policing debate will continue to rage, perhaps they could make the above point?
martin,
Thanks, am only concerned if SF can use it to move things on, and judging by Kelly’s statement on the SF website it is enough.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/17344
Freely admit my knowlede is sparse on these matters.
yokel,
In relation to inter agency rivalry.
It happens the world over mate.
You will never stop it. If you take 9/11 CIA had Intelligence upon many of those involved in the flight schools. The FBI was not told of this information because of inter agency rivalry.
One of the five principles of Intelligence is:
Centralisation( One central control and command)
If you read my book, you will see examples of Inter agency rivalry.
In relation to the example you cite? are you refering to Ruby Davison?
Ding Ding
Ingram
PS. I cannot wait for Patsy and Chris to “visit” should be interesting.
Here’s a theoretical question:
Suppose the various ‘disaffected’ republicans get their act together sufficiently to do well enough in the Assembly elections such that they’d be entitled to a Ministry under the d’Hont system?
Then, assuming they show an intention to take up the ministry, but without declaring support for the police and the rule of law (naturally, as that’s the reason why they’ve recently split from SF) – presumably the Unionists wouldn’t agree to their taking up an Executive position – but would the SDLP and Sinn Fein continue to argue for a fully inclusive mandatory coalition, including the dissident minister who doesn’t support the police?
Parcifal,
No problem mate.If I can help in any way just ask.
In relation to Sinn Fein statement.
That statement was released during the SOS statement in Parliament. Clearly it was a prepared acceptance.
That would suggest to me a clear indication that they are prepared to move forward on this basis. The DUP clearly are not going to move much.
Sinn Fein I believe and understand are determined to go forward to the AF. Adams would not risk a AF if he did not KNOW he could carry the motion through.
No matter what or HOW this situation as come about I for one welcome it.
We just need the DUP to wind their knecks in now and it really is a “Neville Chamberlain” moment.
Peace in our time.
Well done to all.
Martin
‘There has been some concern over the arrangements set out in Annex E, which was published along with the St Andrews Agreement. The Government is therefore issuing a new statement in relation to national security.’
Annex E removed as I stated
‘The PSNI and the Security Service will be completely distinct and entirely separate bodies.’
No role for MI5 in civic policing, as I stated.
‘No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.’
Again, as I stated.
martin,
agree with every word, even “knecks”, there’s something modern about that, and would suggest you send it to the Oxford Dictionary for approval to describe knackered people with out of date knackered views.
No doubt MI5 and so on will continue to interfere and play dirty in whatever takes their fancy. The point here is that if the PSNI liase with MI5, then that liaison will be fully accountable through the PSNI’s usual accountability methods (Ombudsman et cetera). So SF can pass their motion and still be implacably opposed to MI5′s role in Ireland – they just support entities which are locally accountable and transparent.
And also, what’s a ‘dissident’? People can’t make up their mind whether it’s limited to anti-ceasefire people or not. If often sounds like unionists are saying it should be a crime to disagree with SF, which is an amazing about turn!
Pat,
No serious person on this board has argued MI5 is involved in CIVIC policing.
MI5 have never been involved in speeding, rape nor Burglary.
The SOS and PM have confirmed their role in protecting British National interest from terrorist. The SOS actually refered to the threat from dissident Republican terrorist.
MI5 will be involved in policing Republicans engaged in terrorist activity. Now if Republicans or Sinn Fein members dont enage in terrorist activity then clearly they will not encounter MI5.
Just as they would not yesterday.
I have explained to you previously that SB officers working now for MI5 are NOT SECONDED but are established posts.
The SDLP have just made a similar point.
The bottom line Pat, is MI5 are monitoring and disrupting Republican/ potential terrorist activity. That includes Sinn Fein and the animal liberation front.
The SDLP have just made the point that these activities WILL NOT BE OPEN TO ANY local scrutiny.The Ombudsman will not be able to investigate incidents like she would be able in the case of Loyalism.
You are welcome to support this position, indeed I urge you to suport it.But please dont insult the people on this board BY painting this situation any differently than it clearly is.
Martin
Pat Mc Larnon, like Gerry Adams on Talkback, sounds more like he is trying to convice himself than ayone else! Sinn Fein seems to be relying on words from the Prime Minister regarding the role of MI5 in the North instead of fixed mechanism that makes intelligence gathering subject to oversight and complaints.
