Saturday, February 09, 2008
“He was sidelined to the point of being removed from any work.”
Following on from yesterday’s MI5 protective custody for Adams’ driver story there are a couple of reports worth noting. In the Irish Times, Gerry Moriarty notes, “Sinn Féin Assembly member Alex Maskey said he and other senior republicans were disappointed but not terribly surprised by the news.” While in the Guardian Henry McDonald reports that -
“It is understood MI5 advised him to leave his west Belfast home after it emerged that an internal IRA investigation found he had been working for the British for more than a decade.”
Which would raise the question - who exactly was conducting that investigation? And, with McShane reportedly already ‘sidelined’, to what end? This Irish News report may point to a possible answer.. [subs req] Updated below
Adds Also in the Irish News [subs req]
In February 2006 Sinn Fein unexpectedly replaced all its Belfast-based drivers and bodyguards for Mr Adams and other senior republican politicians. It is unclear if this decision was linked to suspicions that McShane was working as a spy.
Originally from Lurgan in Co Armagh, he had lived in west Belfast from his early teens, sharing a house in the lower Falls with IRA leader Billy McMillan in the mid-1960s.
He is understood to have been a member of the Territorial Army for a time during this period.
Throughout the Troubles McShane worked as a cabinet maker in west Belfast.
It is understood he served little or no time in prison.
However, he was implicated in one of the worst murders of the Troubles when West German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was abducted and killed in December 1973.
In the 1980s McShane is known to have been a member of the IRA ‘nutting squad’.
As a member of that unit he was close to Freddie Scappaticci and, ironically, would have had the task of exposing agents within the IRA.
In 1989 that internal security unit was stood down over concerns that it had been infiltrated by the British intelligence agencies.
In what would prove to be a crucial mistake the IRA moved many of those involved in the ‘nutting squad’ into protection and driving roles for the Sinn Fein leadership.
For more than 20 years McShane was regularly seen driving the Sinn Fein leadership to and from meetings.
Following the decision to bring an end to McShane’s role as a Sinn Fein driver he is understood to have been working as a taxi driver in the lower Falls where he had been living in recent years.
Republican sources last night recalled that McShane had shown strong contempt for Sinn Fein administrator Denis Donaldson after he was exposed as a British agent in December 2005.
And from another Irish Times report by Gerry Moriarty [subs req]
A senior Sinn Féin spokesman yesterday suggested that in recent years, at least, the party suspected McShane was an informer. “He was sidelined to the point of being removed from any work.” Nonetheless, while he did not have a strategic role in the party, he was physically close to those who did - and at important times in the long negotiating process that finally led to the May 8th, 2007, powersharing deal. He’s been around a long time.
This will hardly be the last such revelation, which has caused quite an amount of shock in west Belfast and other republican areas. When Lord Eames and Denis Bradley and other members of the commission on the past travelled to London to examine the Stevens papers on collusion, they were said to be shocked by how deeply the IRA and Sinn Féin were infiltrated.
If MI5 could land catches such as Denis Donaldson and McShane, it follows that it is likely it netted other senior figures. It is likely that if McShane was outed, others too will be exposed, perhaps on a drip-drip basis to cause continuing embarrassment to Sinn Féin. This latest revelation should not destabilise the current regime at Stormont, but it will upset ordinary republicans, causing them to wonder what the “war” was about, was the IRA leadership really in control, who was genuine, who was a “tout”. That must be uncomfortable and annoying for Adams and other leaders, but it is just something they must live with it and manage.
Republicans said McShane could return to west Belfast if he makes peace with his family and his community and that he was under no threat from the IRA. But McShane will be mindful that Denis Donaldson, in whose company he was often seen at Stormont, had similar assurances, and yet ended up gunned to death in a cottage in Donegal.
Pete Baker @ 01:06 PM
“How about the morality of the IRA murdering people? Had there been no terrorists the government would not have had to have informers would they? Your argument is completely circular because you ignore one basic issue: the basic premise which you miss being that the terrorists’ campaign was and remains morally wrong.”
