It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But this is interesting to me, to learn more about the UK restrictions.
I'm afraid that's incorrect @Ludovico. Semi-automatic pistols such as the Walther PPK were perfectly legal in the UK, to anyone over the age of 17 and holding a licence, until 1997.
Even since the ban on firearms in 1997, someone like Bond would almost certainly still be entitled to carry one in the UK (as he does in Skyfall) as a 'Personal Protection Weapon'
The 1997 legislation was pretty controversial at the time but it's worth noting that the UK now has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world.
There's no such distinction in law @Ludovico. Bond would be legally entitled to possess a semi-automatic handgun (regardless of how it was obtained or who it was owned by) as "a person in the service of Her Majesty" - he would require written authorisation, probably from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary, which he would certainly receive.
As to whether he has the right to use it, he would be subject to the law like anyone else. The use of force for (a) the prevention of crime and (b) the apprehension of offenders (and those unlawfully at large) must be ‘reasonable’. I think Bond's behaviour in both TWINE and SF (the only occasions I can remember him using his gun in the UK) would be considered more than reasonable and the case wouldn't even get to court.
We have a number of armed units in the UK. As mentioned, MI5's Regional Action Groups are armed, as is the Met's SCO19.
Yes but those are MI5, not MI6. MI6 operates outside UK and if I'm not wrong an operative would get armed abroad, not in the UK. Although I do understand the rules are not always strictly applied.
You're right that SIS operates abroad and, as such, those operatives that carry firearms do so for their operations overseas. But those operatives that (a) carry firearms as part of their duties and (b)are based in the UK and not permanently stationed abroad will be licenced to carry a gun in the UK even though they will not be expected or, for that matter, authorised (by SIS) to actually use it in the UK.
I wonder do these unmanned drones that are giving the Pakistani Taliban such a time of it could be classed as being from the covert "James Bond" school of modern warfare at all? I'm very interested in exploring this in more depth soon and thought that I would ask my felolow MI6 agents here.
I'm also still very interested in the points raised in my OP in this thread - namely "Were there ever secret agents (or other state actors "licensed to kill") in real-life?"
(But he's a[n ostensible] liberal, so that's all right then.)
I wonder if that's because, iirc (I could easily be wrong, though), those programs are run under the purview of the military, rather than by our CIA or NSA?
But even if that's so, please recall that our military branches have their very own intelligence services, and consequently, the drone programs could very well be spook-run, instead of or as well as, warrior-run.
(I seem to recall reading somewhere that both the military and the security community have players in place in the facilities running the drone program.)
There is little question that these drone programs are literal assassination functions, and are thus literal licence-to-kill scenarios in real life.
Thanks, Obama!
(Mods, brandy-new callow noob here; this is my very first post. If political commentary and/or snark are verboten, or just not done, pls accept my apologies and feel free to selectively or entirely delete. If you alert me that this is an infraction, it won't happen again. Cheers!)
I recall Fleming mentioning it in his third Bond novel Moonraker (1955), a mission set entirely in England for which he was allowed special dispensation as a Secret Service (or MI6) agent to conduct his investigation within UK borders. This would normally be solely within MI5's (the Security Services') remit.
It might not be the best solution for maintaining your secret agent status, not to mention upsetting international relationships for your country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
Yes I remember. People often confuse the two.
AFAK the drone programs in Syria and Iraq at least are run both by the military, but more specifically, by the CIA. Again to my knowledge, the Americans are one of the few, if only Western countries to give a non-military organisation so much power. For others, amongst which my own country, spying in these hotbeds is done mostly by military intelligence (which to my mind makes more sense). I don't think any other president, republican or democrat, would've cut down on the drones, as they avoid casualties on your own side. It's an American habit to avoid risking their own staff and as much as possible fight from a distance. Not saying it's good or bad, just that there's a difference.
Fleming simply took that concept and applied to enemies of the state in peacetime.
In the modern world, Govt employees kill all the time - look at the number of people legally killed by police officers in the US and other countries
Interesting, it underlines my post from 2017.
Wonder if the French do it that way as well. As I understand it they're killing off their jihad fighters as a measure to prevent them from coming back.