The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Roy Corduroy]

Oh, Okay, thank you for that Chris. Then you are right and I've got it all wrong. I thought there was a law that Special Branch files are held closed forever. I could have sworn that has been mentioned right here on these message boards. Maybe even in Ripper books and articles by writers in the know.

Reading the link you provided it says those files are released to the public under the "70 year rule." Since that exists, then its simple. The files Trevor wants should be released under the "70 year rule." My apologies, Trevor. Just tell your lawyer to invoke the "70 year rule."

I should have known not to stick my neck out where its something I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Roy

[Phil H]

First - curious, whatever the situation in the USA, I don't think it applies in Ireland, we still have psycopathic, revenant IRA people killing policemen.

I can only speak as one who operates the system, in a different department of state, and say that we (I and my team) bend over backwards to be as open as possible. Some colleagues remain uncomfortable with releasing commercial, and other information, but we almost always challenge that (the exception is when it would be clearly damaging to the public interest).

Even when material is considered sufficiently sensitive to be withheld there is a stringent, detailed and complex internal "public interest test" which has to be applied. All this is open retrospectively to the Commisioner for Information so there is an open audit. There are levels of appeal as well.

It is easy to say that the reasons for not releasing are insufficiently good, but I would deny that, although sometimes material can be so potentially damaging that one cannot even agree that it exists - "we can neither confirm nor deny that such information exists".

I suspect that with the registers the initial conclusion was with many of you, these are old, historic documents and there should be no bar to their release. Then, perhaps belatedly, someone recognised the potential dangers involved in release. That is always possible - non-specialists such as i cannot always know the fine detail of a subject or its ramifications and i have come across such cases though not in an FOI context.

I realise how frustrating some of these official procedures can be, but there have (surely?) to be checks and balances, and I know from long experience that the people involved will be working hard in the public interest. That may not be the individual interest of course.

By the way, if the material is released, Trevor will have no proprietery right to it - anyone will be able to ask for the same material to be supplied to them.

Phil

[mariab]

I think the idea that records should remain secret not only when they are more than a century old, but in perpetuity, is ludicrous.

Totally.

An anonymous officer is reported to have told the tribunal that even the relations of Judas Iscariot would be at risk if they could be traced. I don't know quite what he thought he was achieving, but surely he has provided the ideal reductio ad absurdum of the Special Branch case - as well as demonstrating a spectacular ignorance of genealogical arithmetic.

I saw this in the Montréal Gazette. A comedy number.

[Chris]

Surely you see the perfectly good reason why these files, which impact on the national security of your country, should remain sealed.

I wish someone would explain how the release of these Special Branch records could endanger national security, when so many others containing sensitive material are already freely available. For example, the Dublin Castle Special Branch files on Sinn Fein and Republican suspects between 1899 and 1921 have been open since the 1990s. Not only that, but you can buy a copy of them on CD!

http://www.eneclann.ie/acatalog/ENEC015.html

I think the idea that records should remain secret not only when they are more than a century old, but in perpetuity, is ludicrous. An anonymous officer is reported to have told the tribunal that even the relations of Judas Iscariot would be at risk if they could be traced. I don't know quite what he thought he was achieving, but surely he has provided the ideal reductio ad absurdum of the Special Branch case - as well as demonstrating a spectacular ignorance of genealogical arithmetic.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Trevor,

I liked your TV show. But I'm disappointed in you pulling a stunt like this. I thought you were a law and order man. An ex-cop. Surely you see the perfectly good reason why these files, which impact on the national security of your country, should remain sealed.

Roy

[mariab]

Let's not kid ourselves that Trevors primary concern is freedom of information. That is an insult to ones intellegence. I'm sure Trevor, and others supporting him, really had no interest in such issues until the path was blocked regarding Jack research.

I can relate, though. When researching it's natural to act like a dog having spotted a scent. And when initiating a court appeal, rhetoric is non avoidable.

However, I do commend Trevor, all avenues have to be explored.

Me too.

As for Keynesian or Monetarist (and I'd obviously go for Keynesian rather than the other), the global economy's gone to hell in a basket regardless.

