Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label MI5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MI5. Show all posts
Phil Miller - writing in Declassified UK. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

6-December-2021

A veteran of colonial policing in India and Malaya advised Northern Irish officers how to tackle the IRA in the 1970s. The authorities refuse to release his report but one security insider is willing to talk about it.

A British court has ruled that a review of undercover policing compiled by MI5 at the height of the Troubles nearly 50 years ago will stay secret.

The verdict marks the end of a freedom of information battle between Northern Ireland’s police and Declassified UK.

It comes as a blow to legacy campaigners and bereaved families who hoped the report could shed light on alleged collusion between the Royal Ulster Constabulary’s (RUC) Special Branch and loyalist (pro-British) paramilitary gangs.

The dossier was drawn up by Jack Morton, a former MI5 director and colonial counter-insurgency veteran. He was called out of retirement by the head of MI5 who picked him for “special duties in Northern Ireland”.

Morton spent eight weeks in the summer of 1973 reviewing “the organisation, staffing and equipment” of RUC Special Branch in the fight against Irish republicans who wanted to end British rule over Northern Ireland.

Continue reading @ Declassified UK.

MI5 Report On Troubles To Stay Secret, Court Rules

Alex McCrory writes of the PSNI playing the same dirty tricks that became such a defining feature of it  back in the day when it went under its old name the RUC.

Recently an article appeared on The Carnary about my ongoing trial written by Peter Kearney. It covered some of the evidential aspects of the case relating to voice analysis and the destruction of evidence. I feel some further elaboration of the issues is required as the trial reaches a critical stage. It is only natural that I come at this from a defence perspective.

There were two voice experts for the Crown in this case: Professor French and Dr Kirchubble. How two experts came to be involved was as a result of Professor French misidentifying a voce of the tape, allegedly that of Harry Fitzsimons, with that of another person not before the court. Dr Kirchubble was brought in to explain how this fundamental error occurred. As she was an employee of French at the time, she was basically attempting to correct her boss's mistake. Unsurprisingly, she reached the same conclusions saying the mistake was with an 'margin of error'. A convenient excuse, if I may do so.
 
But the inherent flaws of the voice analysis is deeper than the misidentification. From the outset, the experts were provided with a police transcript that named the three defendants as suspects. Additionally, large portions of speech was attributed to each of the three accused, and all of this before the experts commenced their analysis. In their evidence, the experts admitted to having had relied of the police transcript throughout the course of their work, with the exception of the first of seven drafts that were produced. 

As the analysis was being carried out, French and Kirchubble partook in a 'collective listening' exercise with the investigating officers. The evidence showed they had discussed the recordings and compared notes. Neither the expert nor police officers kept a record of precisely what occurred at that meeting. But, clearly, they were in cahoots.

At the end of giving his evidence, Prof French opined that he would not do the voice analysis the same way today. When asked by the judge why not, he said he would be careful to remove contextual bias, i.e. he would not introduce the police transcript until later stage in the process. Kirchubble also accept that she was susceptible to the same cognitive biss because of her use of the police transcript when compiling her reports. 

The role of an expert is to provide independent and impartial evidence to the court free from any external influence.

Another point touched on in the article is the defence claim that MI5 destroyed the original evidence. As with the Craigavon Two, the devices in this case were wiped clean within 24-hours of being retrieved and downloaded onto USB sticks. The net effect of this is that it is impossible to compare what was originally captured on the devices with the contents of the USBs. 

Strangely, the MI5 operative who downloaded the devices had no personal recollection of wiping them, although he said it had to have been wiped by him in the circumstances. According to his evidence, it is a matter of MI5 policy to wipe devices for redeployment purposes. Apparently, MI5 is not concerned with the retention of evidence which is a basic legal requirement. 

And it gets better: the computer that was used to download the recordings onto the USB sticks was also destroyed. Short of having access to the devices themselves, which the court previously ruled out, the computer was the only other link between the devices and the USB sticks. All this has put the defence in the impossible position of not being able to independently verify the recordings. 

The Canary article mentions the discovery of malware/viruses on the two of the USB sticks, but not on the third one, which has simply vanished into thin air. Since all three USBs allegedly were created at the same time using the same computer, the absence of the viruses on the third stick is a mystery. It is suggestive of a separate process about which nothing is known. 

Basically, the malware offered third-party access to the computer and/or the devices with the ability to edit or alter the data. A defence expert in the field of computer technology opined that the very existence of the viruses undermined the integrity of the evidence. 

These are some of the matters being disputed; there are others.

