Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC
can reveal.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the
course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic
neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC
can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether
he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may
have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects.
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all.
More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely
or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at
any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
bb
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:53:34 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the
course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic
neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC >>> can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the >> BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether >> he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an >> asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands >> of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may
have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able >> to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in >> open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is
strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already
falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects.
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm >> the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the >> years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all.
More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from
public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely
or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at
any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
bb
But the case was *not* about whether MI5 should admit that he was an agent! It was
about MI5 having *already* admitted to journalists that he was an
agent, and then lying to the court about having done so.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4272714257.f17dad31@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:53:34 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the >>>> course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic >>>> neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC >>>> can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the >>> BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether >>> he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an >>> asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands
of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may
have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able
to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in >>> open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is
strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already >>> falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects. >>>
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm >>> the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the >>> years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all.
More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from
public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely >>> or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at >>> any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
bb
But the case was *not* about whether MI5 should admit that he was an agent! >> It was
about MI5 having *already* admitted to journalists that he was an
agent, and then lying to the court about having done so.
Except that we only have the BBC journalists' word for that
snip
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the
course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic
neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC
can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether
he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may
have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects.
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all.
More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely
or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at
any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 12:05:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4272714257.f17dad31@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:53:34 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the >>>>> course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences. >>>>>
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic >>>>> neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC >>>>> can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the
BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether >>>> he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an >>>> asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands
of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may >>>> have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able
to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in >>>> open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is >>>> strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already >>>> falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects. >>>>
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm >>>> the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the >>>> years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all. >>>> More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from >>>> public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely >>>> or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at >>>> any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
bb
But the case was *not* about whether MI5 should admit that he was an agent! >>> It was
about MI5 having *already* admitted to journalists that he was an
agent, and then lying to the court about having done so.
Except that we only have the BBC journalists' word for that
No, MI5 have confirmed that it is true; and announced that "lessons will be learned". Which is, as always, deeply reassuring.
On 2025-02-13, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We don't have to take the journalist's word for any of this, as they
have a recording of one of the calls with MI5, and it has been confirmed
in court, and the Director General of MI5 has issued a public apology.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4272714257.f17dad31@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:53:34 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vokblf$1nfbe$7@dont-email.me...
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the >>>> course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic >>>> neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete, the BBC >>>> can reveal.
Exactly just how naive do people need to be these days, to land jobs at the >>> BBC ?
To confirm the name of an agent/asset in open court, regardless of whether >>> he was a misogynist neo-Nazi or not, not only destroys all his value as an >>> asset in whom MI5 might well have already invested hundreds if not thousands
of pounds of tax payers money. But potentially also puts he himself, his family
and his friends at risk of reprisals, at the hands of any people he may
have betrayed.
And this is regardless of the value of any information he may have been able
to provide. Possibly the BBC are demanding that this should be revealed in >>> open court as well ?
The fact he himself might have revealed his status, so as to impress is
strictly immaterial, As doubtless countless potential Llotharios already >>> falsely claim to be MI5 agents, simply so as to enhance their prospects. >>>
But that of itself doesn't put MI5 under any obligation to deny or confirm >>> the fact in open court. in any particular instance.
It is of course possible to argue, that given their dismal record down the >>> years, maybe we would be as well off without a Security Service at all.
More especially if all their decisions and operations are shielded from
public scrutiny.
But IMHO at least its either one or the other. Either scrap them entirely >>> or concede that its impossible to run an effective Security Service if at >>> any level at all, if it's going to held accountable in open court.
bb
But the case was *not* about whether MI5 should admit that he was an
agent! It was about MI5 having *already* admitted to journalists that
he was an agent, and then lying to the court about having done so.
Except that we only have the BBC journalists' word for that
That "MI5" in some guise or other had, revealed secret information to
them at all
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:30:59 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-13, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We don't have to take the journalist's word for any of this, as they
have a recording of one of the calls with MI5, and it has been confirmed
in court, and the Director General of MI5 has issued a public apology.
Not really enough is it ?
If anyone posting here were to be found guilty of perjury, I don't think "sorry" no matter how sincere would prevent a serious custodial sentence.
I want to live in a country where everyone obeys the law - even the government and it's proxies. And given that England has enjoyed almost a
half millennia of relative political stability, it's just not good enough that laws have to be broken to run the country.
I'm not an idiot. I appreciate that our security services will have to operate in secrecy from the public. But that does not excuse them from oversight and punishment.
We already know MI5 are free to murder without consequences. As bad as
that is, we don't want to add to the list of things it can get away with.
On 2025-02-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:30:59 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-13, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We don't have to take the journalist's word for any of this, as they
have a recording of one of the calls with MI5, and it has been
confirmed in court, and the Director General of MI5 has issued a
public apology.
Not really enough is it ?
If anyone posting here were to be found guilty of perjury, I don't
think "sorry" no matter how sincere would prevent a serious custodial
sentence.
I want to live in a country where everyone obeys the law - even the
government and it's proxies. And given that England has enjoyed almost
a half millennia of relative political stability, it's just not good
enough that laws have to be broken to run the country.
I'm not an idiot. I appreciate that our security services will have to
operate in secrecy from the public. But that does not excuse them from
oversight and punishment.
We already know MI5 are free to murder without consequences. As bad as
that is, we don't want to add to the list of things it can get away
with.
It only came out yesterday. It's a bit soon to say that there aren't
going to be any consequences.
Having said that, I wouldn't hold my breath...
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:30:59 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-13, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We don't have to take the journalist's word for any of this, as they
have a recording of one of the calls with MI5, and it has been confirmed
in court, and the Director General of MI5 has issued a public apology.
Not really enough is it ?
If anyone posting here were to be found guilty of perjury, I don't think "sorry" no matter how sincere would prevent a serious custodial sentence.
I want to live in a country where everyone obeys the law - even the government and it's proxies. And given that England has enjoyed almost a
half millennia of relative political stability, it's just not good enough that laws have to be broken to run the country.
I'm not an idiot. I appreciate that our security services will have to operate in secrecy from the public. But that does not excuse them from oversight and punishment.
We already know MI5 are free to murder without consequences.
As bad as
that is, we don't want to add to the list of things it can get away with.
Hmmm
To lie to one court is unfortunate
To lie to two starts to look like carelessness
To lie to three starts to look like a concerted campaign to pervert the course of justice that can only be dealt with by custodial sentences.
Discuss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew5rwpw579o
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 60:28:53 |
| Calls: | 9,812 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,191,177 |