NI Pub Checks - weapons [Archive]

Owen W

08-10-2012, 02:19

With my own memory failing me in a discussion I am having with a friend, I am turning to the knowledgeable members of the Forum.

Back in the days when pub checks were done in NI, what was the SOP for weapon carriage for those entering the establishment?

Many thanks for your help.

Owen

Gwyn Nicholas

08-10-2012, 10:30

That may be considered RESTRICTED information not for general discussion and a breach of the Official Secrets Act, to which we are all still subject. You never know who is listening in this Big Brother world in which we live. Perhaps a PM may be a wise response.

ivor43

09-10-2012, 10:10

quite right gwyn. the stuff covered by official secrets is quit remarkable.and people may not realize that you never unsign it. i signed as i PC in 1960's then again when i went to work for MOD at RAF Wyton.when i retired in 2003 i had to sign another paper reminding me that i was still bound by it. it's always best to be on the safe side and leave some stuff out of open forums.

ivor

chow

11-10-2012, 21:28

Well well are we not getting a bit PC Who gives a fregg really now after 35 odd years..

come on, yes we did sign the form but really.

If you have the info Owen is after PM him.

and thats it fregg the OSA..

If I go to gail for this...big brother IS watching ...

John Turner

11-10-2012, 23:51

The only pub checks I remember - and I was never a part of one that went inside - was in the cease-fire tour when B Coy were in the Ballymurphy. I'm sure anyone entering was un-armed, but there'd be many close by that were - that's just common sense; no big secret.

(and if it is - sue me)

ivor43

12-10-2012, 06:55

i dont think this is about PC.this is about not letting the 'bad guys' know too much. if they want to think you have 'one up the spout' with the safety off. good , let them. their lack of gen about your weapon status just may have saved some lives back then. but if the same tactics are used today in similar circumstances. lets just keep the SOB'S guessing.

ivor

ap1

12-10-2012, 07:58

For the guys with Rifles. Whatever the prevailing wpn state was.

The Main deterrent to aggro in the pub...Baton gunners, Gun broken, 35 grain round inserted into breach , kept open throughout the check, and in full view of the pub customers. No secret there, they could see it and knew the consequences if fired at close range.

JT....Lots of checks on the 81 tour by all the company's, normally with a CONCO in tow.

Gwyn Nicholas

12-10-2012, 09:42

Chow you seem a little confused mate.

PC is about words or statements that might be considered offensive for example, when Black people first came to this country they were known as "Black" this was deemed PC incorrect and changed to "Coloured" which was later deemed to be PC incorrect and changed to "Black". PC is ambiguous, confusing and subject to change according to the views of certain factions of the community.

The Official Secrets Act is an act of Parliament and is unambiguous in that it is LAW. A breach of that act is (regardless of being "35 years ago") is breaking the law. Further, for someone who is in receipt of a Goverment pension, it could lead to the loss of that said pension.

My post was intended only to suggest that is may be a good idea to be cautious with responses and post via PM which you apparantly agree with despite the fingers up to the "OSA" speech. It was in no way intended to teach granny how to suck eggs, or a pathetic attempt at censorship.

Yet again, a mountain out of a molehill. Little wonder that people willing to post anything on this Forum are getting few and far between.
.
NB. Breaches of the Act are not limited to classification ie it does not have to be a "Secret". Anything that has a classification of restricted falls into the same act. It is fair to say, that the bad lads observe and learn our SOP's, the gathering of intelligence, is not afterall restricted to the "goood guys". The Act perhaps makes them work for their info rather than hand it over on a plate.

Gwyn Nicholas

12-10-2012, 11:10

JT a breach of the official secrets act comes under Statutory law therefore you wouldn't be sued would you. Being "sued" comes under Common Law. Really for such a well trained "sniper", you are seriously losing your touch.

Al obviously you think that the information you have posted is "Safe" for open forum and I certainly am not qualified to agree or disagree. However, as only one person it seems was interested in a response ( the originater), would not a PM have been as effective to answer his question.

ap1

12-10-2012, 12:02

I do sort of agree with you Gwyn, but anything that we discuss on here regarding the mil would be said to be covered by the official secrets act. This was a tactic used 30yrs ago and certainly never repeated on later Bn tours. If the same thing was going to occur again, its unlikely they would use the same tactic, as the weapon systems are different, plus there are new tools in the armoury such as taser, which would no doubt be utilised. I have read more damaging accounts in books about our surveillance methods over there, which certainly are still tactics we use today that have been cleared by the MOD for publication. For me its a sense of proportion. Although I accept I may be wrong. Regarding the PM, same goes, you could have PM'd Owen and asked him discreetly to remove it. Im not looking for an argument, but thats my view.