Gerry Adams is wrong to pretend that the MI5 issue is resolved; it clearly is not. It would appear that what he negotiated with the British actually in fact reduces MI5 accountability! Nice one Gerry – way to go! Where was your Chief Negociator that day, playing golf? Gerry has accepted that during a lawful search, the police can seize any document, regardless of their level of suspicion. This proposed power is way too excessive but seems great news to Gerry!
Aaron Mcdaid.
Your assessment is wrong.That would be a conditional agreement. That is not on offer.
MI5 is part of the Criminal justice system.
Support for the CJS includes the security services and the secret intelligence service.The IMC have been tasked to monitor Sinn Fein`s acceptance or otherwise.
The role of a L/O is simple. They will not be privy to anything likely to be of use to an investigation.That is common sense that is why she cannot investigate MI5 nor the military today. No change.
A PSNI L/O role in life is to organise a police presence( arrest) or A VAN etc.Ombudsman can investigate this procurement.Good luck to her.
A military L/O will be responsible for the organisation of the military ( SAS, 14 Coy,Sigs Intelligence) The Ombudsman will NOT be able to investigate.
I hope this helps you.
Ding Ding
Martin
Aaron,
“…that liaison will be fully accountable through the PSNI’s usual accountability methods.”
Even on the most benign reading, this leaves MI5 huge scope for independent operation. The only body it is actually accountable to, is the Intelligence and security committee. Currently no one in Northern Ireland is entitled to sit on that body. And, since it is Westminster based, there is little prospect of anyone from Sinn Fein getting access to it through (possible) further negotiation.
On a less benign reading, it looks like SF has ‘privatised’ the Branch.
Aaron McDaid:
“SF can pass their motion and still be implacably opposed to MI5’s role in Ireland – they just support entities which are locally accountable and transparent.”
Which is a point I made earlier in the thread “Sinn Fein hoping Blair will undo MI5 proposals…” – will the DUP raise this as the next excuse to block progress? If Sinn Fein are fully supportive of a locally accountable police service but not of the nefarious machinations of MI5, will that constitute ‘failing to support the rule of law’ as MI5 is a component of the criminal justice system, even though MI5 themselves clearly disregard the Rule of Law when it suits them?
Ian,
I can answer your first question at least:
“…will the DUP raise this as the next excuse to block progress?”
This is not a deal breaker with them. Indeed, it may actually make it easier to quell any incipient rebellion in the ranks.
A question: Have the SDLP ever (formally) signed up to full support for MI5? Or indeed any of the Unionist parties? How can such support (or lack thereof) be proven?
This could be the next crucial issue after the Ard Fheis.
Just a thought but is someone trying to protect themselves from being caught up in an oversight investigation?
“This is not a deal breaker with them. Indeed, it may actually make it easier to quell any incipient rebellion in the [DUP] ranks.”
How so?
Ingram,
‘MI5 have never been involved in speeding, rape nor Burglary.’
Wanna bet?
‘I have explained to you previously that SB officers working now for MI5 are NOT SECONDED but are established posts.’
I have explained to you previously that the supposed knowledge or experience of a 20 yr out of date irrelevant either impress nor convince me.
‘The SDLP have just made the point that these activities WILL NOT BE OPEN TO ANY local scrutiny.The Ombudsman will not be able to investigate incidents like she would be able in the case of Loyalism.’
It is naive of the SDLP and typically untruthful of you to claim that their could be any local scrutiny of MI5. They will do what they will do aided and abetted by their government. That being the case they would have polluted any organisation that they came into contact with. Civic policing and the ability to hold that organisation alone to scrutiny then would have been damaged by PSNI officers inevitably benefitting from the ‘do as you like’ remit given to MI5.
Check the archives it has turned out as I said it would.
Ian,
The SDLP support the CJS.
That means they support them.
Black and white.
Ingram
Mick Fealty
I believe there has been talk of local politicians serving on the ISC at Westminster. In fact i believe the more precise talk was of a DUP person being involved.
Ian
Listen to Scrappy Doo (Ian Paisley Jnr). All he said was that it was a re-statement of fact. I suspect it’ll be seen pretty much that way. I’m no expert on intelligence operations in NI but I always thought it was pretty much as the PM’s statement anyway.
