Talk:Operation Flavius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Flavius article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
WikiProject_Gibraltar
Gibraltar Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, which aims to expand and better organise information in articles related to all aspects of Gibraltar on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

This article does not give a fair description of the events of March 1988, nor of the political circumstances. There is a better account at http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/Operation_Flavius.html. In particular, I am concerned that you state the inquest "found that all three had been shot while laying face down on the ground" I can find no mention of this crucial detail elsewhere on the web; where is your source? Otherwise, it should be removed.

Contents

[edit] Death on the Rock

This article and the Death on the Rock article are practically identical, I suggest a merger and redirect. --Coroebus 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Death on the Rock article is notable enough to deserve an article of its own. There is some overlap between the two articles, but that's not a major problem and is required to give the Death on the Rock article some context. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be if the articles were not essentially exactly the same. --Coroebus 10:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think its good to have them seperate, the incident was important as was the attempt to supress an ill informed bit of TV journalism. The solution is to expand the two topics in different ways. One thing that is not mentioned is that Channel 4 did a reconstruction of the inquest. I have that somewhere on VHS. --Gibnews 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Further Detail

Someone added the following to the Mairéad Farrell page. I feel it is too specific and would be better suited here. However, the language appears to be pidgin-esque and requires a good deal of editing to be fit for inclusion. It also seems to lack any sources. (Copyright issues?)


The (British) intelligence service was now convinced that the bombing would take place on Tuesday 8 March, yet while the Joint Operations Centre was deliberating, there was still no sign that either (Danny) McCann or (Sean) Savage was getting ready to leave Belfast. They knew the third member and commander of the team was a formidable woman called Mairead Farrell, they knew what the target was, they were pretty certain they knew the date, and they thought they knew exactly how the bombing would be carried out. So far the whole operation had been a staggering success; seldom before had the security forces been in such an enviable position. On the afternoon of Sunday 6 March the MI5 observer is enjoying a quiet cigarette in the main square when he comes face to face with a man in a pin-striped jacket and jeans whose photograph he is certain he has ben looking at all week. It is 2.30p.m. Sean Savage has arrived on the Rock. With a start the watcher turns, walks away and then on the surveillance radio net reports back to the joint operations room the possible sighting of Savage. At almost the same moment other watchers stationed at the border report that two persons answering the description of Farrell and McCann have entered Gibralter on foot and are making their way past the airport terminal towards the town centre. Meanwhile Savage has wandered back across the square to a Renault 5 parked in slot 2 with its to the wall and its boot facing into the area where the band halts at the end of its parade. He unlocks the car and fiddles with something inside for two or three minutes. No watcher is close enough to see what he is doing but the significance is obvious. The waiting is over. The two SAS teams are now ready and awaiting instructions. Each soldier has brought with him from Hereford a 9mm Browning semi-automatic pistol, 9mm ammunition and empty magazines. Suddenly the active service unit is in the square not a stones throw from the operations room. It is 2.50p.m. Farrell and McCann have joined Savage and all three walk along the line of parked cars. They stop and look at the Renault. Not for long but long enough to chill the MI5 watchers. Now there can be no doubt. Identification is positive and the time to strike has arrived. At 2.55 p.m. Colombo (Deputy Commissioner Gibralter Police) agrees to the arrest and, verbally for the moment, passes the civil power to Soldier F and the military. At that moment the three bombers turn away and head out of the square past Soldiers C and D. The soldiers report in with a positive identification and set off in pursuit. Soldier E in the operations room tells them to hold back. Control is once more with the police. At 3.40 p.m. exactly the commissioner of police signs the document handing the power of arrest to the military. He (Detective Constable Charles Huart Special Branch) gets on his motorbike and heads for (Gibralter) town. Suddenly on the corner are all three terrorists, whom he recognizes instantly. At that moment the three separate. Farrell and McCann continue to head north towards the border. Savage turns round and heads back the way he has just come. In the words of Soldier A: "As I was getting close to Farrell and McCann, McCann looked over his left shoulder. He looked over but his body did not turn. He was smiling at the time. I was behind him, approximately ten metres... he looked straight at me. We had eye to eye contact. We looked directly at each other. The smile went off McCann's face ...it is hard to describe but it is almost like McCann had realized who I actually was ...I was just about to shout a warning to stop and at the same time I was drawing my pistol. I went to say "Stop" ...I don't know if it actually came out. I honestly don't know. He looked at me and all of a sudden his right arm, his right elbow, moved, in what I deemed an agressive action, across the front of his body. I thought Mad McCann was definately going for the button. To me the whole worry was the bomb in the assembly area." Soldier A, knowing that McCann is considered to be the IRA's greatest exponent of close quarter combat, now has his browning in his hand and fires one round into McCann's back. He sees Farrell out of the corner of his eye "going for her bag". By now the two soldiers are just three metre away from the bombers. Soldier A assumes Farrell is going for the button. He shoots her in the back and then shoots McCann three more times, one in the back, two in the head. In all, A fires five times. Soldier B is concentrating on Farrell. He draws his own gun as Farrell draws a large shoulder bag across her body. "In my mind she made all the actions to carry out the detonation of a radio-controlled device... I fired one or two shots at Farrell and then switched fire to McCann... in all seven shots." Soldier C fires four rounds to the chest and two the head. Soldier D fires nine rounds. In all, Savage is hit no less than fifteen times. At 4.06 p.m. soldier F hands over control of the military operation on the colony back to the police commissioner. The military operation has been running for just twenty-six minutes. Three of the IRA's most ruthless operatives are dead. By a majority of nine to two the (inquest) verdict was lawful killing.