Alec McCrory is on trial in a Diplock Court
in Belfast where PSNI evidence tampering is the real story 

PSNI & Evidence Manipulation

Fra Hughes ✒ According to the BBC, “MI5 has up to 700 staff in Northern Ireland based at regional headquarters in Holywood, County Down.

It took over the lead role in intelligence gathering on ‘dissident republicans’ from the police in 2007. The operational framework was set out as part of the St Andrews Agreement a year earlier.”

On its web site, MI5 (the Security Service) claims to have had fewer than fifty operatives working out of Stormont Castle during the “Troubles.” As republicans can testify, they faced a plethora of state agents and state intelligence agencies during their “war of liberation,” including the police Special Branch, the Military Reaction Force, Force Research Unit, SAS, and who knows what other shadowy agencies that played a part in the dark and dangerous world of spies and informers.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland, and before that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, led the state’s fight against the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army. It ran agents and informers who gathered information on both loyalist and republican proscribed organisations, including the Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Volunteer Force, and Red Hand Commando.

Together with accusations of the “shoot to kill” policy against republicans by Margaret Thatcher, coupled with persistent and proven cases of state collusion with loyalist murder gangs, the role of the state security apparatus was, first and foremost, the battle to marginalise and eradicate the threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom posed by militant republicans, battling to end Britain’s colonial occupation of the north-east of Ireland.

This is borne out by the leading role MI5 plays in securing the state of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. MI5 has sole responsibility for operational jurisdiction here against “dissident republicans,” while the PSNI retains primacy over loyalist paramilitary activities as well as ordinary crime.

Republicans are viewed as a threat to the state, but apparently loyalists are not; in fact they may be deemed at times an asset to the state—a local militia?

The whole thrust of British state intelligence work, with a budget of possibly billions, is directed solely against republicans, north and south of the border that partitioned Ireland on behalf of British interests in 1922.

Republicans and nationalists have always claimed that the security services and security forces operated here with impunity, using torture, false imprisonment and shoot-to-kill operations alongside extrajudicial murders and covert state executions.

Now many people in both Ireland and the United Kingdom see the new Security Bill brought before Parliament as the next phase of Britain’s dubious and at times discredited security operation in Ireland. This act of Parliament may well be a “get out of jail” card for MI5 operatives and others who flout the law, break the law, and commit such crimes as recruitment to proscribed organisations, procurement of arms and ammunition, entrapment, incitement to maim and murder, directing terrorism, and prosecuting a war against the state in order to protect the state.

It is my opinion that this new legislation will allow MI5 to operate even more aggressively, immorally and illegally against republicans by becoming not only judge, jury and executioner but also the recruiter, organiser and promoter of dissident republican activity, by using its embedded assets, both inserted and recruited as agents provocateurs within these organisations.

The rationale is not to defeat its enemies but to create an endless conveyor belt of young and old republicans being sent to Maghaberry Jail and Hyde Bank prison while securing massive funds for its operation, in effect creating a perfect storm of intercepted missions and compromised leaders and a perceived continued threat to the peace talks and the Belfast Agreement, the bogey man and woman of Irish republicanism.

When is the state protecting itself, and by extension its citizens, from a militarised threat and when is it promoting, using and funding that threat?

There are numerous examples of assets within organisations, legal and illegal, being used to promote illegal activity. These cases have been well documented by the CND movement, socialist organisations, and civil society groups, involving deep-cover agents—some of whom had physical relationships with those they were spying on, in order to cement their place in the group—and incited violence in order to brand them as criminal and militant in the eyes of the public.

Undercover informants working for the police and MI5 are going to be explicitly permitted for the first time under British law to commit crimes. This will legalise what many believe has already happened in Britain’s dirty war against Irish republicans.

Always remember, the crimes the British establishment commit on the Irish people will eventually be used against its own citizenry.

Thankfully, elements within the British political class are standing against this new legalised criminality; but their voices are few.

Will the trial involving Dennis McFadden, MI5’s star witness against the alleged leadership of the New IRA, and the Palestinian Dr Issam Hijawwi Basalat be the first showcase trial where an undercover operative admits being involved in illegal activity, previously held to be criminal but now to be accepted as the hard face of Britain’s fight against international terrorism?

Why has this legislation been brought forward at this time?

Will it be used in the trial of Teresa May’s would-be assassin, entrapped and possibly set up by the state?

Is it to help keep Dennis McFadden and others out of jail?

The “Covert Human Resources Bill” must be opposed by all those who defend democracy. Entrapment by the state will become a tool for criminalising individuals, groups and communities opposed to the state and for creating false-flag attacks on society, to manipulate public opinion in favour of the state narrative.

