Belfast Telegraph

Beckett and Myer- same old story

The Police Ombudsman has recently released a report on three killings; that of Henry Babington on 4th October 1989 and those of Constables Beckett and Myer on 30th  June 1990.

I am particularly interested in the latter incident, it coming 24 days after the murders of my parents.

Readers of my blog will know that my special interest is the activities [or lack thereof] of senior RUC officers, Special Branch personnel [sometimes described as a force within a force] the Army and the Security Service, in respect of the murders.

Some of the striking features of my parents’ killings were that:

  1. There was no public appeal for witnesses or information, either immediately or at any time,
  2. There was no round-up of suspects, except for a character called Braniff,
  3. There was only a perfunctory search at the scene, missing the magnet,
  4. The fragments of the bomb were disposed of, and 
  5. The file was put away in a cupboard months after the murders.

I was interested to see what assessment would be made of the constables’ murders, coming in much the same time frame.

There is an obvious difference , in that their killings took place in broad daylight in the city centre. No matter. 

This is what the Ombudsman had to say:

“Having gathered and reviewed substantial documentation, the Police Ombudsman said the RUC investigation was “well resourced, well managed and conducted without any delay.”

It raised 338 investigative actions, recorded over 420 witness statements, and received over 190 messages. These were part of a police investigation that incorporated witness, forensic, intelligence, and suspect enquiries.

The Senior Investigating Officer’s (SIO) policy log, internal reports and briefings demonstrated that he viewed forensics as integral to his investigation and considerable work was done on examining descriptions given of suspects and preparing for arrests. 

Initial information following the murders was promptly disseminated and the first arrests were made within hours of the murders. More followed, and there were a significant number of arrests.

However, there was insufficient evidence to charge any of these persons with offences linked to the murders.” 

The Ombudsman then moved to consider the interaction between investigators and Special Branch. The underlining is mine.

“Although it is clear from police documentation that the SIO sought all relevant intelligence from Special Branch and that he utilised this intelligence from the day of the murder, the Police Ombudsman has identified failures in the non-dissemination of intelligence by Special Branch.

Intelligence is not evidence but the Police Ombudsman believes that this intelligence could have been capable of supporting new and further lines of the enquiry for the SIO, had he been made aware of them. 

That revelation will hardly come as a shock to students of the Troubles killings. My opinion is that informers were protected at all stages of investigations by SB, even if there was a suspicion that they were committing offences well beyond any “agreement” with their handlers. Apologists, like Matchett, and others, refuse to even mention that participating informants existed.

“However, aside from early arrests, the available investigative material showed that where intelligence and information which named individuals allegedly involved in the murders was passed to the RUC investigation team, limited action was taken. This investigation has been unable to establish the reason for this.”

Next comes another old standard. The inexplicable and unexplained lack of activity and curiosity by SIOs. At that point in time, ‘ordinary’ detectives were constrained and controlled by SB. Arrests could not be made without their prior consent, that was a publicly known arrangement but who knows what other ‘informal’ arrangements were in place?

It is difficult to imagine that a succession of SIOs were incompetent, inept, and downright lazy, but perhaps they were?

This, as has been pointed out in relation to my father, was two of their own; compare that to the actions of police forces worldwide when a colleague is killed.

Then comes the most important finding.
“The Police Ombudsman considered the absence of action to be significant in one particular instance where information was provided by the military. Members of the military came forward to report that a person had told them that he witnessed the murders and knew the gunmen by name. They also provided a photograph. This did not result in any new lines of enquiry. “ 

“This information highlighted a person that potentially had very significant information pertaining to the identity of the gunmen. It is not known why the SIO did not generate any enquiries emanating from this intelligence,” said Mrs Anderson.

In any murder inquiry, when the SIO is presented with an eyewitness who knew the gunmen and saw the shooting – that is gold dust. The failure to follow this up is inexplicable, save for what I have written below.

The Police Ombudsman identified further missed investigative opportunities, including inaction after the planned arrest of two people on suspicion of the murders could not take place because the area had been designated out of bounds. The police records of the investigation do not provide a rationale for why there was no further attempt to speak to or arrest these individuals. 

“Out of bounds” was a euphemism. It covered a multitude of scenarios. Genuine threats against uniformed officers, on patrol; planned operations, or SB controlling the situation for their own ends.

In view of the available evidence and information, the Police Ombudsman concurs with the concerns of Constable Beckett’s daughter about police failures to pursue evidential opportunities.

“I am of the view that the investigative failings in this case are so significant that it was incapable of leading to the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators, and therefore, was not Article 2 compliant,” concluded Mrs Anderson.

In overall conclusion, Mrs Anderson said:

“I am of the view, based on the available intelligence reviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, that there was no intelligence that, if acted upon, would have been capable of preventing the murders of Henry Babington and Constables Beckett and Meyer. 

“I believe that Henry Babington, Constable Beckett and Constable Meyer were the innocent victims of a campaign of terror mounted by republican paramilitaries. PIRA alone was responsible for the murders.” 

It may well be that PIRA was “responsible” for the murders. That is not the whole story. 

These murders were scouted, planned and as the late Ed Moloney said, were approved at the level of Martin McGuinness. It is inconceivable that one or more informers did not pick up this plan and convey it to their handlers.

Equally, it is borne out by the inexplicable failure of communication and the equally inexplicable indolence by the SIO, that other actors were at work. 

Was the person who supplied the identities of the killers well placed to know them? Was he a businessman in the area? Was he well known to police, perhaps as an informant relating to ‘ordinary’ crime? Is that why his intel vanished into thin air?

A failed and flawed investigation into two of their own. 