As we’ve seen many times before in various debates on this site, the whole argument between both sides is a form of circular argument and the famous what-aboutery. So one can argue, as many have, that there have been plenty of malignant effects of the continuing presence of British rule which led to the continuing paramilitary/terrorist tradition in Ireland.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 05:28 PMNo need to mock Shergar there, Turgon. The man is a dedicated soldier. He is also a trained astronaut having visited the moon 6 years ago and tomorrow he is off to climb Everest again without even bring his packed lunch.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 05:40 PMCould be, Joe. Here’s a picture of the one in Dervock, north of Ballymoney.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 06:16 PMDubliner
Or perhaps you ‘finally’ snapped right after you read Perci’s post mentioning my imminent absence, feeling you could take a cowardly parting shot? I had you down as a man of higher quality. ;)
No, I assumed it wasn’t permanent. And by the by, all the more reason to tackle you before you go ;)
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 06:25 PMDubliner - I’ll miss your rambling, contradictory, dialectical nonsense deeply!
Sok szerencsét kivánok!
Dewi
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 06:35 PMAlmost identical, Nevin. Wonder if anyone here knows the origin.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 06:37 PMTurgon
Can you not see the difference between those who were elected to pubic office under a democratic mandate engaging in criminality and an insurgent group doing the same. Surly one has sworn to uphold the law whilst the other the reverse. Or do you believe the end justifies the means and to hell with the damage done to individuals and society as a whole.
It seems to me if we are not going to be stuck in the type of “circular argument and the famous what-aboutery” the ‘doctor’ mentions in his/her post, a bench mark needs to be set beyond which future governments of the day will never again go.
There is a real danger when one takes into account Ireland’s history that this whole violent business will be repeated again at some time in the future. We have already reached the stage where some republicans are saying that the PIRAs failure to re-unite the nation was down to the ‘weakness’ of the Adams leadership; and on the other-side real arrogance is creeping back in.
Adams is right about one thing and it is that the completion of the national revolution must now be dealt with politically and within the law. However if the British state is not exposed as the law breaker it has been over the past thirty odd years, what argument can I put to a young republican when he tells me he believes in armed struggle, because the British state maintained partition by flouting and breaking the law and still does.
All I could reply is that armed struggle has been tried and failed and give my reasoning, and in all probability the young republican will tip me bollocks and go on his/her way thinking another sell out merchant. Just as those who formed the Provo’s did to Goulding and co when they reminded him that the Brits fight dirty then so must republicans.
If all the peace process means is that republicans accept the rule of law whilst the British break it when it suits then, we all better get used to the next round coming some time soon.
The way the British used informers in the north has been disgraceful, it fueled sectarianism and within republican ranks suspicion to such an extent it cannot but have lengthened the war. This all needs to be brought out into the open with a .
Best regards
How pathetic and wasteful would that be.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 07:36 PMdubliner confirm email pls, otherwise its gone into your junk, or exclusive filters. Shalom
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 07:54 PM“The fact that there would be no touts without the British government presence is overlooked completely as too is the morality of touting.”
How quaint!! Should we not blame those socialists who put folks at each other’s throats back in the 60s in pursuit of their Cuban-style all-island utopia? A student of local history here would hardly have been surprised that street confrontation in Derry would have led to violence much as it did on other occasions when the constitutional question was asked. Where did the Young Socialist Alliance and Goulding learn their history? Did you, er, overlook the role played by the Irish establishment in the toppling of Goulding or are the Brits to blame for everything?
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 09:13 PMWilde Rover: How do unionists feel about the fact that so many of their loved ones were killed not by an independent republican paramilitary group but by people operating, knowingly or unknowingly, on “Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, which, by traditional unionist logic, makes their deaths justifiable?
We knew all along that the security forces had agents and informers infiltrated into both loyalist and republican terrorist groups. When you all shared your grievances about the innocent - nationalist - victims of those agents, we told you it was a symmetrical situation for each community. You didn’t believe us. You are the ones who still have to adjust, not us.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 09:24 PM“We knew all along that the security forces had agents and informers infiltrated into both loyalist and republican terrorist groups. When you all shared your grievances about the innocent - nationalist - victims of those agents, we told you it was a symmetrical situation for each community. You didn’t believe us. You are the ones who still have to adjust, not us.”
When was this exactly? And who is the “we”; unionists? Most unionist commentators I’ve read seem to have no problem accepting the idea of agents within both loyalist and republican groups, because it is seen as a sign of success for the security forces. When it comes to accepting that the security forces allowed said agents to commit murder and mayhem, it’s a whole different story attacked as republican propaganda. That’s why there aren’t many unionist politicians exactly breaking down Raymond McCord’s front door with offers of assistance.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 09:42 PMIf he British Security services did not have agents in SF/Ira and all other terrorist organisations I want my money back as a tax payer.
I expect them to spy and “bug” those whose avowed intent was to overthrow the State and carry out a campaign of murder and destruction.
Long live all agents and handlers.Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 09:50 PMMick Hall,
I am on record as predicting that violence will recur; and I will suggest again that I suspect it will have done so within the next 20 years.I am interested in this comment from yourself “However if the British state is not exposed as the law breaker it has been over the past thirty odd years, what argument can I put to a young republican when he tells me he believes in armed struggle, because the British state maintained partition by flouting and breaking the law and still does.”
My argument to any loyalist would be (and indeed has been on this web site) that violence was immoral, utterly wrong and that there was no cause on this island in the last fifty years which justified the killing of anyone. If you cannot echo such remarks I am afraid it says more about you than me.
The whole thing was wasteful and pathetic on that I will agree with you.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 10:10 PM“I expect them to spy and “bug” those whose avowed intent was to overthrow the State and carry out a campaign of murder and destruction.
Long live all agents and handlers.”The issue, once again, is not over bugging or have infomers recruited. The issue is some of these agents being free reign to commit murder and sestruction. Is that what you intended for your taxpayer money to go towards?
“My argument to any loyalist would be (and indeed has been on this web site) that violence was immoral, utterly wrong and that there was no cause on this island in the last fifty years which justified the killing of anyone. If you cannot echo such remarks I am afraid it says more about you than me.”
I’m sure that Mick Hall is capable of defending himself, but I’ll just point out that he did say elsewhere in his post that he would discourage any young republican from resorting to violence. The point I think he was trying to make was that convincing people of the effectiveness and even morality of working purely through a political and legal framework is undermined when the British government is one of the worst violators of the democratic ideals they claim to protect. Being told to play by the rules while the other side makes and breaks rules when it’s convenient is not necessarily a very appealing message.
Posted by on Feb 10, 2008 @ 11:10 PMShergar,
The provos were running training camps in 2000???? that can,t be true because that would make Gerry a liar.
You disconnect the mains electricity at a “buster” why???? is it because Gerry kept you all in the dark for so long you just got used to it.
You wrote incriminating evidence on paper, my oh my how were you going to explain away the hoof marks to the judge???
You discussed the guy at a training camp as a tout, what complete and utter ballax, he was still organising security at that time and considered a trusted confidante, i think when you got whacked with that shotgun in Clare it really messed with your head.
Just one more thing Shergar before you try and take us for a ride again, at these training camps did you ever discuss who placed some of these people in the positions they were in here’s a few to get you started.
1) Freddy Scapp was selected for his position by The Bearded One while on the Army Council.
2) Dennis Donaldson was selected for his position by The Bearded One while president
3) Roy McShane was hand picked for his security position with internal security by The Bearded one
4) The informer who betrayed the Eksund was put aboard the ship (against the wishes of the Quarter Master General) by The Bearded One while a non voting member of the Army Council
5) Roy McShane was moved to private bodyguard and party designated driver in charge of all party transport by The Bearded one
6) The informer who was brought into the S/F think tank for the Stormont talks was invited in (against the wishes of many in the local party) by The Bearded One
7) All direct contacts with the meddling priest in contact with MI6 is done through The Bearded One
just in case you end up at a training camp next Saturday and have no one to do up the saddle
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 12:48 AMI wonder what The Devil’s point is....?
Yours, Bewildered of North West…
;-)
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 01:28 AMBefore anyone gets carried away with Mr Satan’s suggestion..
It makes perfect sense, in the circumstances, for MI5 to seek to recruit, as informers, as many people as possible around the Provisional IRA leadership - to assess the veracity of what that leadership was telling the UK government if nothing else.
But that doesn’t mean any extrapolation of events is justified.
Although, it does call into question Adams’ judgement on whom he allowed close to him during that time..
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 01:38 AMIt is well known Patrice that handlers surround their key agents with a number of other agents, when things go up in the air it is easier to sacrifice an agent in a lower position, that way they can keep their main man or woman in the key position.
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 07:31 AMReader,
“When you all shared your grievances about the innocent - nationalist - victims of those agents, we told you it was a symmetrical situation for each community. You didn’t believe us. You are the ones who still have to adjust, not us.”
I cannot speak for “ourselves alone” only for myself alone, and I have attracted the ire of unionist posters here in the past for saying all military groupings in the conflict were basically the same group. i.e. British Crown Forces.
