General Chat

A former army intelligence officer has said he was ordered to stop investigating allegations of child sexual abuse at a boys' home in the 1970s.

Brian Gemmell said a senior MI5 officer told him to stop looking into claims of abuse at Kincora Boys' Home in East Belfast, he said he presented a report on the allegations to the officer in 1975.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28597343

This is not the first such report - of the Security Services interfering in investigations into alleged sexual abuse of young people. The role of MI5 is to protect national security, it is not their role to undermine the investigation by the police or others of alleged crimes.

The Prime Minister David Cameron recently said - no one is above the law, so why are the Security Services allowed to thwart The Rule of Law?

Basically, The Rule of Law, means that every individual must obey the law, the law must be applied equally and fairly to all, and there should be no exceptions for anyone because of their position, sex, religion or financial standing - well not unless you have MI5 protecting you :-|

The UK is not governed by the rule of law but by the Crown which rules by virtue of entrenched power. This is exercised through Her Majesty's Govt led by the PM. HMG is pretty well free to do whatever it wants including changing the constitution should it wish ( and often does ). This is sometimes called a legislative dictatorship. In any case it is not a government under law in the sense of the US constitution and never has been.

Under British constitutional law parliament is supreme, not the courts of law and not the police. For that reason the police have been notified that they can no longer carry out searches in the House nor do they have power of arrest there.

To reprise it is parliament which decides what the law is not judges. Their function is interpretation and application. "Judge made" law without the basis of statute is an old fashioned and reprehensible concept. Judges most definitely do not have any kind of executive power or the power to direct criminal prosecutions as is the case in some EU countries.

Of course HMG and its officers have to obey the law because it has been laid down by parliament which is supreme. Where HMG finds this inconvenient it can - and does - change the law to suit retrospectively if required. That is why S.I. (statutory instruments ) are so popular.

The government of the day and its officers and in particular the CPS, Home Secretary and MI5 have always had the power to drop / discontinue / keep in camera any investigation on the grounds of public interest and national security. The police do not and never have had such powers though they sometimes behave as if they do. Ministers take an incredibly dim view of being lied to by the police.

It is not illegal to use these powers. That they may have been misused or be seen to have been misused years later is just one of those things. Try and get used to reality.

HMG is not bound to accept any ruling on anything from European courts because such power has never been relinquished by parliament - all EU regulations have to be translated into UK law. Tony Blair's "Human Rights Act" is entirely home grown and not a recognition of any European court as having superior jurisdiction on human rights. If the Tories don't like something in it they could change it by a vote in the Commons. They don't, not because of Europe but because they could not get a vote passed in the House.

Parliament is to say the least unhappy about attempts by the EU to overtake its sovereignty and even more by the overuse of "judiicial review". The latter is likely to be sharply curtailed in the next parliament ( regardless of winner ) and the judges put back in their box. The Supreme Court ( aka House of Lords ) does not have any directional powers over HMG.

As for the EU if it continues on its present path ( an Junkers seems determined on ) then UK exit from the EU could become a distinct possibility not something I would welcome. Labour for instance is getting very worked up abut the way the EU proposes enforcement legislation for trade treaties.

Interesting what you say, however whether I get used to reality or not is neither here or there, as far as I am concerned, all crimes should be fully investigated and where evidence is found, that on the balance of probability, a crime has been committed, that evidence should be placed before a jury in a court of law, it is for a jury to decide from the evidence presented to them whether those in the dock, are guilty or not guilty.

No individual because of their position, in society/government or their wealth, should be immune from that process, that is my long held view and one I will argue till the day I die - all the lies from government about honesty, transparency, and that no one is above the law, only reinforce my view on this.

Hmmmmm Interesting!

Absolutely agree with OFITG, of course some documents are sealed for much longer and some don't exist at all ;-)

There have been numerous reports of the Security Services, not only interfering in investigations of sexual abuse of young people, but also of halting them.

The Prime Minister David Cameron must honour the statements he made when he said, "no one is above the law," and "I am absolutely determined that we are going to get to the bottom of these allegations and we’re going to leave no stone unturned to find out the truth about what happened."

I don't care if under British constitutional law Parliament is supreme, one arm of Parliament is the House of Commons whose members are elected to represent Joe Public.

Joe Public has the right to know what went on in regards to this issue, not only in the corridors of power at Westminster, but also in the NHS, Children's Homes, Education Establishment's, Religious Institutions, and Youth Services - above all others, the victims have the right to know why this abuse went unchallenged for so long, not least to bring some sort of closure to the ordeals they suffered.

Members of the Security Services, whether active or retired, are restricted by the Official Secrets Act, as to what they can say about the work they do or have done - the Prime Minister should instruct the Attorney General to grant members of the Security Services, past & present, immunity from prosecution in matters relating to these abuse scandals so they can reveal what they know - only that will make the inquiry transparent and avoid accusations of a cover-up.

I don't think you have a very good grip on English constitutional law.

MPs are elected (a) to represent their constituencies and (b) exercise a check on the executive. Some are quite good at (a) and a few at (b). For an MP to carry out (a) properly he will need the ear of a minister and goodwill of the PM. This is not compatible with (b). Any MP who is good at (b) may make it to chair of a select committee but will never ever get a red box which is the main aim of most MPs. It is an old game right v might of PMs patronage. Patronage usually wins out.

So forget any hope that MPs are going to involve themselves overmuch with investigations. That is what the press is for.

It would be wildly incorrect and illegal for the PM to instruct the Attoprney General in judicial matters. If he tried to do such a thing he would be out of office on the moment. So don't expect DC to do that.