I do not know whether the present Chief Constable will apologise for these failings. Maybe he will say that in 1990, police were overwhelmed. Not something I recall being said at  the time.

The smart OxBridge boys and girls in the NIO will chalk this off as another One Day Wonder and get on with the task of governing the colony.

Meanwhile , I and others haven’t finished with the RUC, the PSNI or the Security Service. 

My condolences to the families of Henry Babington, Gary Myer and Harold Beckett. And especially to Constable Beckett’s daughter, who has campaigned so tirelessly.

Drew Harris – liar or incompetent?

On 6th June 1990 the Provisional IRA placed a bomb under the car of James Sefton, a RUC officer, retired three years. The subsequent explosion killed him and his wife Ellen. My parents.

I began investigating the circumstances in 2002. I started with the PSNI.  I was bounced around between senior officers , including the “salad dodger’ , before finally meeting Chief Inspector Blair, who had evidently drawn the short straw.

He told me that the papers had been stored away. He did not know who had made that decision. Nor when the papers had been stored.  He was unable to give me any details about the investigation, if that is the correct word.

In March 2004 ACC Sam Kincaid informed me that the case was being examined  by the Serious Crime Review Team. You would be unsurprised, Dear Reader to learn that I never heard a word from this ‘team’ .

I asked the Historical Enquiries Team [lots of sporting analogies] to investigate. 

I also made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman.

Each of these organisations told me that they had had access to all intelligence and there was nothing to report.

I had correspondence with Drew Harris, then ACC Crime Operations [was this not a ‘team’?] .

He wrote : “ I can assure you that both the SCRT and the HET had full access to all available information and intelligence material during the course of their respective Reviews … Regrettably, the reviews conducted …did not uncover any new investigative opportunities.”

I sent a detailed reply:

1st September 2014

Dear Mr Harris,

                                      James and Ellen Sefton

Further to your letter of 11th August and my initial reply by email on 20th August, you state in your letter :

“I can assure you that both the SCRT and the HET had full access to all available information and intelligence information during the course of their respective enquiries.”

I would be glad if you would answer the following.

  1. On what do you base this assertion. Is it personal knowledge or are you relying on assurances given by others?
  2. If  the latter, who gave you these assurances?
  3. When you use the word “available”, what do you mean? Is it meant to qualify “intelligence”.
  4. Does the use of this word “available” indicate that someone decides to make information available to the investigators and if so,  who?
  5. Does the use of the word imply that there is other relevant information which has been withheld?

Dr Laura Lundy, in her paper, Can the past be policed? Lessons from the Historical Enquiries Team Northern Ireland, conducts a critique of , inter alia, the access to intelligence. What can be distilled from her report is the following:

  • Intelligence was still being found and collated while she was conducting her research. [I note Roy McComb’s late presentation of intelligence to the Smithwick Tribunal ]
  • “All aspects of intelligence are managed by former RUC and Special Branch (sic) officers”
  • “It appears that the ‘old guard’ play a key role in the management and access to intelligence and perform a censoring role in respect of disclosure.”
  • HET relies on the goodwill of partner agencies to cooperate. This would include the security services and Special Branch, now C3.

It appears to me that there could be three types of intelligence that may have been withheld in my parents’ case.

  1. Information held by a partner  agency or by the police which points to the person who planted the device or more importantly to those persons who directed and approved the operation.
  2. Information obtained by an informant , either participating or not, pointing to those responsible for directing planning approving or carrying the attack upon my parents.
  3. Similar information acquired by electronic or other means , not involving a CHIS.

 For example if  Special Branch had decided to withhold information at the time of the murders, it is possible that the same personnel could make the same decision, many years on. Certainly Sir John Hermon had his worries about “the Branch”.

I should be glad;

[a]  if you would assure me that no information has come to light since investigations were completed ;and

[b]  that no such information as set out above has been withheld from investigators by either the PSNI or any partner agency.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Sefton

Harris did not reply to this but delegated it to Detective Chief Superintendent Hanna, who wrote: “ACC Harris has management responsibility for Serious Crime Review Team and the Historical Enquiries Team, and so his response is based on his personal knowledge that both teams had full access to all available information during the course of their reviews.”

Hanna replied to further correspondence , on 29th October 2014:

“As previously pointed out PSNI have investigated the death of your parents and reviewed the investigation twice since the original investigation, there have been no new evidential opportunities identified”

The case papers were put in a box, again, and that was the last I heard from the PSNI. 

For context, Harris was the main man re intelligence and the point of contact for the Security Service until his appointment as Commissioner of AGS.

 However on 14th  June 1990 a communication was received by the RUC from An Garda Siochana  [“AGS”] , by letter [possibly faxed] 

The content was that the AGS had received intelligence from a ‘previously reliable source’ that there were threats to three RUC officers.

Namely:

James Stepton [sic]

A N Other

A N Other -serving in Tennent Street station

The source is recorded as stating that he overheard a conversation. He also provided a sketch map, hand drawn, which was communicated AGS-RUC.

I have seen that map , on a laptop computer screen.

  • An overheard conversation is often a euphemism for being present during the conversation. A handy way for a participating informant to distance himself from the operation.
  • The informant is likely to be a participating informant.
  •  There was no  ‘James Stepton’ on the force and a cursory investigation would have led the investigator to conclude to whom the report was referring.
  • The hand drawn map is , in many respects, accurate. It is undoubtedly of the Ballygomartin area. It shows  the turn of the road from the Woodvale Road to the Ballygomartin Road, Woodvale Park, Woodvale cricket ground, Glencairn park and a number of streets and roads. Although the writing is indistinct on the screen , I am satisfied that it also depicts Lyndhurst Gardens [my family home]and Westway Drive, the street immediately to the east of Lyndhurst Gardens.
  • The proportions are incorrect but the general ‘get up’ of the map shows a degree of local knowledge , which would not have been gleaned in an overheard conversation.
  • Most strikingly, there is an ‘X’ , or asterisk , which appears to be in Glencairn park an open area, not a street, which is east of Westway Drive and a line which appears to terminate at the top of Westway Drive.
  • If the significance of this is the location and then transport of a device, it would involve the navigation of a deep gully , a small stream and a similar climb on the other side, possibly to avoid patrols and Viper. 
  • It seems to me to be a planning document, showing how a bomb could be delivered to my parents’ house, avoiding the main roads. 