Bob Lloyd

12-10-2012, 16:53

Don't think we need get too excited about this. I remember going into the Bogside Inn in Londonderry in 1972 with rifles at the high port. A band was playing the old 10cc number 'Rubber Bullets' and all we wanted to do was join in with our gats acting as guitars! We didn't though, we just left!

Gwyn Nicholas

12-10-2012, 18:14

Al, I am not looking for an argument either mate, I simply made an observation in good faith perhaps foolishly given the response. I see nothing wrong with the original question, I merely suggested that PM may be the best way to respond. As for asking the originator discreetly or otherwise to remove the post, that is not within my remit as an ordinary member (nor should it be in my opinion).

Perhaps in my old age I am getting a little too much "mother hen" and should keep my concerns to myself. As I said previously, I am not qualified to say where the line is and where it is crossed nor do I wish to find out the answer "first hand". Say no more - Mums the word.

chow

12-10-2012, 19:24

Waters and bridges gentlemen.water and bridges..

Gwyn Nicholas

12-10-2012, 20:53

Isn't that a Simon and Garfunkel number Chow? (tic)

chow

12-10-2012, 21:22

It was Gwyn.
Still got the album on vinyl my friend.

ivor43

12-10-2012, 21:53

before this is consigned to the archives or wherever. i would just like to make a couple of final points.
first. it should be a reminder to all of us who signed the OFS that even so far down the line it can still be involved.

second, during my time at RAF Wyton although i was only Registry support i was cleared to deal with stuff to SECRET level. so, as you can imagine i have been in possession of info of a much greater sensitivity than the condition of weapons. maybe this is why i have a different attitude to OSA than some of you.

so just remember guys if you signed it it was for life. No Remission.

ivor

John Turner

12-10-2012, 22:42

The answer to the initial question and far far more can be found on the interweb, including copies of classified documents (such as all the cards, yellow, blue etc) that are now history ..... and probably some that aren't!

I think disclosing the level of security clearance one had whilst serving, on a public forum, is more 'sensitive' than SOPs on weapons in pubs. How would a 'What level were you cleared to' thread go down?

ivor43

13-10-2012, 00:34

john
i did give this some thought before posting it. i do not believe the disclosure of clearance level has any significance as it was a requirement of the position,therefore in the 'job description', and based on a personal vetting process. however if i posted any thing about info i had learned from the files for which i had responsibility then i would be in breach of the OSA.
I do not believe my statement is in breach of any regulation

ivor

John Turner

13-10-2012, 08:37

Neither do I - just (if anything) more of an issue than the initial enquiry.

ivor43

13-10-2012, 10:36

ok.
now we seem to be getting issues confused. the initial question was considered by Gwyn to be requesting info that could be RESTRICTED. Under the OSA he may be right.
as you are aware RESTRICTED is the lowest category. as a 14yo ATC Cadet i had access to this level with RAF training manuals. The info contained within was needed for training but was not for release to the general public.
As a Police Officer, after being vetted, i was considered a person suitable to have access to various types of info.but any info regarding a case was Considered CONFIDENTIAL and therefore not open to discussion.
in the MOD job after having been vetted again i was cleared to SECRET level. this was a Personal clearance. and therefore not even Restricted under the OSA.
Note that i have used the word 'info' above. that is because it is the contents of a document that is classified info. i can say without any concerns that i dealt with dozens of documents marked SECRET provided i do not reveal their contents, this also applies to CONFIDENTIAL and RESTRICTED.

the initial question may have had some possible OSA concerns , but i do not believe that i have said anything that is the least bit sensitive. you could probably get more info from a James Bond Film.

ivor

Gwyn Nicholas

13-10-2012, 10:40

At risk of repeating myself (sorry), my post that has started this unfortunate debate, related not to the initial question (which I see no problem with) but to possible replies, hence the suggetion of PM rather than open forum. At the end of the day it was merely a suggestion not a directive, not an attempt to censor and certainly not intended to start a row over what is and what is not in breach of the Act.

At the end of the day we are all adults and we each take responsibilty for our own actions and as a wise soldier once told me " no one wants advice - just confirmation of what they have already decided".

What I would ask members to consider thougth is this, when answering a post, is there a need for dramatic references to "PC" etc or is it just enough to say "I disagree because....." Healthy debate is enjoyable and encourages others to join in, the battle for superiority in the quip and snipe stakes however has (I believe) the opposite effect. (By quips I dont include well meant humour which can be very welcome in some deep or serious discussion.) Again that is not meant as a directive, merely a suggestion. Owen I hope you got your answers.