[Monty]

Let's not kid ourselves that Trevors primary concern is freedom of information. That is an insult to ones intellegence. I'm sure Trevor, and others supporting him, really had no interest in such issues until the path was blocked regarding Jack research.

However, I do commend Trevor, all avenues have to be explored. Just not with my money which I would rather be spent on something more worthy, of which there are many.

Monty

[mariab]

A great breakthrough? And what if these ledgers bring forth nothing?

Then at least we'll know, Monty.

as someone who is witnessing people losing their jobs and struggling to find employment

I'm job hunting too, and part of the year living on peanuts, but I still support this “waste of taxpayers money“.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lechmere,

I agree with much of your posting. It is also the duty, is it not, to do everything possible to keep the relatives of the victims informed of the case. There are still many relatives who I am sure would like to know exactly what happened. If possible, who was responsible for these murders. There has been information relating to suspects witheld.

I repeat, that as there is involvement of Special Branch, that in itself crosses borders of policework. "Special" would not get involved in this unless there was a political/national security involved, for that was the nature of their job. And as we are talking about suspects related to the case, NOT informants then of course there is no reason why everything related to the case that is being kept back should not be revealed. So who is the cause of "wasting" any money? I remind all that the original case went against the Met Police. They then appealed.

The redaction of EVERY proper name in 36,000 lines smacks of the use of a canon to shoot a sparrow. It could have been avoided a long time ago. It is the attitude of the Met in dealing with this in the first place that is the problem here. The amount of reasons (please see original tribuneral references) for not opening these ledgers, and their lack of basis in reality shows that the Met tried every excuse under the sun to withold this information.
It does not matter what outcome the names and details connected to the case lead to. It is the principle that is also in question here, as it is their principle of non revelation of informants names. Two sides of the same coin.

The Metroploitan Police are a public service body.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely this argument is a question of Economics?

Depending whether you believe in Keynesian or Monetarist policies, which has become a hot potatoe in the UK since a predominately keynesian Social Democratic party choose to support a monetarist chancellor of the exchequer.

T'was always going to end in tears

Pirate

[curious]

Consider, please, that your casualness in regard to the risks of releasing personal data - however old - carries no responsibility. Officials, if they got it wrong and people were killed or threatened as a result of release (in revenge for what their forebears had done) WOULD have to anwer for it. Hence the caution.

Phil

Hello, Phil,
In the US, we had a very divisive Civil War which many claim is still being fought in the South -- only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

In that conflict, neighbors and even brothers fought against and betrayed each other.

It was as volatile and dangerous as I suspect your Irish question has always been.

Here, back in our mountains, entire families were massacred. Afterward, people were punished politically for many years and their rights abridged.

Now, believe it or not, descendants actually talk about it and are friends, meeting socially, often fighting for the same current causes. Or even being on the opposite side of something, but maintaining civility.

I believe this argument does not hold up at this late date. Children so often rebel against their parents, that when you get this many generations through time, you are likely to find descendants fighting for the opposite position that their ancestors fought for -- and everyone in their village know it. But it might be embarrassing to the descendant to learn that great-great-great-granddad or grandmother would espouse that particular cause.

I do not believe the "protecting people" is a legitimate concern or even the real concern. It's the best line of defense they can come up with.

[Lechmere]

The Ripper case is of interest to a small group of enthusiasts and also to a wider public as evidenced by the press reports. But it is true that providing clues (I don’t think there is any way the ledgers could ‘solve’ it) to the Ripper case alone is not a good reason to release the files.

However there will be a mass of information on all sorts of social matters relating to that period and all sorts of crimes and conspiracies that will be of massive interest to people.
On the IRA theme – what if it turned out that Roger Casement was a secret informer, for example. It would drastically alter our view of history. There are bound to be things like that contained within.
The idea that the IRA or some other terror group would seek out relatives of long dead ‘traitors’ is ridiculous.
Would it set a precedent, so that the time limit would come down and down? The same argument could be made about releasing any secret state papers, so it is invalid.

I’m not sure if Monty is having a go at Trevor Marriott for initiating the case (and wasting public money as he himself will supposedly be handsomely rewarded with a book deal) or at the Police for resisting.