Licensed To Kill

Village ➨ The legacy of Chris Ryder, the former Sunday Times (ST) journalist who passed away last Friday, is not one to be proud of.

 
He was one of a number of journalists who helped MI5 and the RUC’s Special Branch cover up the rape of children who had fallen into the grip of a paedophile gang that revolved around Kincora Boys’ Home. Some of them were as young as 10-years of age. 

His negligence also nearly led to the death of a British agent in the IRA called Louis Hammond in 1973. The Hammond fiasco appears to have acted as a catalyst which led to Ryder becoming one of MI5’s many assets in the Irish media.

… Ryder became a frequent visitor to the private dining (and drinking) area at the RUC’s Knocknagoney HQ where he rubbed shoulders with his friends in the RUC Special Branch and MI5.

When Ryder appeared at the Smithwick Tribunal he denied suggestions that he had worked for MI5. “That is what people of a Republican disposition have said against me – I did not know a soul in MI5.”

Continue reading @ Village.

MI5’s Friend In The Media Passes Away

Alex McCrory discusses the dirty tricks the British police and security services have been playing at his trial.

Our trail resumes on January 20th. This week completes six years from the time of our arrest in 2013. We served more than two years in Maghaberry and are now approaching four years on restrictive bail. It is easy to imagine the impact this has had on my family life.

We are nearing the end of an admissibility challenge known in legal jargon as a voir dire; a trial within a trial. During the course of a lengthy Section 8, the defence identified a number of serious concerns in the chain of custody of the evidence. In addition to this, there are doubts about the authenticity of the recordings themselves.

The defence has not been afforded the opportunity to scientifically test the evidence because of MI5 refusal to disclose. It has simply pulled down the shutters, invoking national security as a blanket excuse. Moreover, one witness after another refused to answer all questions relating the technical aspects of the case.

A witness refusing to answer a question is in contempt unless there is something before the court allowing it. Up until now the prosecution has not made any PII applications, therefore, all witnesses should be compelled to answer questions without recourse to national security. The judge will have to rule on this point.

Add to this that almost every spook claimed under oath to have destroyed personal notes and dairies that would shed light on the entire process. This is in flagrant breach of evidential guidelines enunciated by the Courts. Investigators are expected to retain a full written record of all work carried out during the course of an investigation.

As well as the above, MI5 admitted to 'cleaning down' the devices so that it is no longer possible to compare the court exhibit with what was originally captured. The exhibit itself is a generated copy of what MI5 claims 'assures' the court was on the original recordings.

It has also been shown that persons unknown accessed the recordings and created files even before they were downloaded onto discs/USB sticks for evidential purposes. Also, at this very early stage, a piece of malware/virus appears on the system that basically operates as a backdoor facilitator allowing for manipulation of the data. The prosecution have so far not been able to explain the origin of the virus through evidence. Of course, all these things are testable with proper access to the equipment. Mention of the malware only came four years into the case.

For four years both the court and the defence were led to believe the evidence traversed a particular pathway; via an MI5's computer system known as Marshbrook. Subsequent to the work being done in this case, that system was decommissioned shortly thereafter. Later, it was suggested the evidence came via a different route without any explanation being provided for the alteration. It is the defence's belief this was done because the state realised the serious gap in the continuity chain of evidence.

Finally, the voice analyst made a fatal error by misattributing two voice in the recordings; one person not even involved in the case. This occurred because the expert was provided with the names and reference samples of three police suspects. He was also given a transcript on which speech attributions were against the names of the said suspects. When the job of the expert is to conduct an independent examination of the recordings, it is wholly unacceptable for the police to prime the expert by identifying suspects even before the voice analysis has been carried out.

This is a succinct synopsis of the court proceedings thus far. It is by no means exhaustive. At the end of the voir dire, the judge will have to rule on the admissibility issue in order to allow the trial to proceed to the next stage.

Watch this space.

NB. Check list of serious breaches

➽ Devices wiped.
➽ All computers destroyed/decommissioned.
➽ All contemporaneous notes/ records destroyed.
➽ Virus on system.
➽ Break in continuity chain.
➽ Flawed voice analysis.
➽ Wittness refusal to answer revelant questions.
➽ Sudden change in prosecution's presentation narrative.


Alec McCrory is a former republican prisoner and blanketman.

Voir Doir / Voir Dirt

Mick Hall demands that time be called on MI5. Mick Hall is a Marxist blogger @ Organized Rage.


MI5 needs disbanding and replacing with an organisation which is democratically accountable to the British people not the elites and crown.

MI5 Needs Disbanding ...

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)