14 ms·
MI5’s falsehoods in the case of neo-Nazi spy who abused women
- wizzwizz4 1y agoThe title's too long. Suggested: MI5 lied in court in case of spy who abused women.
- hdb385 1y ago[flagged]
- wizzwizz4 1y agoWhich Invasion?
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoLikely some anti-immigrant nonsense.
- hdb385 1y agoLOL, imagine?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- aniviacat 1y ago[flagged]
- vintagedave 1y agoThis appears to be the related story about the agent: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61508520 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61508520 Some truly crazy things in that article too. For example, > X states he will kill her, leaves the room, and returns holding a machete ... The video cuts out amid her screams ... X was arrested, charged with assaulting Beth and appeared in court. However, while he was at court, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case. How can there be a _video_ of a machete attack and the case is dropped? > items of hers that had also been seized by counter terror officers were returned to a member of her family by a man who did not identify himself. The relative assumed the man was an associate of X. ... We have established the visitor was an MI5 officer. Material seized by a police investigation, under a police warrant, had been given to MI5. Just read that last sentence! I'm not a UK national, but tend to believe in them -- including MI5 -- being the 'good guys'. We need good guys in today's world, desperately. This kind of article is hard to read.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- StopDisinfo910 1y agoThere are no such things as ‘good guys’ especially for states. States only believe in their own interests and the narrative always go towards the powerful and the one which won. That’s the fatal flaw in international "justice" and has been from the start. Where were the people who allowed the nuclear bombing of civilians during the Nuremberg trials? Why was nothing said about the western nation entering the war so late despite what they knew? Because that’s not justice, merely retribution. Then, you have to considered the role played by secret institutions in democratic countries. Do they serve the citizenship, the national interests (what does that even mean?), the people in power, themselves first and foremost? From history, I wouldn’t trust them very much, even less as a foreigner. Be wary of any institution or person holding power. Check and balance are deeply needed and we should be horrified every times they are being limited or abused. If the UK is still serious about being a liberal democracy, this should have sever consequences. I’m sadly fairly sure it won’t.
- Hendrikto 1y ago> If the UK is still serious about being a liberal democracy They have not been for quite a while. They are the type of country where you go to jail over a meme.
- diggan 1y agoWhat could MI5 possibly stand to gain from hiding a person who is described as "a violent misogynist abuser with paedophilic tendencies who had used his MI5 role as a tool of coercion"? Is it only because it would "look bad on MI5" if people like that worked there? Seems like such a trivial thing to immediately take a stand against and get rid of as soon as you notice it, rather than trying to hide
- johnisgood 1y agoOr perhaps that person knows too much, so it is better to swipe it under the rug. They will probably eventually attempt to disassociate themselves from him, through any means necessary.
- actionfromafar 1y agoThis seems like a bad strategy then. It brings more attention. Disappearing HIM seems the best strategy.
- johnisgood 1y agoYes, your last sentence is exactly what I was thinking of. They will probably end up doing that, one way or another.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoThe combination of being ready to forgive "good people", and ready to consider the enemies of "good people" your enemies too, can be horrifying – and yet, it feels incredibly righteous in the moment. (Related story: a lay preacher was a stalker, and the Bishop of Leicester helped retaliate against the victim. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3velqy9rzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3velqy9rzo)
- antihero 1y ago> What could MI5 possibly stand to gain from hiding a person who is described as "a violent misogynist abuser with paedophilic tendencies who had used his MI5 role as a tool of coercion"? Because people like that are useful to get inside organisations full of other evil people and prevent those organisations doing even worse things. I hate it, but that is the logic.
- aspenmayer 1y agoTitle needs edit. Original title of article is: > How MI5 piled falsehood on falsehood in court in the case of a spy who abused women
- vessenes 1y agoSomewhat surprisingly, the current title does not seem to be editorializing or otherwise changing the thrust of the article; I don’t mind it staying as is
- aspenmayer 1y agoAt the time I posted, the title was truncated and did not include the direct object or object of the preposition, so it was title gore. It has since been edited by OP or by mods, so the issue is resolved in my view. I don't dispute that the title as you may have seen it is fine, now.
- throwawayffffas 1y agoThat's a clear failure of culture and leadership in their investigation, how they can't see that defending bad actors in their organization only sheds a shadow on their entire organization is beyond me. The accused agent, has brought shame and dishonor on their group, he effectively betrayed the organization with his actions, the fact his colleagues chose to break the law to support him is beyond the pale. This is just a symptom of the old boys club that normalizes deviancy, covering up slip ups and inevitably to shit like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
- madaxe_again 1y agoBut why would they care about there being a shadow on their organisation? They are immune to prosecution, will be funded no matter what, and if some politician, judge, or media organisation gets in their way they can simply neutralise them.