I would say that the police excuses (for that is what they are) for not releasing the info are the same sort of tired excuses that were trotted out over the release of stuff under the Freedom of Information Act and the relaxing of the release of other public documents that the custodians resisted, claiming all sorts of problems would arise. Of course no problems have arisen.
People in authority who hold information naturally wish to keep it to themselves. It is a reflex action. If they allowed it to be released it would make them feel less important and the information they guard less significant.

If there are some real shockers, then no doubt the authorities could selectively keep some items back. I can see that some public figures (actually Casement for example, if he had been an informer) wouldn’t want their reputations and their destiny tarnished by later revelations that they were double dealers, and that could inhibit their actions. That would only be a tiny fraction of the items though and some government papers are kept back for much longer than others under existing rules.

It is a bit like digging up graves. After a certain date the sanctity of the burial goes out the window and it becomes a matter of archaeological or historic importance – look at the Egyptian pharaohs.

[Phil H]

I'm not sure which way round you see taxpayer's money being "wasted".

Government's need to hold some information regarding taxpyers/individuals to do their job - are you saying that there should be complete openness or complete secrecy.

the latter is out of kilter with current thinking in most western democracies - US FOI Act, UK one etc.

But while the emphasis is is now on openness, there is equally a responsibility enshrined in the Data Protection Act to keep confidential the data relating to individuals. But it is only right that, under the FOi Act requesters have the ability to challenge Government, through first internal mechanisms, then through the Information Commissioner (in the UK). he makes the final decision. That can still be challenged and Ministers can ultimately issue a certificate to withhold information (but that would be rare).

Consider, please, that your casualness in regard to the risks of releasing personal data - however old - carries no responsibility. Officials, if they got it wrong and people were killed or threatened as a result of release (in revenge for what their forebears had done) WOULD have to anwer for it. Hence the caution.

I would also disagree about the difficulty of tracing families and descendents - in Ireland in small communities, memories may run long and geographic mobility may be limited. thus there may be direct descendents of informers who might be at risk if those families affected by their forebears learned of what they might consider treason.

This does not have to be reasoned or sensible - UK posters might recall the mix-up on an estate near Portsmouth some years ago between paedophiles and paediatricians!! One of the latter was severely harrassed.

So those of you who see a waste of taxpayers' money are arguing either for less democratic openness, or no confidentiality at all. Neither seems reasonable.

Democracy has a cost folks!

And I remain FOR the release of the SBRs, but in a sensible and realistic way.

Phil

[curious]

[QUOTE=Phil H;174736
I also find no grounds for some "conspiracy" as you seem to do when you write: "One can only speculate just how HUGE and shocking the truth is."


Phil[/QUOTE]

Phil,
You're welcome to think what you will, and I will reserve the same freedom for myself.

However, the original time limit was set to protect people -- after much careful thought and political maneuvering. Therefore it became law.

For any government agency to keep back information longer than is already legally approved smacks of something else entirely. I don't believe they would be fighting so hard to keep the secrets unless there is something major to hide.

The information belongs to the people and an agency (either in your country or mine) should not be hiding and controlling information that should be open. A governmental agency should be abiding by the law. Period -- not making up one story after another to keep from complying.

And I stand by balderdash in the context in which I used it -- refusing to open books 120-plus years old to protect names, when recent names are available is nonsense -- the definition of "balderdash."

Definition from bal·der·dash
   [bawl-der-dash]
–noun
1.
senseless, stupid, or exaggerated talk or writing; nonsense.


balderdash

Dictionary.com

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
Cite This Source

World English Dictionary
balderdash (ˈbɔːldəˌdæʃ)
— n
stupid or illogical talk; senseless rubbish

[Monty]

I wouldn't mind if a book deal for a problematic book came out of this, I'd consider it a great breakthrough if the SB ledgers were made public. Were I an UK resident, I wouldn't have minded in the least my taxpaying going into this endeavour. (Esp. considering the fuss about the royal weddings and all...)

A great breakthrough? And what if these ledgers bring forth nothing?

I do mind. As a tax payer of this country, as someone who is witnessing people losing their jobs and struggling to find employment, as someone whos local heart hospital is under threat, who's local support network for children is being slashed.....yeah I mind.

Monty