Panorama's response to Omagh report
Yesterday the Omagh families Prime Minister Gordon Brown at No 10 to discuss the outcome of an inquiry into Panorama's revelations that GCHQ were recording mobile phone exchanges between the Omagh bombers on the day of the attack.
The report by the Intelligence Services Commissioner Sir Peter Gibson had been by Mr Brown and was published last month.
Panorama's September 2008 programme, , disclosed that GCHQ had monitored up to five mobile phones used by some members of the bomb gang during the 100 minute bomb run from the Irish Republic to Omagh, but that the detectives trying to identify the bombers were never told this, even though they were desperate for leads.
None of the perpetrators have been convicted of the bombing, which killed 29 people, two unborn babies and injured 250 people on 15 August 1998, despite promises from the-then Prime Minister Tony Blair that no stone would be left unturned in the hunt to bring the culprits to justice.
However, although appearing to confirm many aspects of the programme, Sir Peter avoided holding any branch of the intelligence services to account for the fact that the detectives were never told that intercepts existed and that the telephone numbers of some of the bombers were known.
Sir Peter also criticised Panorama for making "allegations" that the bombing could have been prevented.
In fact the programme made no such allegation. Rather, we asked whether the bombing could have been prevented - a question we now consider even more justified by Sir Peter's failure to challenge our central claim: that GCHQ was listening to the mobiles of some of the bombers while the bomb was being driven to Omagh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward told Parliament Sir Peter's review was "exhaustive" and "comprehensive".
Today Panorama publishes a to Sir Peter's criticisms of Panorama and highlights the many questions we say it it fails to answer. Readers can judge for themselves whether they consider Mr Woodward's comments are merited.
Even to this day detectives have never been officially told about the phone monitoring.
The families say they want to know why neither Sir Peter nor the Northern Ireland Secretary have had anything to say about the GCHQ policy in place in 1998 that appears to have prevented even one telephone number being passed to detectives to get them going even though 29 people lay dead.
Sir Peter comments only on the "cautious way" Special Branch shared intelligence with the CID.
He just says it was not part of his remit to investigate the reasons for their "caution" but he "does not doubt" there were "good operational reasons" for it.
Sir Peter says the Branch could have asked GCHQ for "material that might have existed" to disseminate to the CID, but that "the record shows no such request was made".
The Omagh relatives consider this to be his single most extraordinary comment.
They ask if any reasonable person would seriously consider that the entire intelligence gathering apparatus of Northern Ireland would need to be specifically asked to collect intelligence to help identify those responsible for the single worst atrocity of the Northern Ireland conflict?
While Mr Woodward thinks Sir Peter's work was "exhaustive", some senior officers John Ware has spoken to beg to differ: "Gibson has surface skated" said one, adding that he had been "appointed to close the curtain on Omagh".
You can read and make your own mind up.
Sandy Smith is editor of Panorama.
Comment number 1.
At 12th Feb 2009, Spiny Norman wrote:Quite unbelievable. If GCHQ refused to provide the police with evidence to track down these scum, what is the point of it?
Why are we spending huge sums of money on an institution that actually protects terrorist murderers by its silence? Maybe it's time to disband GCHQ and spend the money on real policemen...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12th Feb 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:"Sir Peter also criticised Panorama for making "allegations" that the bombing could have been prevented.
In fact the programme made no such allegation. Rather, we asked whether the bombing could have been prevented - a question we now consider even more justified by Sir Peter's failure to challenge our central claim: that GCHQ was listening to the mobiles of some of the bombers while the bomb was being driven to Omagh."
This seems a little disingenuous - if you really didn't think the bombing was preventable, why make the programme ? That said, there is clearing a lot of 'fundamental covering' going on here to protect senior back sides.
But at least this is from the day when the Panorama programme took risks, employed the likes of John Ware, and wasn't totally predisposed with the trivial and populist tosh it seems to cover these days.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Feb 2009, johndrinkwater wrote:I think what everyone appears to be glossing over is why were GCHQ listening to the phones?
If they had lawful permission, then the detectives would have been able to find out that the recordings were being (and had been) made.
More needs to be done to question organisations such as GCHQ about citizens right to privacy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th Feb 2009, kiki_dread wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 12th Feb 2009, In_for_me wrote:Will we ever have an official report that doesn't attempt to cover up the unpalatable and in so doing destroy any hope of finding out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 13th Feb 2009, Walrus wrote:Why are our MPs not baying for blood?
It appears ludicrous that GCHQ should withhold vital infomation from OUR OWN CID on ANY pretext.
Like Watergate, these recordings MUST be produced.
But not a sound from the mother of all parliaments which has become a sick joke.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 14th Feb 2009, peter wrote:Outrageous!!
What are GCHQ there for if not to intercept information that assits on the determination of terrorist and other illegal activities.
By not disseminating the information they are almostas culpable as the bombers themselves.
It really only going to show that for the most part it is the tail wagging the donkey.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 14th Feb 2009, fwsober wrote:Another enquiry by a member of the great and the good, and another stitch-up results.
As soon as you hear the bloke in charge of the inquiry is a "Sir" you know how it'll turn out.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 15th Feb 2009, leoRoverman wrote:There is as ever some issue as to who knew what, when and where they were when they they knew it . Walrus, our MPs are not baying for blood because its old History, we are now very cosy with the Irish Government and the IRA are good boys now- they only stick to good old fashioned crime. There is also the American Irish lobby to consider. Why is GCHQ there? well according to the Prime Minister they are going to monitoring our e-mails and telephone calls. The reality is we will never know the real agenda untill all involved are dead and no one understands the argument any more. It was an attrocity but think on this- if it had been handled by the plod as a crime ( which it was) there would have been none of the nonsense of involving security services as it was under the terrorist legislation. That is indeed a very dark horse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 16th Feb 2009, Orville Eastland wrote:Are GCHQ required to report evidence of a possible crime or act of terrorism if they find it?
Are there regulations governing the transfer of information between GCHQ and CID or similar agencies?
Or is GCHQ just trying to hang on to its share of secrets and not release them to anyone?
Similar issues have been raised about 9/11...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)