Ingram
Yeah Brendan D was the one I was thinking of.
Pat,
Now you are being silly.
Sinn Fein supports the Britsh criminal justice system. YES
That includes MI5? Yes. The PM and SOS today confirmed their role in policing Republicans who are involved in terrorist activity.
If you check my two posts from last evening all these aspects were covered in detail. I could re post it if you require.
QUOTE MI5 have never been involved in speeding, rape nor Burglary.’
Wanna bet?
Yes, I would.
Please post proof that MI5 have ever engaged in civic policing and in particular any role in speeding, rape or burglaries.
Pat, lets be honest mate. This is not what you wanted. Its what you were always going to get BUT it is not what you wanted.
MI5 are responsible for investigating and monitoring Republicans? yes or No?
PSNI are responsible for speeding , rape , burglary.? Not Republican terrorist activity.
Martin
PS. In relation to accountability. You have less accountability today than you had previously.That is a FACT.
Like Mick Fealty said.Sinn Fein just privatised the SB! LOL
Ian,
“How so?”
I asked a senior party official last night.
ingram,
I’m not sure how you can say MI5 is part of the criminal justice system – surely, its role is to do stuff that can’t be legally justified through the usual legal channels.
Anyway, they and others will continue to do their thing in the dark, and people will continue to argue like hell about it. The important thing is that the PSNI’s role is accountable. So if the PSNI assist(collude with) MI5 then that shouldn’t be covered up – for example turning over a document to them. Who knows what MI5 will do with it, the main thing is that the PSNI can be held to account and expected to transparently justify that assistance.
Ingram,
‘QUOTE MI5 have never been involved in speeding, rape nor Burglary.’
It was just your bad grammar. I think you meant they were not involved in investigating these crimes. I thought you meant involvement in the participation of such crimes.
‘Pat, lets be honest mate. This is not what you wanted. Its what you were always going to get BUT it is not what you wanted.’
What I wanted can be retrieved from the archives. You had previously attributed stances to me that you had concoted, now you are a mind reader.
Civic policing is the main concern of the nationalist community. It can oversee, question and hold the PSNI to account, without the PSNI hiding behind the ‘national security’ veil that MI5 can be counted upon to mount at every opportunity.
Yokel.
I thought that was the case you had in mind.
That case is one that Stevens has looked into.I supplied the documents to him and other evidence.
The Branch HAD been warned on three different occassions that he was being targetted by Nelson and his boys.
The Branch was also told on two occassions that the IRA suspected him of being an informer.That information was supplied by Agents within the security department.
The RUC uniforms used in the attack were ” Borrowed” from RUC Mountpottinger station.The RUC SB had been told , WHEN WERE AND HOW that attack was to take place.
The reason why they allowed that “Hit” to continue is complicated.
It involves the presence of other Agents, with more shelf live than Ruby.
What I can say with 100% confidence is the RUC SB had the prior notice to stop that hit.
In simplistic terms. It was murder.But for a reason.
Martin
MI5 are not part of the CJS. There is even some doubt as to whether they are subject to it in the way the rest of us are. The SDLP does not support MI5, or the role they have in NI. This does not appear to block them from the executive and I can’t see SF being blocked for taking a similar view, either in the view of the DUP (as confirmed by Mick F) or the governments.
ingram:
“Please post proof that MI5 have ever engaged in burglaries.”
John Stevens’ offices were broken into and torched during the first inquiry into collusion between loyalists and security services.
“Sinn Fein supports the British criminal justice system. YES. That includes MI5? Yes.”
From UTV:
Sinn Fein`s policing and justice spokesman Gerry Kelly claimed Mr Blair`s statement protected local policing from the “malign and corruptive control of MI5.
“What we have achieved in this is that MI5 will have no part in policing in the north.
“The whole issue of MI5, and these security services are also in the south of Ireland, is that if they act illegally then we have a PSNI which is not signed up to MI5 and which will hold them to account.
“We want MI5 out of Ireland, there`s no place for it north or south. This gets us a very major step closer to that.
“But we have never argued that the battle is over.”
This is precisely the sort of thing that I fear will be used by Unionists as the next (and most insurmountable) of many hurdles.
I’m not sure that institutionally ‘firewalling’ the two organisations amounts to the PSNI not being “signed up to MI5″. What does being “signed up to” entail?
Pat,
So you want to withdraw your offer of a bet? No problem mate.
Glad you now agree. No evidence of MI5 EVER being involved in civic policing.
In relation to mind reading. You dont need to be a mind reader mate to read Sinn Fein.
They are like an open book. You will recall I did accurately predict Sinn Fein would accept policing and the CJS.
Deal or No deal. Ingram say deal.
Pat,
You last comment really intrugues me.
I think you may have misunderstood what is on offer in this deal.
Pat quote”Civic policing is the main concern of the nationalist community. It can oversee, question and hold the PSNI to account, without the PSNI hiding behind the ‘national security’ veil that MI5 can be counted upon to mount at every opportunity. “Unquote
In relation to any threat which POSES A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY, that is a matter for MI5 and not the local Civic police force.
The PSNI will have no cause to hide behind any national security issues because the type of policing they will be involved with investigating will not be contentious. Rape, Joy Riding, Burglaries etc tend not to be of concern to those charged to protect NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES.
That is what Sinn Fein negotiated. Like Mick said. Sinn Fein just privatised the PSNI SB. LOL
Keep it coming Pat, I am enjoying this. LOL
Ding Ding
Martin
Ian,
In relation to the burning down of Sir John Stevens offices.
Nothing to do with MI5 mate. If you check his report he agrees with me that it was the military who carried it out.
I was the first person to mention the Arson and attribute those involved. Sir John then admitted the act.
Gerry Kelly,
Is well, Gerry kelly. Hardly the brightest light bulb in the chandalier!.
Good Luck.
Martin
Ingram,
no, the bet still stands, read the conditions. Your poor use of English has let you down.
‘I think you may have misunderstood what is on offer in this deal.’
I think once again you have misinterpreted or perhaps more importantly cannot read what has been written. A trait that belies your inability to debate.
The complete separation of the PSNI and MI5 means no PSNI involvement in MI5 operations, something that had previously been allowed. Future involvement would have allowed the PSNI to be polluted by association.
The makeup of MI5 by ex-SB operatives is therefore irrelevant. The PSNI will only be held responsible for its own actions re civic policing.
A suggestion, invent a position that you think I have adopted and argue from there, as it is this is easy. BTW you claim this to be your field of knowledge.
“In relation to the burning down of Sir John Stevens offices.
Nothing to do with MI5 mate. If you check his report he agrees with me that it was the military who carried it out.”
MI stands for Military Intelligence? Anyway, any time MI5 plant a bug in someone’s house they have to burgle it in order to get in. Or do they ask permission first?
I’m not sure I share Kelly’s optimism that the shiny new accountable civic police force will “hold [MI5] to account” for such actions.
Yokel, I don’t know why you think I need to keep up – I think it is you that do not understand sufficiently. But please explain more to me…
I think that this debate has missed a number of critical elements.
MI5 will continue to operate in the north so long as it remains ‘part’ of the UK. Even after reunification, we can rest assured that MI6 will continue its nefarious work in the interests of the British state.
The key issue in relation to ‘national security’ policing for Sinn Fein was to separate MI5 from local civic policing and to ensure at the same time that all PSNI actions were open to local accountability mechanisms. They have achieved that goal, at least on paper. The party looks to have determined that the threshold operational basis for completing the struggle within local policing structures has been achieved.
The only lack of assurity is around the devolution of policing powers back to the north which is the last jigsaw piece remaining. There is no doubt that SF would like to see a commitment from the DUP on this but I suspect that the statement I quoted from Hain previously gave a structure through which the British would by-pass the DUP in all this by nominating non-political substitutes. I think and hope that this will be enough for Sinn Fein to move forward on this now.
The key issue for British securocrats is that in separating MI5 from the PSNI in this way, Sinn Fein have made a huge gain in undermining the activities of MI5 itself. Most of their operations are dependent upon information garnered and sources run at local levels. Without this, MI5 itself is substantially neutered as a counter-Republican force. This is precisely why the MI5 wanted to retain powers to second existing PSNI officers (as per Annex E which was inserted surrepticiously at the St Andrew’s Agreement). Sinn Fein look to have defeated this last attempt by securocrats as evidenced by Blair’s statement today.
Merely recruiting former PSNI or even SB officers will not suffice for this purpose. MI5 leadership have suffered a set-back. There can be no dobut of this. In the end, the British decided that this concession was necessary if Sinn Fein were to be brought on board with Policing.
Pat,
Ok, Bet stands. Please show me MI5 involvement in Civic policing.
In relation to PSNI involvement.
I have explained this previously and the PM makes reference to it in his statement.
One or indeed Ten PSNI L/O will be able to become involved in MI5 Operations.
Nothing new in that.The military will do the same.
A beat Bobby was never used in PSNI SB operations.Those PSNI SB officers are now just re badged into MI5 pensions.
The SDLP have just made the same point. That is why Mick Fealty made his point about privatisation of the PSNI SB on this board a few moments ago.
Civic policing is not at issue here.You are trying to deflect the substance of the argument. MI5 have never engaged in that activity. Unless you can show they did previously perform civic policing duties?.
The change is in how Intelligence upon Republicans will be collected. The PSNI SB WILL NO LONGER BE TASKED TO COLLECT INTELLIGENCE. They will however be required to write you a speeding ticket now they have left the safety of the armoured landrover for the comfort of their shinny new Panda Car.
How times have changed. LOL
Keep it coming slow boy.
Ding Ding
Martin
Pat says “[there will be] no PSNI involvement in MI5 operations”
Pat,
The PSNI will be involved in some way in MI5 operations as clearly stated by Blair. The issue is that nature of the involvement and the oversight of it.
Ian.
quote”MI stands for Military Intelligence? Anyway, any time MI5 plant a bug in someone’s house they have to burgle it in order to get in. Or do they ask permission first? “unquote
They operate within the law. OK , lets agree on occassions they have not BUT there is no BODY set up to police them.The Westminster Intelligence committee is just an in house talking shop.
The bottom line is very difficult to prove it.
Reality.
Depending upon the situation. On most occassions they can enter a Dwelling legally without your permission. As can the Customs and Excise with NO WARRANT.
In the respect of say a political Party office. They would seek a warrant.
I can assure you though that entry to your dwelling(if you live in the UK) if they have reasonable suspicion you are engaged in the commission of a crime is not an offence.
It is a wide ranging viewpoint. Not dissimilar to the Yellow card for troops to open fire in Northern Ireland.
They only have to BELIEVE their life or anyone elses is in danger to open fire.
MI? Yes. Military Intelligence.
Hope this helps.
Martin
Ingram,
‘Ok, Bet stands. Please show me MI5 involvement in Civic policing.’
I never stated there was MI5 involvement in civic policing.
In fact there is no MI5 involvement in civic policing, that has been announced today, have you not been listening?
Eolas
The article you quoted was about imposition etc of a Justice Minister. What you quoted has already been surpassed.
How have MI5 leadership suffered a setback? They are just getting on with work as they always have done. In fact they are, I assume they are getting hold of some ex-SB agents as well and probably their handlers as well. Very smooth. Do you think there was some huge battle going on with Tony slugging it out with MI5? If MI5 didnt like it they know how to leak stories. They don’t care, its business as usual.
Pat
Hold on, if there are liasion officers between organisations dont that mean they work together in some way or another? Secondly I would have thought that MI5 wouldnt want to involve anybody else too much in their work, unless they absolutely needed to.
I am beginning to see how this is being sold, fair enough if thats what is required for the membership. Unionists seem to be sitting on their hands over this and not really giving a fiddlers.
Ingram
Brendan D. Never simple is it.
Yokel,
‘Hold on, if there are liasion officers between organisations dont that mean they work together in some way or another?’
I always thought that to liaise was to work to reconcile where difficult issues arose.
‘Secondly I would have thought that MI5 wouldnt want to involve anybody else too much in their work, unless they absolutely needed to.
Absolutely correct, underlining the fact that anyone who though these people could be held accountable by any local overseer was extremely naive.
‘I am beginning to see how this is being sold, fair enough if thats what is required for the membership.’
I believe it is being ‘sold’ on the basis that a person has the ability to read and make up their own minds. Certainly that is what i’m doing.
‘Unionists seem to be sitting on their hands over this and not really giving a fiddlers.’
Who gives a fiddlers about unionists giving a fiddlers?
Aaron,
my first point to Yokel covers how I see liaison between the PSNI and MI5. It would be up to the current bodies overseeing PSNI behaviour to keep a check on this.