GiollaUidir 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

wrong spelling of Gibraltar, My understanding was that all three were leaving Gibraltar at the time, not moving towards the town center. The reference to 'the main square' is bollocks as the bomb and holding car were parked further south. This sounds like a sensationalised version taken from a popular paperback about the SAS.
The terrorists had been spotted in Spain and tracked by the Spanish intelligence services, who declined to attend the inquest, but it is believed co-operated fully with the British.
The detail can be found in the ECHR review. A link is given on the page.

--Gibnews 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres a lot of overlap between the various entries in Wikipedia about this incident. Currently all of them are fairly accurate, based on the report of the ECHR, which included the evidence presented at the inquest. Probably because of the interest at the time, this was not published and was available for an outrageous fee per page, Channel 4 bought a copy and did a full reconstruction of the inquest. This was believed to be the closest thing apart from televising the actual proceedings. I could not find the ECHR report online so created a .pdf of the copy downloaded from their website and anyone interested in the details should read that rather than the sensationalised accounts in paperback form. I've added some photographs of the locations taken recently - they are much as they were then except there were more cars parked in front of the bank then. I used to watch the band assembling and think about the possibility of someone planting a bomb, sadly others did too.

--Gibnews

[edit] Keep it real

The intention of the PIRA was to blow up the bandsmen, there was evidence they were in possession of semtex, detonators and timing devices. There were experienced and had no regard for human life. The Inquest determined that was their purpose, the independent ECHR review confirmed it, and the IRA issued a statement that they were 'on active service' - so lets not introduce any doubt in their purpose and resolve. --Gibnews 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The were killed before they took any action! They could have aborted the mission, got cold feet and decided not to carry it out or anything - we will never know! What we do know is the SAS killed 3 unarmed people on the bias and ALL of them reached for their pockets even though they were actually carrying nothing! The implication being that they all made the story up once they got back to the barracks. Vintagekits 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
They were lawfully killed, not murdered. That was the verdict of the inquest. You are free to imagine whatever you like, but there is no evidence. There was evidence of explosives and given the past history of the team they were fully committed. You might want to add some extra material describing how the PIRA bravely shot the ex-Governor of Gibraltar in the head whilst he was enjoying his retirement. --Gibnews 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Since they were immediately killed, they had no chance to defend themselves so we don't know what their personal intentions were. Meanwhile, since the British government had infiltrated the PIRA with numerous spys - including bomb experts - we don't know how reliable the evidence was against them. Do we? See the following references regarding just some of the 'outed' British spys within the PIRA: Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA, 'Stakeknife' The Story of Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA, Sinn Fein British agent shot dead Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what false flag operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.Bcsurvivor 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There are few things in this life that we can be totally sure about, in relation to this incident everybody lied in places, however the idea is to present the official record and things that are evidenced rather than wild assumptions lacking any substance.
There is reason to believe that the 'Gibraltar three' were bad people and that their elimination preserved the lives of many others, in that context I think the People of Gibraltar are due an official apology from the IRA for the attempt - which they have already acknowledged they maed - and that a line should be drawn under the matter and that we all move on. --Gibnews 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Who determines what is an "illegal paramilitary organisation"? King George of England believed that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and all of the other U.S. Patriots were members of an "illegal paramilitary organisation" and they would have been hung as traitors if King George could have managed to capture them. They may even have been drawn and quartered like the Irish Patriots of 1798.Bcsurvivor 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Currently its the UN However, I believe the IRA has been an illegal organisation according to the laws of Ireland for some time. My pal with a degree in history says you are wrong about 1798.
Nobody denies that they were in Gibraltar to detonate a large bomb, so consider them 'casualties of war' like the attack on Sir Peter Terry, who was believed to have been playing golf in Spain when the original shooting occured. --Gibnews
The links with Gibraltar and Ireland are good, indeed we are twinned with Ballymena where a number of Gibraltarians were evacuated during WW2, the Irish here are well integrated and liked. Our situation is rather different as the indigenous population is both British, Catholic, self-governing, and united before making crass comments you need to be better informed.
I was in Dublin the day of the Omagh atrocity and shared the shock with the people there. There is nothing to be admired from this sort of activity and those who came to Gibraltar intending to murder and maim innocent people received swift justice. Its history, leave it alone. --Gibnews

[edit] Allegations

Sorry, the allegations against Siobhan O'Hanlon shouldn't be included.