The information from the AGS was disseminated to the Regional Heads of Special Branch. 

One of the other officers who was mentioned in the message served at Tennent Street station and was warned about the threat. So we know that the message was acted upon by SB. 

Why did it not form part of an investigation into my parents’  murders?

Why has Harris insisted that there was no intelligence?

I am told by the Operation Kenova team, who turned up this intelligence, that they found it , stored within the RUC/PSNI intelligence systems.

A competent investigation team would have used the intel as a starting point. The reliable informant was telling AGS that he was present  [though he distances himself by stating that he overheard it] when an PIRA ASU planned the murders of three police officers. One was actually killed. The planning obviously took place before 6th June 1990, and likely took place in the Republic, possibly in Dundalk. His evidence would support a charge of conspiracy to murder.

The Army/Security Service had a number of  informants, including Scapaticci , in place in Dundalk and other places. Was the planning meeting bugged? Who were the planners? Was the AGS informant withholding their identities? Or were their identities known to AGS and withheld from the RUC?

If nobody in the RUC SB, on receipt of the intel said, do we have a James Stepton?- no but we have a James Sefton and he’s dead then they are truly incompetent. 

What happened in respect of the third person named I know not.

Harris gave evidence about his role to the Smithwick Tribunal in 2011. He said the following:

“I am responsible for all matters of intelligence, all matters in respect of homicide investigation. At the moment, I am also—have major responsibilities in respect of what’s known as legacy matters., and I would work closely with the historical inquiry team, who are investigating Troubles -related deaths, and they have some 3,260 deaths to investigate.”

Harris was given every opportunity to come clean on what he and others knew. When I said in my letter of 1st September 2014:

“It appears to me that there could be three types of intelligence that may have been withheld in my parents’ case.

  1. Information held by a partner  agency or by the police which points to the person who planted the device or more importantly to those persons who directed and approved the operation.
  2. Information obtained by an informant , either participating or not, pointing to those responsible for directing planning approving or carrying the attack upon my parents.
  3. Similar information acquired by electronic or other means , not involving a CHIS.“

Harris was being given a clear opportunity to disclose that information existed. 

Aside from his mendaciousness, the new information demonstrates what I have always alleged- that Special Branch cared not, even for their own and that this information, in existence for thirty four years , was known to a number of James’ colleagues, not one of whom disclosed it to me.

I am considering my next steps.

Ellen

                                                       

On this day, in 1924, Ellen Jane Stewart was born, the last of four children of Frederick  and Margaret Stewart 

Her father , a successful businessman and Poor Law Guardian, died when she was just seven.

She married James Sefton in March 1949  and I arrived five days before Christmas the same year.

Ellen had a playful sense of humour, often embarrassing me as a teenager. She worked most of her adult life and for some  years she was a model for a clothing company. “ I model summer frocks in December and furs in June”.

Her joie de vivre encompassed  all humanity particularly gays and Jews and when she finally reached New York, her joy was unbounded.

I never heard her utter a bad word about anyone , her disapproval was couched as “that’s not a nice thing”.

Despite no formal education beyond the age of fourteen, she was determined that her children should succeed. Today she would be called an “aspirational parent”. She encouraged me to read  out loud from an early age and bought me innumerable books. A bit of a slow starter , I  think I finally repaid that investment. 

Looking at today’s ‘helicopter parents’ I’m amazed at how she was unfazed by my playing rugby, even coming to watch a final. She did insist on a scrum cap, though.

I asked my cousin , Valerie, who adored her, to provide some thoughts, here is what she said:

“Today on the anniversary of her birthday, I would like to share some of my memories of my beautiful Aunt, Ellen Jane Stewart Sefton.

One of my earliest memories and an example of her generosity is in 1946 while we were still using coupon books after the War, we stopped at a drapery shop and Ellen handed over her coupon book for the salesperson to cut out some coupons so I could, at age 6, have ribbons for my hair.

When I think of our time together, I remember playing dress up in her bedroom when I was about 10 years old.  Ellen was a Model and had beautiful clothes and I particularly liked her high heel shoes.  I would ask “will you keep all your shoes for me for when I grow up”.  I would “clatter” about the house wearing her shoes many sizes too big.

My Cousin often refers to his Mother’s playful sense of humour.  How true that is.  I remember when I was about 15 years old at her house and the Radio was on.  An announcement from the radio said that a Naval Fleet was in Port.  Ellen clapped her hands and said “Fleets in lets go get a Sailor”.  I thought this was a brilliant idea only to find out she was just having fun with me.

During her modelling career Ellen had many offers of dates, she would tell us about the offers but she always said she did not want to be involved with men she worked with.  I only remember two men in her life.  One was an RAF Officer the son of a neighbour.  The second was the man she married and the love of her life.

I remember every August, Ellen and Grandmother rented a house in Bangor for the month, of course I got to go with them.  They rented the same house every year.  The rental was across the street from the Tonic Cinema and we would go and see a film every week.  Ellen would say we are only going if the film is “all singing all dancing and all Technicolour”.  None of the kitchen sink dramas that came out after the War for her

.