I agree it was a symmetrical situation for both communities: they were being sh1t upon from a height by your monarch and her clandestine machinations.
That’s as good a definition of being a subject of the crown as any, I suppose.
Ulsterfan,
“I expect them to spy and “bug” those whose avowed intent was to overthrow the State and carry out a campaign of murder and destruction.”
You expect the British Security Forces to carry out a campaign of murder and destruction? Then you are getting a lot of bang for your tax buck.
“Long live all agents and handlers.”
That sounds like another way of saying “up the RA.”
What would unionists do if they were to find out P. O’Neill was actually Seamus O’Bond, Licence to Kill?
Nothing, I suppose, for what can they do?
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 07:50 AMLet’s do that ‘who benefits?’ test again. Does it seem clear that the IRA and republicans have no vested interest in destroying their own credibility?
The much vaunted and very successful British trade in ‘counter-terrorism’ technology, advisers etc. has been made to look pretty stupid over more than 30 years by a bunch of volunteers, many of them casually recruited from the backwoods and the council estates. Naturally the Brits are going to try and rewrite history and claim a famous victory, we’re talking about one of their largest export industries after all.
As I’ve posted before the republican attitude right back to Collins has been that secrets should stay secret and that agents go to their graves uncompromised. We still don’t know the identities of many of his people in the Castle. The republicans had Intelligence coups at various times when they broke through in London and at home yet they still don’t reveal their sources. Those who should be frightened are the people who were used by the British security services and who are now being betrayed by British Intelligence still more occupied by empire building in England than what happens now that the last colonies are being let go.
Most importantly the Irish Peace Process didn’t come from just the physical force wing but was agreed on by nearly all of nationalist Ireland and its allies. Anyone up for claiming that Hume, Reynolds, Clinton and the rest were compromised or anybody’s agent? Why would such men particularly Clinton, have put their necks out to oblige a bunch of losers? They knew exactly what was going on behind the scenes and that they could trust the integrity of the republican leadership.
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 09:02 AMSo maybe the IRA and MI5 were in cahoots all along, well according to some conspiracy theory websites. Maybe NI was an ideal training ground for troops. Maybe MI5 could be equated with something like the CIA and it’s seedy covert operations. Maybe people were just pawns, and casualities just numbers. Maybe Gerry and Martin are heads of MI5 as well.
Folk from this isle would do anything for the the Queen’s shilling, so history has shown us!
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 10:05 AM“They knew exactly what was going on behind the scenes and that they could trust the integrity of the republican leadership.”
In what sense are you using ‘integrity’, lib2016? Are you claiming that PRM AC decisions were unanimous? Are you suggesting that the AC didn’t front a fascist and Mafiaist organisation?
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 11:19 AM“ Anyone up for claiming that Hume, Reynolds, Clinton and the rest were compromised or anybody’s agent? Why would such men particularly Clinton, have put their necks out to oblige a bunch of losers? They knew exactly what was going on behind the scenes and that they could trust the integrity of the republican leadership.”
Lib2016
You have lost me here, what are you saying, these touts played a progressive role? The gentlemen you mentioned put there money on Adams because he promised to produce an outcome which suited them all. i e an end of the PIRA insurgency with the status quo intact.
They new this because the informers that the British security services had surrounded the Adams leadership with told their handlers this and they passed the message on to Clinton, Reynolds etc.
You say previous generations of Republicans have always kept the names of Republicans who spied on the castle a secret, true, but the provos have gone a step further and kept the names secret of those who infiltrated the republican movement on behalf of the castle, which for a revbolutionary movement is somewhat unique.
As their first duty to the community or class they serve, when an informer is revealed, is to the whole community, who should be told about the tout so they can guard against them.
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 12:32 PMwhen will mcguiness and john bunter graham be told by their handlers that the cat has got out of the bag and make a run for it ??? maybe ladbrokes should open bets and i reckon bunter(uvf) and mcguiness(ira) are joint favourites!!
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 01:30 PMWilde Rover: I agree it was a symmetrical situation for both communities: they were being sh1t upon from a height by your monarch and her clandestine machinations.
Before you can believe that, you need a motive, don’t you? - I think they were doing the best they could in a very difficult situation. You agree there were people *trying* to make things difficult for the security forces, don’t you.
Nor am I convinced that QE was one of the handlers, or the author of the Brit Cunning Plans.
Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 01:34 PM
