When discussing the need to contact the security services, Geordie makes reference to the Ministry of Defence. For a series set in the 1950s this is a nonsense. Prior to 1964 each of the 3 arms of the British military had its own ministry: the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. In the 1950s MI5 (and MI6) were administered by the War Office.
share[deleted]
The office of the Minister of Defence was a high level political position that provided a fused input at Cabinet level, thereby freeing the heads of individual Service ministries from attending Cabinet. So whilst a Minister of Defence existed in the 1950s, a Ministry of Defence did not; moreover, the Minister of Defence had no operational responsibilities - such operational control remained with the individual Service ministries.
All this however is a mute point. A DI in a provincial police force would never have had any direct dealings with either the War Office or MI5 anyway. Counter-espionage issues at a local level would have been referred to the county constabulary's Special Branch who would already have the means and protocols in place the discuss any such issues with the security services.
[deleted]
I'm surprised that a spy, albeit a "senior" one, spoke directly to Geordie about it. Surely spies are supposed to remain under cover. Would this kind of thing not have gone through the Chief Constable, with him instructing Geordie to back off? Geordie had no reason to obey the spy but he'd have been obliged to obey his CC, without challenge or complaint.
share[deleted]
But then - isn't the whole operation about a spy apparently breaking cover.
The double bluff is to expose/confirm that the dead man was a spy, and that his cover was blown.
It would work in the service's favour to have local coppers gossiping about murdered spies and being warned off investigating it more closely - just the sort of thing most likely to convince "the Tsar" that the Brits have stuffed up, and that their double agent is a legitimate defector.
[deleted]
I didn't imply that there was collusion - rather that Montgomery might chose to leak a little information about Lyall to a lowly detective to add to the sense of panic and incompetance around his death, and draw the enemy closer to the bait.
share[deleted]
Purely speculative - but if you look up thread, you see that I am suggesting reasons why total secrecy and adherence to protocol might be counter-productive in an operation to embed a triple-agent and flush out a mole.
Montgomery has just staged a very public and dramatic murder/suicide to attract the Soviets' attention and flush out a mole. Attracting genuine police attention and then disrupting it is a necessary part of that operation. There was always going to be a local bobby asking questions - and he was always going to be given enough misinformation early in the process to make MI5 look unprepared and wounded.
Le Carre uses a similar device to embed Leamas in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, and then to force his "defection" - there are policemen and civilians involved at every stage who are "warned off" Leamas precisely to draw attention to his precarious position and make him more attractive as a target for the East Germans.
Where this almost goes off the track is Sidney's unorthodox involvement and his effect on Geordie.
[deleted]
@aspire_co_uk It is "moot point", not "mute point". Google it.
share