It is useful to set out the correspondence in extenso. [Lawyers love Latin, no more so than Lord Carswell, that Old Instonian, whose surprising expenses claims for attendance at the House of Lords were set out in extenso in the Sunday Times.]
But I digress.
Here is the correspondence.
What is surprising about this exchange , coming in late 1988, is the pessimism shown by Peter Bell.
Note his comment “there still remains too much adhoccery in the way Whitehall grips…the kind of problem which IRA terrorism is likely to present us with over the coming months”.
Ivor Roberts has no firm proposals, in reply, except for a jolly good lunch. [Your club or mine?]
The exchange does not sit well with the analysis by those who say that by this point PIRA was heavily infiltrated and was being paralysed.
It does, however , point to the likelihood that each of the agencies, RUC , Box and Army , were very much doing their own thing with informers. That leads on to the question whether or not the RUC, with a duty to preserve life, could ever have known if informers to the Army and Box were participating in murder.
Re the Boyd Group, TOP [I] and the Assessment Staff Machinery, that is all for another day, Dear Reader.