You may not like it overmuch but MPs let alone Joe Public does not have an unlimited "right to know" in law. FOI only goes so far.

Furthermore the executive i.e. HMG are perfectly within the law to make such decisions as they see fit regarding investigations and prosecutions. They have no obligation whatsoever to make these decisions and considerations public as several judges have discovered when demanding disclosure in court.

Under English law for a prosecution to be brought there must be a realistic prospect of conviction AND IT MUST BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The public interest is defined by he collective of the DPP, Attorney General (Justice) & the Home Secretary. The PM would not usually be involved.

In the context of your current plaint I rather doubt that the public interest in the 1980s would have had putting a bunch of Ulster politicians in the dock for anything including murder and insurrection. The public interest was rightly defined to be peace. Those who did not visit or work in Belfast during the 1970s and 1980s would not have been aware just how close it looked to downtown Beirut. The BBC was very obliging about keeping the level of trouble off screen. Most importantly "the troubles" were costing very serious money and so "public interest" mean peace no matter what.

I am not sure how to get this over but the "rule of law" is a fiction in the UK. The country is and always has been ruled by Parliament which controls cash flow. Successful monarchs kept parliament on board including William I. Parliament makes the law not judges. It is also parliament that holds the executive branch of government i.e. in the UK the ruling executive and the law makers are the same bunch of guys and gals, there is no separation of powers.

In the USA the founding fathers thought this to be A VERY BAD THING so they do have separation of powers with the resulting chaotic and wasteful system of government. France has the same thing and again the government is hog tied and unable to carry out urgent reform regardless of election results. In both the USA and France independently minded judges, DAs, magistrates and so on make as much chaos as they can carrying out freelance investigations over which the executive has no control whatsoever. It does make good TV.

Despite your disappointment at perceived failures of MI5 I rather doubt that the UK will make a massive change to "rule of law". MI5's loyalty is to the defense of the realm or in plainspeak "keeping the lid on".

cheers

RolloTheRed - I take on board what you have said, you make may valid points, I also accept that it would be improper for the Prime Minister to "instruct" the Attorney General on any issue - perhaps what I should have said is that, the executive should ask the Attorney General to consider granting anonymity from prosecution to those who were involved in this issue.

That said, and putting to one side issues such as the rule of law (I am fully aware it is a doctrine and not incorporated into UK law). I am also fully aware that some times it is necessary, to not disclose information as it would not be in the public interest.

However I am not talking about what was done to try and bring peace to Northern Ireland, I am talking about the sexual abuse of minors, and in my wildest dreams I cannot see how covering these allegations up, protects anything or anyone's interest, except the interests of the offenders, the alleged offenders abused their position and in my view any cover-up on the grounds of public interest would be nothing short of an abuse of power by the executive.

This sexual abuse of young people that is alleged to have taken place is one of the biggest scandals that has taken place in my life time, it is outrageous and indefensible, that some of those alleged to have committed these offences, appear to have been rapped on the knuckles and their alleged offences swept under the carpet.

It would be an affront, to not only those who allege they were abused, but also to everyone who has ever had children - if any obstacles are put in place to prevent the whole truth coming out.

However, as I do live in the real world, I accept that we will probably never get to know the truth, not least that the delay in finding someone to replace Baroness Butler-Sloss - makes me think they have not yet found anyone who either does not have a skeleton in their cupboard or who wants to be part of what could end up being branded a cover-up.

Take it from somebody who spent much more time in Ulster than I ever thought I would that there were plenty worse things could happen to a lad. It was not a very nice place and you still have to be careful where you go for a pint and whose taxi takes you there.

The whole peace settlement in Ulster rests on extremely fragile foundations and I can't see anything being allowed to rock them even a little. Surely you don't think that all the guilty men were those of no consequence ? It is a sad and sordid world the best that can be said is that things are slightly better than they were. Or maybe not given the current barely reported scandal of children in care (of a sort).

Are you aware of the various scandals of the channel island children's homes ? Nothing much came of the investigations.

Once investigations of this kind get going they tend to take on a life of their own - eg Hillsborough - and the outcomes unpredictable. With a referendum and an election coming up not to mention probable foreign headaches in the Middle East and Ukraine the whole thing will just get kicked into the long grass. As will the putative Butler Sloss enquiry. She had the massive advantage of being at the end of her career as well as integrity and intelligence. And being nice. Few other judges would touch it with a barge pole.

I appreciate your desire for truth and justice but remember the sword of justice is sharp on both sides.

England is an old dark place where things sometimes go bump in the night. Ulster is even worse.

"Someone's in the background
While we're on the phone
Giving you the answers
Where do they get
All this information
And how

Put'em on the phone right now
I want to pick their brains tonight"

RolloTheRed - In my mind I have to agree with you, I think the issue will only be given lip service and be dragged out and eventually at a convenient point in time, end up being quietly kicked into the long grass, however in my heart, because I know several people who suffered this kind of abuse, I would like to see the whole truth exposed and where evidence is found to substantiate allegations against any individual, those individuals, if still alive, are brought to justice.

And then ?

Open a pandora's box of hate and lies and revenge of kneecapping and boycotts of broken businesses and broken men? All to the deadly beat of the lambeg drum and the lament of a tin whistle.
Look how hate and revenge is consuming the middle east.
Let sleeping dogs lie.

'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
"But men still shoot each other, don't they?" I asked hopefully.
"They shot me," he answered, with what I took to be a smile.
"Yes, but that was in a war." '

Vengeance is not for mortal man.