The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

"In the interests of national security"

View previous topic View next topic Go down

"In the interests of national security"

Post by Woofer on 04.09.14 19:30

`In the interests of national security" is often the justification used for not answering FOIs.

Does anyone know what sort of things may jeopardise national security in conjunction with a missing child case?

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Guest on 04.09.14 20:42

@Woofer wrote:`In the interests of national security" is often the justification used for not answering FOIs.

Does anyone know what sort of things may jeopardise national security in conjunction with a missing child case?

I didn't realise this was a common justification, Woofer. Does this mean the response given to Jon Clements is not an indication of 'higher powers' influencing this case?

Either way, it is hard to see how FOI requests could be denied in the case of a missing child, the requesters, one presumes, having the search for the child as their motivator for the request. It seems strange that so many requests were denied (as evidenced by Sallypelt's link on the Leicestershire police thread) when one considers the askers' concern is for the discovery of what happened to Madeleine.

One can only presume that the those rejecting the requests were protecting interests more important than the safety of a child. I am at a loss to imagine just what could take precedence over the discovery of what happened to Madeleine...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Woofer on 04.09.14 22:19

Hi Dee Coy - yes, I`m at a loss to understand this as well.

When I think of `national security`, I always think terrorists, spies, MI5, threats of riots etc.

This is the list from the government hand-out on national security :-


National Security Strategy: Priority Risks

Tier One: The National Security Council considered the following groups of risks to be those of highest priority for UK national security looking ahead, taking account of both likelihood and impact.


[*]I

[*]nternational terrorism affecting the UK or its interests, including a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack by terrorists; and/or a significant increase in the levels of terrorism relating to Northern Ireland.
[*]Hostile attacks upon UK cyber space

[*]by other states and large scale cyber crime.
[*]A

[*]major accident or natural hazard which requires a national response, such as severe coastal flooding affecting three or more regions of the UK, or an influenza pandemic.
[*]An

[*]international military crisis between states, drawing in the UK, and its allies as well as other states and non-state actors.
Tier Two: The National Security Council considered the following groups of risks to be the next highest priority looking ahead, taking account of both likelihood and impact. (For example, a CBRN attack on the UK by a state was judged to be low likelihood, but high impact.)

[*]An attack on the UK or its Oversees Territories by another state or proxy using

[*]chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons.
[*]Risk of

[*]major instability, insurgency or civil war overseas which creates an environment that terrorists can exploit to threaten the UK.
[*]A significant increase in the level of

[*]organised crime affecting the UK.
[*]Severe

[*]disruption to information received, transmitted or collected by satellites, possibly as the result of a deliberate attack by another state.
Tier Three: The National Security Council considered the following groups of risks to be the next highest priority after taking account of both likelihood and impact.



[size=16][size=16]Seems to me there is one missed out and that is the risk of a government official being blackmailed !



[/size]
[/size]
[*]A large scale

[*]conventional military attack on the UK by another state (not involving the use of CBRN weapons) resulting in fatalities and damage to infrastructure within the UK.
[*]A

[*]significant increase in the level of terrorists, organised criminals, illegal immigrants and illicit goods trying to cross the UK border to enter the UK.
[*]Disruption to oil or gas supplies

[*]to the UK, or price instability, as a result of war, accident, major political upheaval or deliberate manipulation of supply by producers.
[*]A major

[*]release of radioactive material from a civil nuclear site within the UK which affects one or more regions.
[*]A conventional

[*]attack by a state on another NATO or EU member to which the UK would have to respond.
[*]An

[*]attack on a UK overseas territory as the result of a sovereignty dispute or a wider regional conflict.
[*]Short to medium term

[*]disruption to international supplies of resources (e.g. food, minerals) essential to the UK.

They`ve forgotten to include `risk of government official being blackmailed` !!

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by XTC on 04.09.14 22:47

@Woofer wrote:Hi Dee Coy - yes, I`m at a loss to understand this as well.

When I think of `national security`, I always think terrorists, spies, MI5, threats of riots etc.
I always think of that too.

The last thing I cynically believe is that National Security is not the same as our security.

There are  no guards around my house protecting me or you from terrorists.

If there are I don't see them.

Rule number one for me: If someone neither confirms or denies my questions take it as read that your suspicions are correct.

If it was deniable they would say so. Categorically rule it out even.

" We have no plans too......means they are considering it.

Confirming means they have already made up their minds. They just haven't made it public yet.

It's like saying " I always tell lies - believe me when I say that."

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Woofer on 04.09.14 22:48

Hi Dee Coy - I`ve added some info to my post above - stuff from government hand-outs. It`s what we thought and nothing I can see that would involve a missing child, unless its the `organised crime` one.

IMO its got to be someone in government being blackmailed.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by cloak'ndagger on 04.09.14 23:15

@Woofer wrote:Hi Dee Coy - I`ve added some info to my post above - stuff from government hand-outs. It`s what we thought and nothing I can see that would involve a missing child, unless its the `organised crime` one.

IMO its got to be someone in government being blackmailed.


Someone? That could be plural.

cloak'ndagger

Posts : 118
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-08-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Woofer on 05.09.14 10:29

@cloak'ndagger wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Hi Dee Coy - I`ve added some info to my post above - stuff from government hand-outs. It`s what we thought and nothing I can see that would involve a missing child, unless its the `organised crime` one.

IMO its got to be someone in government being blackmailed.


Someone? That could be plural.

Most definitely cloak`ndagger yes

Perhaps it is the `organised crime` one.

But then I`ve read that MI5 contract out to wealthy businessmen, but they`d have to be corrupt wealthy businessmen for MI5 to have them in their grasp.

IMO anyone who makes volumes of money and climbs the slippery pole has to be corrupt in some way - and these days that goes for government officials.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by unchained melody on 05.09.14 10:52


unchained melody

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Woofer on 05.09.14 14:06

Thanks unchained melody, I hadn`t seen that video, although I`d heard the reference to what Ken Livingstone said at the end of Richard Hall`s 4th DVD about MBM.  I felt RDH was finishing his report with a clue as to what`s behind MBM`s disappearance.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by Guest on 05.09.14 16:18

Yes I agree that 'National Security Issues' could be associated with blackmail.

There seems to have been history of this over the last couple of decades with regard to parliamentary figures, ministers etc.

Also, what is interesting is that in some cases 'honeypots' seem to have been set up to entice influential figures to behave in an 'inappropriate' way - then of course it is on the record and they are open to blackmail as and when forever more. Don't want to put specific examples on here in case of libel etc but this can easily be found by googling.

I wonder if somewhere in P de Luz was such a 'honeypot'?

All in my own opinion.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "In the interests of national security"

Post by unchained melody on 05.09.14 16:51

@Woofer wrote:
Thanks unchained melody, I hadn`t seen that video, although I`d heard the reference to what Ken Livingstone said at the end of Richard Hall`s 4th DVD about MBM.  I felt RDH was finishing his report with a clue as to what`s behind MBM`s disappearance.

Me too

unchained melody

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum