Sunday Times claims Jonathan Evans to be the next Director General of the Security Service MI5
The Sunday Times has yet another story by David Leppard, which relies on secret briefings by some Whitehall sources or other, regarding Jonathan Evans, the alleged favourite candidate to take over as the new Director General of MI5 the Security Service, when Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller retires in April 2007.
The Sunday Times
December 17, 2006New MI5 boss is top expert on Al-Qaeda
David Leppard
A SPYMASTER who has tracked Al-Qaeda’s activities in Britain since the organisation first emerged as a threat to this country is frontrunner to be the next head of MI5.
Sources said Jonathan Evans, senior deputy director-general of the security service, was a “racing certainty” to take over from Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who surprised Whitehall last week by announcing that she would be stepping down early from the top job.
Sources said she had decided to quit in anticipation that she might be asked to resign over blunders concerning last year’s July 7 bombings.
Surely Jonathan Evans must also share any blame, and could even be directly responsible, for any MI5 mistakes in failing to track the July 2005 terrorists attackers ?
Evans is a career spy with a background in fighting terror. He served as head of G branch, MI5’s international terrorism section, making him the agency’s then supremo in dealing with the emerging Al-Qaeda threat. Before that he served as a senior officer in Northern Ireland, helping to spearhead the fight against the IRA.The Home Office maintained last week that there was nothing unusual about Manningham-Buller’s decision to leave after only four years in the job.
Although we do not always agree with the Home Office, this statement does appear to be true. Dame Eliza's 12 predecessors since World War 2 as Directors General of MI5, have stuck the job out for, on average 5 years, so retiring after 4.5 years is not unusual.
Given that there is bound to be a Cabinet re-shuffle after the May 2007 Local Elections, which are likely to see heavy defeats for the Labour Party, perhaps this has affected the timing, as much as her thirty third anniversary since joining the Security Service.
In her leaving statement she insisted that she had decided in “early 2005” that it would be time to stand down by April 2007. But Whitehall officials said that the announcement had come as a “surprise”.Insiders and security experts see it as a “pre-emptive strike” linked to forthcoming revelations concerning how much her agency knew about the intentions of the July 7 suicide bombers in the 18 months before the attacks.
The sources said that the agency was bracing itself for detailed disclosures about its intelligence on Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shezhad Tanweer, the two leading bombers who killed 52 people. The Sunday Times and other media are prevented by court orders from making this evidence public.
The sources said that Manningham-Buller’s decision to step down was unlikely to head off widespread public criticism of the spy agency: “She knows she will be asked to resign over this. She was protected by Charles Clarke (the former home secretary) but some people believe that if things go badly wrong John Reid (his successor) will be happy to slit her throat.”
We ask again, if there were serious, avoidable mistakes regarding the July 2005 attacks, then why should Jonathan Evans be promoted, rather than also having to resign ?
If the Labour Government had any honour or decency, it would be the Home Secretary who resigned, if such mistakes were proven, even if they had happened under one of his predecessors.
[...]The Home Office will this week begin circulating advertisements for her replacement. Reid will make the final choice, expected to be announced by the end of next month. However, security sources are already tipping Evans to take over in April. As deputy, he has had daily responsibility for oversight of the service’s operational work.
Evans is highly respected as a spymaster. A source said: “He is very switched on. He’s dynamic, confident, a natural leader. He’s a gifted communicator. He’s very comfortable with himself and is good with ministers and mixing at the top table. But he is also very personable. He’s good at dealing with staff in a hail-fellow-well-met sort of way.”
Evans is also said to have a formidable intellect: “He grasps the material and can make a quick decision. He has gravitas but he’s also got a very relaxed style.”
[...]
What job is this starstruck "source" hoping for under Jonathan Evans ?
Can Evans resist the demands by the NuLabour apparatchiki for ever more secret mass surveillance and snooping on innocent British citizens, or is he a willing co-conspirator ?
So who are the rest of the tiny pool of suitable candidates for the job ?
Is this article actually an attempt to ensure that Jonathan Evans does not get the job of Director General of MI5 ?
Comments
my understanding of the reason for the
resignation of eliza dolittle is that
the cia requested the 'termination' of
her employment contract - that she had
little choice to comply because :-
[a] she failed to stop yuan getting locked to dollar back in 2001
[b] she has failed to resolve a long
running dispute with someone seeking
redress from thames house
[c] she has caused the russians to reaxamine LNG - specifically the creation
of a cartel - causing significant problems
with the US who are significant users of LNG [anywhere from a third to a half of
all US energy requirements are LNG]
total cost of eliza dolittle over a four
and half year period are estimated internally by the cia to be in the region
of 300 BILLION dollars
...not a career enhancing move...
Posted by: mario | March 19, 2007 10:27 AM
@ mario - that all seems very improbable.
What on earth has the "cia" got to do with the the running of the United Kingdom's Security Service MI5 ?
How exactly could this possibly have been achieved by any, essentially domestic intelligence agency, except perhaps a Chinese one ?
Why should she, as "Deputy Director General, with day-to-day responsibility for oversight of the Service's operational work and its liaison with other law enforcement and intelligence agencies" in 2001, been able to do this if the "cia" were not able to do so ?
Why would the "cia" be working against the economic interests of the USA in the first place ?
The US Treasury and Government do not object to other countries linking their currencies to the US dollar ! They have fought wars to achieve this - it makes financing any budget deficits via the world money markets much easier.
The enemies of the USA like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran have threatened to, or are in the process of linking their economies to the Euro rather than the dollar to try to reduce the influence of the US Government.
Given the legal and administrative protections which the Security Service MI5 enjoys, any "long running dispute with someone seeking redress from thames house" will continue for many years, probably until the complainant dies of old age, regardless of who the Director General happens to be.
How ?
What makes you think that petroleum and natural gas industries, the major part of the foreign exchange earning power of the Russian economy are not always under constant review, regardless ?
You seem to be confusing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which is exported and imported via cryogenic ships and storage terminals, with Natural Gas and Town Gas delivered by pipelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG
The United Kingdom or France actually import more LNG than the United States does.
How exactly are you privy to alleged internal CIA estimates ?
Are you being manipulated by whoever is feeding you this information ?
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller is retiring at the end of this month after 30 years of service with the Security Service - that seems like quite a solid career !
Jonathan Evans has been confirmed as the new Director General of the Security Service MI5.
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page598.html
Posted by: wtwu | March 19, 2007 4:11 PM