Summer nights in Ellen’s back garden.  She would make a cake before joining Grandmother and me in the garden.  We would come back into the house at about 8pm and eat the cake while it  was still hot, putting butter on it and drinking lots of tea.  Ellen called the cake “my world famous boiled cake”.  I wish I had the recipe for that cake as it would be a further reminder of her.

One of my school friends lived on a Farm and Ellen and I were invited every April to pick Lilacs which they grew at the Farm.  We would bring arms full of them back to the house and fill every vase.  The smell of Lilacs wafted all over the house.

I moved to New York in February 1979 and in May of the same year Ellen came to visit.  She loved New York and its people we met on our travels every day during her visit.

I took her to visit the posh Hamptons on Eastern Long Island where a great number of actors had homes.  Ellen, tall, slim and blonde, turned heads as we walked down the streets of Southampton and Sag Harbor.

Before Ellen left New York for home, she bought several trees for me.  It was like old times planting together.  She said “I hope they do well and I look forward to seeing them on my next visit”.  .Every tree she planted thrived, but sadly she was never to return to see them.

I came back to Belfast for the Funeral and stopped by a Florist to buy flowers for her casket.  I asked for Lilacs because I knew she would like that.  The Florist reminded me that Lilacs are at their best in April and May and are mostly gone by June.  I thought, the Lilacs are gone in June and so is she.

I miss my beautiful Aunt,  She had a great capacity for love.  She loved her husband, she loved her two children, she loved her Mother and she loved me, for which I will be forever grateful.”

Valerie Stewart Torrens

Atlanta, Georgia

March 11, 2024

” The one who plants trees, knowing that she will never sit in their shade, understands the meaning of life” Anon

Ellen, in later years , was devoted to her mother, who died , aged 92 in 1986.

After that, she and my father had a brief few years together, holidaying  improving their home and enjoying their grandchildren , until her death on 7th June 1990. She had faith, her minister described her as a “straight up and down Church of Ireland worshipper”.

Her sixty six years were blameless and filled with joy.

A devoted daughter, wife , mother, grandmother and aunt, the love she left behind shines on today.

An inextinguishable flame.

Flushing out the Special Branch

 

 

Readers of this blog will know that my basic premise is that , my parents’ murders included, the State permitted or acquiesced in the deaths of its citizens “for the greater good”.

Let me again follow the logic.

You are a handler. Your tout/informer/agent-it matters not on the nomenclature, has risen to an important role within PIRA. He is part of the targeting, planning and execution process. He is telling you who are in the ASUs, who the Quartermaster is, where the explosives are stored and who is making the bombs.  If you act on this information, you could disrupt activity by seizing the Semtex. You will have no evidence to put before a court , because the Supergrass system has been discredited and in any event your informer is unwilling to give evidence.

Alternatively, you could act to thwart the operations that your informer tells you about. After a few failures, PIRA are going to put two and two together and that’s the end of your informer.

So , in the grand scheme, some attacks have to get through.

A value judgement has to be made. Who do we sacrifice “for the greater good”?

Not Bobby Carswell, Jeffrey Donaldson, Gerry Adams, Brian Gillen or …

 

As the former head of MI5 said, life can be messy.

Some unimportant people have to be sacrificed to protect the informer. The higher up in the chain of command is the informer, the greater the ‘product’ and the greater the need to protect him.

That’s my theory, Dear Reader. So let’s test some aspects of it.

What rules applied to RUC Special Branch prior to 2000?

Let’s get it from the horse’s mouth. After my last blog was republished on a site called Expose the Republican Narrative a contributor , calling himself “Angus McTavish” offered a riposte.

I have found out  who this person is, but I’m going to call him, for the purposes of debate “Jonty”.

Jonty has taken the time to offer rebuttal to most of my points, though he fails  to recognise some tongue in cheek humour. But never mind.

He does , however , provide a window into the world of Special Branch, which he says he inhabited for a quarter of a century.

This is what he says about the rules.

 

“De Siva
4.5 – at the risk of repeating myself, De Silva seems to recognise a fact that has escaped the attention of both Nuala O’Loan and Michael Maguire, when they fail to recognise sufficiently, that intelligence agents, in order to operate as agents, must show support for the aims and objectives of their terrorist grouping. Furthermore, they must, if they are to be trusted within that group, carry out at least some actions which could be described as terrorist activity. Prior to RIPA (2000), this tactical imperative was conducted under the broad scope of agent handling tradecraft and regulated by the oversight of senior officers within RUCSB. It is recognised under RIPA (2000) as legal, justified and necessary deployment of CHIS/agents/touts, call them what you will. “

 

 

He goes on:

 

  • Informers/handlers were allowed to commit crimes, including murder – “In the pursuance of a goal of public safety, agents were indeed permitted by handlers to support terrorist groups and even on occasions to engage in criminal activity on their behalf. This behaviour was neither a crime by the agent or the handler and was finally given legal protection in 2000 under RIPA. Murder was not permitted and despite the best investigative efforts of journalists galore, Human Rights organisations (both legitimate and utterly biased), the PONI and several historical inquiries and reviews, not one handler has indeed ever been prosecuted, which in itself provides strong evidence that the claims made both here and on a multitude of previous occasions, are baseless. Any evidence to the contrary, has yet to be uncovered and the mantra is wearing distinctly thin now.”

So let’s deal with Jonty’s argument. The agent must carry out “terrorist activity” and “even on occasions to engage in criminal activity on their behalf” in order  to survive. “Murder was not permitted”, says Jonty. I wonder where that is in his rule book?