It's like having a link to An Phoblact stating Ian Paisley was involved in Greysteel.(Irish Republican 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I'd agree with that. If there was a fourth member it could be anyone. --Gibnews 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio evidence/claims

I think all the various radio evidence needs to be in one place, as at the moment there are competing "claims" in Death on the Rock, the inquest, and the European Court. In fact, it takes up most of the inquest section, which needs more detail in itself. Nick Cooper 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree there should be more information about the inquest, however the only published material is that reproduced in the ECHR review, unless you can get hold of a transcript of the Channel four reconstruction.

On the radio evidence, radio propagation around the rock is rather strange and the limited tests done by both camps are best described as RUBBISH. I watched the Army people doing theirs. Although I'm not saying Scott lied, he was very economical with the truth. --Gibnews

[edit] MI6 involvement

For those who did not know at this point, exMI6 agent Richard Tomlinson has edited the list of MI6 he previously released and the MI6 responsibilities for Operation Flavius apppear attributed to:

Michael Charles RAMSCAR
DOB: 1948
POSTINGS: 77 Lagos, 79 Brasilia, 86 Madrid, 89 San Jose, 97 Madrid

Tomlinsons credentials as exMI6 are not disputed afaik. A gagging order was also previously issued to try and prevent dissemination of the list alongside all his other legal woes. With these things in mind i'm wondering if the detail Tomlinson alleges can be included in the article even though it was published on his blog?

I have not read on the subject of Flavius so cannot say if the naming of Ramscar is a confirmation of previously alleged information or something new. Either way its some detail that doesn't appear in the article presently so might be worth including without infringing WP:OR.

(tried including a namebase link describing the original gagging order controversy but it triggers the spam blacklist alert)

Dee Mac Con Uladh 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECHR

The ECHR reviewed the technical evidence presented at the Gibraltar inquest, they did not add to it. As the transcript of the inquest is not freely available, I believe they charged 5 quid a page, publication by the ECHR is a reliable source of the nonsense that went on. --Gibnews 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

By definition it was disputed, that's why it was reviewed. One Night In Hackney303 08:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits: If you want to say the ECHR disputed the evidence presented at the inquest you need to substantiate that claim. They reviewed the evidence and came to conclusions. It may be you believe the evidence was rubbish, it may be that I think a lot of it was lies and fabrication from both camps, but neither of us are ECHR judges and its the record of that hearing which matters not our opinions.

The verdict was disputed by the families of the terrorists for political purposes, thats all. --Gibnews 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference is to paragraph 114

114. The applicants called Dr Scott, who held a masters degree and doctorate in engineering and was a licensed radio operator. He had been involved in two IRA trials in England. He had conducted tests with similar receivers along the route taken by the three suspects.

This is the evidence given at the inquest.

The evidence is contradictory, but the ECHR did not rule on that, or dispute any of it, even Dr Scott who was economical with the truth. --Gibnews 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try reading what you are reverting and saying - "this was further disputed at the European Court". Nobody is saying the ECHR disputed it, but by definition it was disputed at the ECHR. One Night In Hackney303 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The reference is specifically to the radio evidence and that was NOT disputed, it was reviewed. --Gibnews 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was disputed by the applicants which is why it was reviewed by the court. One Night In Hackney303 10:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Reviewed"- seems more neutral. ONIH- please use edit summaries to explain why you are reverting. Astrotrain 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The radio evidence referenced was provided by the Irish Radio expert so you are 'disputing' that ? Confused. --Gibnews 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, if, as has been suggested above, you would take more care in reading the wording of the section you keep reverting, you would see that what is being stated is that evidence and statements were disputed at the ECHR---not that the ECHR disputed said evidence, but rather that the applicants disputed it. It was the disputation on the part of the applicants that led to the court's review. Please see the following:

4. Further material submitted by the applicants
131. The applicants also submitted a further opinion of Dr Scott, dated 22 October 1993, in which he reiterated his view that it would have been impossible for the three suspects to have detonated a bomb in the target area from the location where they were shot using an ICOM or any other conceivable concealable transmitter/aerial combination, which he maintains must have been well known to the authorities. He also drew attention to the fact that the strength of a hand held transmitter is severely attenuated when held close to the human body; when transmitting it should be held well clear of the body with the aerial as high as possible.
Which can be found at this link, already used as a reference - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/gibralta.htm

---TheoldanarchistComhrá 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that the ECHR did not accept any 'new' evidence and simply reviewed what was presented at the inquest.
Dr Scott was economical with the truth. The MoD people refuted his evidence, and there was a technical analysis in the magazine 'Wireless World' which calculated that it was possible, as indeed it is in practice.
The neutrality of ECHR needs to be carefully maintained. --Gibnews 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim2718281 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) The article says "The SAS team was incorrectly informed that the IRA had already placed their bomb and were ready to detonate it."

As far as I'm aware, that is not correct. The person who examined the parked car briefly said he reported it as a suspected car bomb; and when asked in court what he meant by tnat, he explained it meant he could not rule out the possibility there was a bomb in the car.