- aspenmayer 1y ago> But why would they care about there being a shadow on their organisation? That which need not exist ought not cast a shadow, no? Drawing attention to themselves or their work is an own goal. > Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
- throwawayffffas 1y ago> They are immune to prosecution, Are they really, that sounds improbable but I will believe you for the purposes of this discussion. > will be funded no matter what, and if some politician, judge, or media organisation gets in their way they can simply neutralise them. They are MI5, they are pretty much glorified police. Their funding is not guaranteed, their existence is not guaranteed, they could be replaced as an organization as whole, or piecemeal. See what's happening to the FBI, this could happen to them. All it would take would be sufficient political momentum or a teflon politician. A politician on whom nothing sticks.
- greatgib 1y agoIt is crazy how secret services in a lot of "democratic" countries now have a green pass to violate the national law for their own interests without real consequence. It reminds me of the secret service in a Nordic country (maybe Denmark?) that shared national secret info with the US without any right to do so, without approval of the national assembly. Also, what should be the scariest thing in the report: "as on board as other journalists"
- audunw 1y ago“now”? At what point has there been good accountability of secret services? Given what we know of their history it has arguably been even worse before. Perhaps some smaller countries have had secret services with an apparently clean record (would be hard to know for sure) at some point. But that could be more a matter of luck with who was in charge and hired at that point.
- greatgib 1y agoIt is new, for both secret services and politics, there use to be a principe of honor and respectability. Once exposed to bad behaviors, people where quitting by themselves or heads being chopped because of the public shame. Now the people involved will keep their position till the end, doing whatever needed and whatever the cost to not move despite being convicted or close to it. To me, this is new in the last decades. Look at Nixon with the Watergate, nowadays, same with Trump, the guys will just say "and so what?" And things will continue like if it was nothing. Same in UK, same in France, ...
- bavell 1y agoIt's crazy to me that some people think this is new.
- perching_aix 1y agoNot sure why it would be, short of taking a cheap shot at people. Most people alive right now were born in the past 50 years [0], and won't be intimately familiar with history in so much detail, including me. It's niche knowledge, let's be honest. And people being conspiratorial and speculating on these is not the same as knowing about it with examples. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag...
- wiradikusuma 1y agoReminds me of Black Bag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bag). Also, I can't help but feel depressed thinking about countries with less sophisticated justice systems. The absolute power an individual (they can be low rank!) gives me the shudders.
- GHanku 1y agoFor anyone not familiar with the British State, it, along with its lieutenants such as the bbc, continually check the temperature of the nation. As it’s important that the docile middle classes who rarely interact with the justice system or question the media, remain naive. Along with those sold on the British Image around the world. These legal cases are just theatre with professional actors. ‘Justice being seen to be done’ Trust in the bbc has been nosediving, and up pops this case of the BBC holding the state to account… and the judges giving appearance of impartiality…
- fn-mote 1y agoWhat can I say, super instructive about what to expect when you start making inquiries about a state apparatus with lots of power. It also shows the need to make meticulous notes about everything and hold the state to telling the truth (as much as you can).
- sofixa 1y agoAs worrying as this story is, I find it interesting and consoling that the BBC, which is a state owned media, didn't hesitate and even strongly pushed to investigate and publish a story of abuse at another government agency. They weren't pressured to drop it, but kept going. Goes strongly against the common narrative about "the mainstream media" and state media in particular (about them being complicit and useless).
- v5v3 1y agoMy friend that is how they work. The BBC is not only a domestic tool, but a global tool for controlling the image of the British state and perceived lack of corruption. When people start to question their behaviour, up pops this kinda counter. The judges are part of the same system.
- sofixa 1y ago> The BBC is not only a domestic tool, but a global tool for controlling the image of the British state and perceived lack of corruption And they control it by exposing that the MI5 is covering woman abusing pedophiles ?
- v5v3 1y agoYes. These are the ancestors of the people who flooded China with Opium, and killed more people in India then Hitler did in his time. Did you not see the lengths they went to over complying over the Chagos Islands? To be 'seen' as a lawful country.
- olelele 1y agoFrom what I can recall there has been similar things happening in Germany where police informers used the money gotten from informing on their (extreme right-wing) group to finance the group agenda. This is far from new. Secret services should be abolished in the name of democracy. There was also the cases where at least one British undercover police officer infiltrated environmental organisations, and in the process fathered children under their assumed identity.
- brunker2 1y ago[dead]