Prior to RIPA the United Kingdom’s Home Office guidelines on the use of informants was the only policy the  Special Branch  had to follow. The guidelines stated the police should never use an informant to encourage another to commit a crime; police officers should not counsel, incite, or procure the commission of a crime and protecting informants does not grant the informant immunity from arrest or prosecution for the crime they fully participate in.

 

Here is the full text. The typos and strange layout are original.

 

“Our rcfncncc: POL/ 69 1050/1/1

Four rtftrtnct:

HOME OFFICE

Horsefcrry House, Dean Ryie Street, London S.W.i

Telex: 24986

Telephone: 01-834 6655, ext.

 

12th May. L969

 

Dear Chief Constable,

HOME OFFICE CIRCULAR NO, 97/1969

Informants who take part in crime

 

The Home Secretary’s attention has been drawn to judicial comment in the appeal of Cork, Colman and Macro and to criticism of police action in several other cases involving police use of informants who took part in crime . He sought information about police practice from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and through H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary. The Central Conference on 6th March gave an opportunity for a general discussion of practices and principles.

 

2* The Conference fully recognised that informants, properly employed, were

essential to criminal investigation and that, within limits, they ought to be protected. The risks attached to their employment were obvious, however, and safeguards were needed before use was made of an informant taking part in crime.

The Conference appreciated that circumstances varied so widely that it was difficult- to establish rules of general application; but the discussion

 identified the principles listed in the next paragraph.

 

  1. The Conference in general agreed on the following points.

 

(a) No member of a police force, and no police informant, should counsel,

incite or procure the commission of a crime.

 

(b) Where an informant gives the police information about the intention of

others to commit a crime in which they intend that he shall play a part,

his participation should be allowed to continue only. where :-

 

(i) he does not actively engage in planning and committing the crime;

 

(ii) he is intended to play only a minor role; and

 

(iii) his participation is essential to enable the police to frustrate

the principal criminals and to arrest them (albeit for lesser offences

such as attempt or conspiracy to commit the crime, or carrying of

weapons) before injury is done to any person or serious damage to

property.

 

The informant should always be instructed that he must on no account act

as agent provocateur , whether by suggesting to others that they should commit offences or encouraging them to do so, and that if he is found to have done so he will himself be liable to prosecution.

Ac) ,

The Chi- f Constable

(c) The police must never commit themselves to a course which, whether to

protect an informant or otherwise, will constrain them to mislead a court  

in any subsequent proceedings* This must always be regarded as a prime

consideration when deciding whether, and in what manner, an informant may be used and how far, if at all, he is to be allowed to take part in an offence.

If his use in the way envisaged will, or is likely to, result in its being

impossible to protect him without subsequently misleading the court, that must be regarded as a decisive reason for his not being so used or not being

protected.

(d) The need to protect an informant does not justify granting him immunity

from arrest or prosecution for the crime if he fully participates in it    with the requisite intent (still less in respect of any other crime he has committed or may in future commit),

(e) The handling of informants calls for the judgment of an experienced

officer, there must be complete confidence and frankness between

supervising officers and subordinates, and every chief officer of police

 should ensure effective supervision of his detectives; a decision to use a participating

informant should be taken at senior level.

 

(f) Payment to informants from public funds should be supervised by a

Senior officer.

 

(g) Where an informant has been used who has taken part in the commission

of a crime for which others have been arrested, the prosecuting solicitor,

counsel, and (where he is concerned) the Director of Public Prosecutions

should be informed of the fact and of the part that the informant took in the commission of the offence, although, subject to (c) above, not

necessarily of his identity.

(h) Careful instruction should be given to detectives in training.

 

  1. The Home Secretary fully endorses these broad principles. He feels sure that

they are already widely applied in the police service; but in view of recent public

interest he thinks it right to bring them to the notice of all chief officers of police. He asks that you will find means of commending them to everyone who may be concerned in your force. He has instructed H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary to pay particular attention, in the course of their inspections, to the arrangements made in police forces for supervision and training in these matters.

 

Yours sincerely,”

 

Here is what Chief Constable George Hamilton said in a speech in may of this year:

“The problem was much bigger and more complex than the “few bad apples” analogy that has been articulated previously. In the absence of any regulatory framework for managing “agents” police officers were left to set their own standards, they were unaccountable to the law because there was no law. They were unaccountable to their fellow citizens. Policing was being done in a vacuum that allowed unregulated practice. Honest individuals were placed in impossible situations, having to choose between bad and worse. Many people lived; but some people also died as a result of that practice.

The environment in which they worked was chaotic – terrorist attacks were happening on a daily basis, and many lives were being lost. Investigations struggled to keep pace with the rate of murder and serious injury.  The pressure was extreme. In these extraordinarily difficult and dangerous circumstances, the intent with which the vast majority of decisions were made was for the protection of the community. But they were, on many occasions, decisions and judgements that should not have been taken; and, I believe, would not have been taken if there had been a proper regulatory framework in place.

The RUC recognised the almost impossible situation they were in and the Da Silva Review makes reference to the fact that the RUC had asked Government for a framework, guidance or legislation on many occasions. Nothing was forthcoming.”

 

First, he is wrong and completely misleading to suggest there were no rules, secondly he appears to admit that agents were allowed to kill or be involved in killing.

Additionally, Northern Ireland had an interesting piece of legislation. The Criminal Law Act  (Northern Ireland) 1967, Section 5.

 

Penalties for concealing offences etc.

(1)Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, where a person has committed [F1a relevant offence]F1, it shall be the duty of every other person, who knows or believes—

(a)that the offence or some [F2other relevant offence]F2 has been committed; and

(b)that he has information which is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for that offence;

to give that information, within a reasonable time, to a constable and if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment according to the gravity of the offence about which he does not give that information, as follows:—

(i)if that offence is one for which the court is required by law to sentence an offender to death or to imprisonment for life or to detention during the pleasure of the Governor of Northern Ireland, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than ten years;

(ii)if it is one for which a person (of full age and capacity and not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than seven years;

(iii)if it is not one included above but is one for which a person (of full age and capacity and not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years;

(iv)in any other case, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than three years.