Gwyn Nicholas

13-10-2012, 12:13

As a matter of interest (on my part) I looked up the Act.

The Official Secrets Act 1989 states that “a member of the security and intelligence services is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force.”

It seems to me from reading that, it is not necessarily the information content (though I'm sure the punishment will fit the crime on a sliding scale) but the fact that the individual (who has agreed and signed up to the Act), has divulged the information in the first place which in itself is the crime.

I dont think however that any Jobsworth, sneaky beaky SOB MOD Spook reading this would take any action against Al's post which afterall is old news to most of us. LOL

ivor43

13-10-2012, 14:29

thank you Gwyn. I think your quote confirms what i have been saying. and far from being unfortunate i think it has been quite informative in reminding us all that the OSA can have a very long reach.

ivor

steve carey

14-10-2012, 11:00

This is the first time I have read these posts, Its Sunday morning got a hangover. I thought coming on this forum was supposed to be fun. My god lads it sounds like a bitchy womens knitting curcle, I know more than you etc come on lads who knows some good jokes or funny stories. Get them heads out of them backsides and get a life.

Gwyn Nicholas

14-10-2012, 11:22

Then you were wrong. This is a Forum it is about many subjects including "jokes and funny stories" they are just in different sections of the Forum.

steve carey

14-10-2012, 11:37

Glad to see you follow my un funny jokes,But on a serious note I am not having a dig at any single person and I dont know what the snipe ref hungover I was just stating a fact ,Maybe I should only post when sober and if myself or my jokes that do get thanks offend you it was not meant as how you have taken it. No offence meant and none taken.

ivor43

14-10-2012, 11:51

steve.
If by any chance you are possibly referring to me as '' i know more than you'' then in this case i may well do. for several Years it was part of MY JOB to know. not only how to deal with this info but who out of the 100 or so people in the dept was allowed access to it.
IT IS NOT my intention to score ''Brownie Points'' but if i have knowledge relevant to a subject that i think will be useful then i WILL post it. it will then be up to others to judge it's usefulness or otherwise.
This Forum has places for all sorts of stuff, which is great. but if something comes up which MAY have some possible unforeseen consequences then it is also a good place to deal with it. i have no doubt that with the combined knowledge of the members most problems can be solved.

ivor.

Lofty-25

14-10-2012, 11:55

I was watching a documentry about Bletchey Park the other night and people who worked there, (from the surrounding villages) in WWII, still do not talk about what they done there as they signed the "OSA" and still believe it is in force today

steve carey

14-10-2012, 12:05

Vori, I was not and repeat not attacking any single person,Look guys I have not meant to offend anybody, I got up this morning and thought I would have look on the forum (sorry I did now) and read the post reguarding pub checks and just thought some posts got a little bitchy and some were taking offence that they were being challenged and debate is all about this but it was sounding to me that people were getting a tad upset . Gwyn seems to have taken it to heart and attacked me (my jokes unfunny how dare he) but on that note I will go and check a few pubs out myself today and again ...No offence meant and None taken.

Gwyn Nicholas

14-10-2012, 12:15

Steve I read most of the stuff on the Forum including your jokes but whether or not it has any interest for me I would not criticise those taking part (as up until now, not mentioned your jokes - live and let live) My point of the snipe is that your post has no relevance to the thread (as this one -my apologies Owen) and should have been in the sound off section designed to air your views. You were not afterall "stating a fact" you were giving an opinion.

Your jokes do not offend me Steve, I just find that the content of some (not all) is too close the knuckle for me particularly where the laugh depends on the misery of others. That said, that humour does appeal to some people and I would not wish to interfere with their enjoyment - power to your elbow.

steve carey

14-10-2012, 12:21

Facts opinions water bridge, thanks for the lesson.

ivor43

14-10-2012, 13:28

interesting post Lofty.
The interesting part of OSA in Gwyn quote is 'without authority'. i very much doubt that any of us on here ever had the sort of position that gave that authority. the same with most of the employees at Station X ( Bletchtly Park). they are following what probably is the best way. The 3 wise monkeys.hear all. see all, and say nowt.
also remember they had slogans like ''careless talk costs lives'', etc. i wonder if that still has some relevance today.

ivor

Gwyn Nicholas

14-10-2012, 21:20

On reflection (and none of us are perfect) I would like to apologise to Steve for my comments about his Jokes. It was an ill-thought comment and has no place on this Forum. Steve makes a large contribution to the joke and funny story section. As one who has tried to encourage more contribution it is hypocritcal of me to make such comments and I apologise not only to Steve but to all members of the Forum.

NB. No, Bob has not had a quiet word in my shell - like but he would have been quite right to do so.