So Jonty is wrong in so many ways.

  • There were rules
  • The rules did not permit the carrying out of continuous crimes by agents
  • Handlers broke the law if they turned a blind eye
  • RIPA did not provide legal protection for criminality by agents

The awful truth is that Special Branch were told that the “ordinary” rules regarding informers or agents did not apply to them.

 

I’m sure Dear Reader , you will look forward to a cogent reply from Jonty, Dr William or Dr Tim or any other member of the RUC who claims to have been at the cutting edge of Special Branch.

 

Next up for the blog will be a demolition of George’s recent speech.

Jeffrey Donaldson’s new car

Following on from my last blog on this, I have test driven the new model, that Jeffrey recommends.

This is the one that the populace are asked to buy,  by way of a “consultation”.

The draft Bill  is 68 clauses long, and it has 19 schedules. It runs to 120 pages. The section on the HIU has 38 clauses and 16 schedules.

Jeffrey,  is the DUP’s spokesman on victims’ issues, so we might assume that he knows what he is talking about.

Lets look at some of the things he has said in Parliament about the establishment of the HIU.

“At present, in fairness to the victims and families who have waited a long time, the proposal is that the historical investigations unit would pick up where the historical inquiries team left off in chronological order. It would be wrong to go back to the beginning and start again, leaving the people who have already waited many years having to wait even longer.”

What does the draft legislation say? Clause 8; deaths must be investigated in chronological order [unless there are exceptional circumstances] . So nul points for that statement.

“It is important that the Government now proceed with the Stormont House agreement and get on with publishing the draft legislation to give innocent victims and others the opportunity to comment on the proposals, so that at last we can begin the process of implementing what has been agreed and the focus will no longer be solely on what the state did.”

This is a consultation, not an opportunity to comment on proposals. Here is a brief summary of what that means:

(1) consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage (2) the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response, and (3) adequate time must be given for consideration and response and (4) that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals.

So its not just as simple as Jeffrey would like it to be. What if citizens reject the proposal? Jeffrey asserts that it has been agreed. So is this consultation a sham and a waste of time?

“We endorse the institutions proposed under the agreement, including a new historical investigations unit that would have full police powers, and would take over the work of the PSNI’s legacy investigation branch and the responsibility for reinvestigating the unsolved murders linked to the troubles in Northern Ireland.”

“Two years ago, we reached an agreement in Stormont about the legacy issues and several new institutions were proposed, including an historical investigations unit that would have full police powers to revisit the unsolved murders. The main impact of the establishment of that unit would be that the murders committed by the terrorists would finally be subjected to proper scrutiny and reinvestigation, and the innocent victims that the hon. Member for South Down referred to would have the opportunity to have their cases re-examined to see whether there was the prospect of prosecution and people being brought to justice.”

It’s important to couple these statements, representing a bright shining JeffreyLand and compare them against reality. Here is what the Bill proposes:

Not all troubles related deaths are to be investigated. A time frame has been specified.

Only those which are currently on the books of the PSNI or the PONI will be considered. So if you relative’s case is not with either of these bodies, generally speaking you will not qualify.

Each of these bodies must certify to the HIU that the death requires further investigation. Many will not be so certified and will therefore not be investigated.

HIU is only  to investigate any of these deaths it takes on  if there is “new evidence”

This means evidence that PSNI/RUC or PONI or HIU  did not know of or knew of but was not aware of the relationship between the evidence and the death.

But. The new evidence is to be assessed for credibility and the evidence is to be taken into account with all other relevant information.

So if the HIU thinks the evidence is weak or it is leaned upon by the Spooks , you case will also fall by the wayside.

The Shawcross test is certainly present in Clause 7, where the HIU must not do anything which might prejudice the national security interests of the UK, put at risk the life or safety of any person. This is the get-out to protect informers, who were present or participated in many of the murders.

The suggested presence of informers is a feature of many troubles murders. Some also may involve participating informants. To date these cases have not been solved because of the State’s activity in hiding these persons. The State will continue to hide them.

There seems to be no mechanism for a relative or interested person to make a fresh complaint to the HIU.

The HIU is forbidden from duplicating work. So the HIU could read the papers from the PSNI or the PONI, decide that it will not duplicate the work, that there is no new evidence and bin the case.

Let’s assume that the HIU considers that maybe there is an agent or informer or some State actor. It has no access to the Spooks’ warehouses. It has to ask for information. If you don’t know what the Spooks have got then it’s hard to ask for it. On the other hand the Spooks are under no obligation to hand over information, no matter how relevant it might be.

This could have been [partially] resolved by giving HIU unlimited access to the warehouses. How likely is that?

Worse, the Secretary of State  and the Department of Justice  can both make regulations limiting the use of secrets.

As a general weapon, the HIU director can bin cases under clause 9 if he feels that they will hinder the completion of his task in five years.

So, how more effective will the HIU be, compared to PSNI/LIB or PONI?

The answer is , not a lot. The Bill is State sponsored sleight of hand. All the faults of the HET , the LIB and the PONI HID are present here. Worse, the State has tightened up the control of State secrets, so informers and agents are better protected than ever. How many cases will be investigated? Nobody knows  but it certainly will not be Jeffrey’s assertion that:

“the innocent victims that the hon. Member for South Down referred to would have the opportunity to have their cases re-examined to see whether there was the prospect of prosecution and people being brought to justice.”

If I were guessing the number would be in the hundreds, not thousands.

Jeffrey, as the DUP victims’ expert,   is knowingly  selling the same old model of car [HET/LIB/HID] , with a new paint job, a radio and go-faster stripes. It still handles badly, takes ages to get anywhere and lets you down at the vital moment.

Don’t buy it!

 

 

 

 

 

Sinister forces at work in Northern Ireland

In his novel  “1984”, George Orwell wrote:

“Hardly a week passed in which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak-‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used-had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.”

A recent Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism campaign encouraged law-abiding citizens to look through each others’ bins to check for “suspicious items such as chemical bottles and to report any troubling findings to the police” Fake blondes-hide that peroxide bottle! I’ve struggled to find the Troubling Findings Act.

China’s Ministry of Supervision has a discipline watchdog which opened the “unified informant hotline” for the public to report discipline offences of civil servants and officials.

Eavesdropping and informing on each other to the Stasi was a way of life in East Germany.

Stalin’s regime relied on “mutual surveillance” urging families to report on each other about ‘disloyalty’.

So how grateful must we be to live in a liberal democracy.

Not so. This blog is not about the programme of informers during the Troubles. Like Scap, Donaldson , Sean Maguire and Brian Gillen, they got their money and , those still alive are living a comfortable life, protected by the British State.

This blog is about what is happening in our communities  now. It is about democracy, freedom of speech and the ability to protest.

Many Loyalist areas of Belfast have taken the Queen’s Shilling in return for compliance. The Greater Shankill is an example of that. The killing of Bobby Moffett has been swept under the carpet so long as  the locals support the GFA. The Spectrum Centre doles out nearly a million pounds  each year ,to the locals in wages. The UVF and Arlene are at peace.

Other communities are not GFA supporters. The result is that they are subject to harassment by the PSNI, as an arm of the State. Frequent use of the Terrorism Act 2000, in dubious circumstances. Searches of legitimate community facilities for “loyalist paraphernalia”. The stop and search of  individuals on a regular basis, in breach of the codes of practice. Stops by ‘Road Policing’ with bogus allegations of no insurance or road tax.

It’s not a crime, of course, to oppose the GFA.

Or is it?

Lets read a new document. It is entitled:

“THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE (ON BEHALF OF THE TACKLING PARAMILITARISM PROGRAMME BOARD)

Building capacity in communities in Transition Project (2017-2021)

Information Memorandum

Tenders are invited to support the delivery of this project.”

The programme “is committed to promoting the use of peaceful and democratic means and upholding the rule of law across all communities”

So consider this , Dear Reader. In the proposals which tenderers can make , is the requirement that they show an “outline of how information will be shared with police on individuals who do not support transition”

“Transition” is not defined anywhere.

The Board is chaired by the Department of Justice and is comprised of civil servants and the PSNI.

So , if you want to get your community nose  into this particular trough you will have to undertake to snitch on those who are not supporting “transition”.

“Feed your Snout-be a Tout” might be the catch phrase.

Of course , the document is keen to espouse the rule of law.  The rule of law encompasses ‘no punishment without law’.

What law is being broken which requires the citizen to “share information” with the PSNI about an individual who does not support transition?

The answer is that this programme , aside from offering monetary bribes, further undermines the rule of law. The PSNI willingly particpates , not only by harassment but by being part of the supervising body. The Stasi would be impressed.

The lesson is that you can be a paramilitary as long as you are a State approved-GFA loving paramilitary. Otherwise you are in big trouble.

It’s unlikely that any mainstream politician will put his/her head over the much funded parapet about this.

Approximately  one third of the workforce depend on the State for their mortgage. In addition, vast swathes of the middle classes , including journalists ,are paid fees by the BBC, the Housing Executive and every other public body for services rendered. The country is in the grip of the Security Service, forget about Brokenshire. Even Stalin would be impressed with such a compliant body, when it is allied to the likes of the Greater Shankill Partnership Soviet.

It’s hard not to conclude that democracy  and freedom of speech died in Northern Ireland years ago.

 

 

The Greater Shankill Scam

The Greater Shankill Partnership [“GSP”] is masterminded from the Spectrum Centre.

The Greater Shankill Neighbourhood Renewal Plan was ‘declared’ in 2007.

[NB. It is always important to apply imposing names to these matters.]

Who and what is the ‘Greater Shankill’?

It’s an area of North Belfast, mostly the Protestant bit, though 12% may be Roman Catholic. Its population is 18,028, at the last census.

In the last year that figures are available, the GSP spent £974,000 on wages.

It has produced an “Action Plan” for 2017-2018. This plan has achieved legitimacy because it was approved by the “Greater Shankill Community Convention” and adopted by “the area’s Neighbourhood Partnership”.

So there! When I think of the Convention I think of Revolutionary France. How those delegates in the Spectrum Centre must have questioned the management!

Before examining the plan , let’s examine some statistics.

The percentage seeking jobseekers allowance has increased from 7% in 2003 to 10.8% in 2014. Much greater than the general populace.

Income support has also increased compared to the outside world.

Education

Those in the area achieving Key Stage 1 level 2 or above in maths fell from 92.2% in 2005/6 to 85.4% in 2011/12. The national figure in 2011/12 was 95.8%.

In English, on the same basis, the GSP figure for 2011/12 was 82.3% ; the national figure was 94.8%.

Not so bad , you might think. But consider the next statistic.

At least 5 GCSE passes at A*-C including English and maths. In 2007/08 the GSP figure was 18.9%. This showed a significant improvement to 36.5% in 2012/13. But the national figure that year was 65.9%, almost double.

The GSP don’t even bother with A level statistics.

How many children are we talking about? It would appear that the figure of those of school age is significantly under 2,000, perhaps 1,700.

So, what’s the plan?

Well, this organisation which employs over fifty people and spends nearly one million pounds a year on wages, doesn’t really have one.

Here’s their action plan for 2017/18.

They are going to “engage in conversations with 100 children and young people”. They are going to “audit ” services. They are going to give “sustained support co-ordinated for 100 children and young people”.
They are going to “Establish a platform for the Zone’s development and implementation”, and continue working with QUB.
At this point in time , Dear Reader, your bullshit detector may be tweeting.
Don’t you love a “platform” “implementation” and the addition of a pretty discredited university?
You are correct. There is not one word as to how this plan will be measured for success or not.
Meantime those fifty plus people, including some who are paid well above the national average, will keep their jobs, slaving away in the Spectrum Centre.
That’s over £500 for every child of school age on the Shankill.
If you desire some acupuncture it’s free but if you want your child to avail of the summer programme for moving to secondary school, it will cost you £10. This must say something about the management.
But there is worse!
Glenwood Primary School is yards from the Spectrum Centre.
The Education and Training Inspectorate report conclusion in January 2013 stated:
“In almost all of the areas inspected, the quality of education provided in this school is inadequate; the areas for improvement outweigh the strengths in the provision. The inspection has identified significant areas for improvement in leadership and management, standards, and learning and teaching which need to be addressed urgently if the school is to meet effectively the needs of the all the children.”
A subsequent report , in May 2104 , concluded:
“In the areas inspected, the quality of education provided by this school is now good. The school has important strengths in most of its educational (and pastoral) provision. The inspection has identified an area for improvement which the school has demonstrated the capacity to address.
There remains the need to:

• continue to raise the standards achieved in literacy and numeracy and embed the good practice which has begun.

The Education and Training Inspectorate will monitor, through district inspection activity, the school’s progress on the area for improvement.”

It is truly astonishing that those who were governors of this school in the relevant years, allowed it to sink to a position where the ETI had to intervene.

So let’s wait a year and see what the Spectrum Centre produces for those 1,700 or so children of the deprived Shankill.

Aside from their own salaries and pensions.

Belfast Royal Academy-a new chapter?

Belfast Royal Academy , the oldest school in the city, has a new Principal.

The school has about 1,400 pupils in the grammar school, about 196 of whom are entitled to free school meals.

Its A level performance has been deteriorating over the last four years. Department statistics show that the percentage of pupils achieving three or more A levels at grades A* -C fell from 78% in 2012/13 through 70%-73%-71% in subsequent years.

This compares [although those who know more about these things, say ‘not really’] with the top performing secondary schools in Northern Ireland which achieve in the upper 80% or in some cases over 90%.

In its  2012 Annual Report, mention is made of sending three pupils to the ancient universities. Thereafter , there is sparse mention of more than one such achievement, annually. The Methodist College sent 8 pupils to OxBridge in 2013/14.

Standards have clearly fallen within the school. This is always, ultimately , the responsibility of the Board of Governors.

The Board has appointed Mrs Hilary Woods as Principal. She was , for three years, Principal of Antrim Grammar School. During that relatively short tenure , for a Head, she was also  [for some period] Assistant Principal of Craigavon Senior High School.

 

Antrim Grammar’s performance in the comparative A level statistics is 77%-76%-77%-76%. It is not 80% as claimed by the school’s website. [Read the very small print]

Mrs Woods was Head of a school half the size of BRA, with about 52 pupils on free school meals and a budget of £3 million, largely controlled by the Education Authority. She had about 46 teachers.

She now takes command of a budget of over £6 million and 80 staff.

She is the first external appointment to the position of Principal since 1943. She faces a daunting task, to restore and indeed to improve academic standards.

As the Warden said to me “a new chapter”.

Let’s hope so.

Twenty seven years ago

On this day, twenty seven years ago , the PIRA bomb team, which I have publicly named, [ all of whom are still alive, some active in the SF/IRA election campaign in North Belfast] killed my father and so wounded my mother that she died the next day.

Let’s focus on  my mother, Ellen Sefton, aged 66, retired. Her only connection to “the conflict ” as SF/IRA now call it, was to be married to my father and to be a Protestant. No words of apology were ever uttered  by PIRA about her  death. She was the subject of a sectarian assassination involving collusion by the State, no different to those killings suggested by republicans. In all the forty years I knew her she never uttered a word against Roman Catholics. She was ahead of her time. She  befriended gays and Jews and loved the  heady atmosphere of New York. She loved its words and its freedom. She loved her family. She looked after  her mother till she died at 92.  She was full of life. She was my biggest fan. Perhaps that’s why it hurts so much.

Twenty seven years on , the State campaign of ‘forgive and forget’ is still being waged. Useful young idiots , solicitors, businessmen etc. are tapped up with promises of places on NGOs, slap up dinners, and photographs with the great and the good; if only they would embrace the “Peace Process”. The hurt and damage that these people cause  is beyond measure.

For all of these 27 years the State has lied to me, about the big stuff, its involvement  with PIRA, with Libya -and about the little stuff, who knew what about  UCBTs. The State knows who killed my parents, why would they not? They had so many informers that  by 1990 they had over run PIRA. So why don’t they come clean? What dead hand prevents disclosure? Who protects the like of Sean Maguire? To what end?

Who could believe the British Government about any security issue, old or current? A lesson that many of us have learned and many of the relatives of  the dead of Manchester and London will soon learn. Nothing is ever as it seems and the State will always lie to you.

I miss my parents every day.

I’ll continue to fight for them till my dying breath. It has cost me every material thing  I owned  but that doesn’t matter.

If I don’t do it , who will?

And I still own myself….