What's new

The UK's celebrated espionage services

s28

ODI Debutant
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Runs
9,388
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MI5 agents are allowed to carry out criminal activity in the UK, the government has acknowledged for the first time.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/counterinsurgency?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#counterinsurgency</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/democracy?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#democracy</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RuleOfLaw?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RuleOfLaw</a><a href="https://t.co/oIzWUmUC6m">https://t.co/oIzWUmUC6m</a></p>— CAGE (@UK_CAGE) <a href="https://twitter.com/UK_CAGE/status/969618784293212160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">2 March 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The order was published after a legal battle by the human rights groups Reprieve and Privacy International.

Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve, said: “After a seven-month legal battle the prime minister has finally been forced to publish her secret order but we are a long way from having transparency.

“The public and parliament are still being denied the guidance that says when British spies can commit criminal offences and how far they can go.

“Authorised criminality is the most intrusive power a state can wield. Theresa May must publish this guidance without delay.”

Millie Graham Wood, a solicitor at Privacy International, said there was no justification why the secret direction was not published earlier.

“Had we not sought to challenge the government over the failure to publish this direction, together with Reprieve, it is questionable whether it would have ever been brought to light,” she said. “It is wrong in principle for there to be entire areas of intelligence oversight and potentially of intelligence activity, about which the public knows nothing at all.”
 
Well. You can't question CIA, ISI, RAW, MOSSAD, MIs for crimes anyway. They work bit too undercover for that.
 
Allowed to now ?

British intelligence would've made Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld proud with their antics in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Its been proven British intelligence colluded with Loyalist terrorists to murder innocent Catholics such as human rights lawyer Pat Finucane.

The British however seem to think everything is done to them in the world and we never would behave like a bad actor.
 
Allowed to now ?

British intelligence would've made Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld proud with their antics in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Its been proven British intelligence colluded with Loyalist terrorists to murder innocent Catholics such as human rights lawyer Pat Finucane.

The British however seem to think everything is done to them in the world and we never would behave like a bad actor.

They are not allowed to now specifically, they are just acknowledging that it's something which does happen after pressure from rights groups to go public with this pointless information which [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] has learned for the first time in his life. It's not always ethical, but at times a very necessary evil to get catch the big fish.
 
Nothing new. Supposed intelligence agencies are exempt from many if not all things. In the name of defending the country all security services follow special rules that are no rules at all.
 
In other news, Sun rises in East this morning.
 
Funny the people who claim this isn't news will be the first to claim others are conspiracy theorists when false flags are pointed out
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What crimes has <a href="https://twitter.com/theresa_may?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@theresa_may</a> authorised British spies to commit? Sign <a href="https://twitter.com/Reprieve?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Reprieve</a> petition to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndTheCharade?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EndTheCharade</a> and publish the guidance on the Third Direction now. <a href="https://t.co/tcYpJ5E0QW">https://t.co/tcYpJ5E0QW</a> <a href="https://t.co/L4D5E3tkKV">pic.twitter.com/L4D5E3tkKV</a></p>— Reprieve (@Reprieve) <a href="https://twitter.com/Reprieve/status/969285580776407045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">1 March 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Funny the people who claim this isn't news will be the first to claim others are conspiracy theorists when false flags are pointed out

And how does this explain that the government is behind false flag operations, what they really meant was committing a crime as in spying unethically on drug dealers, terrorists etc for example to get information which would help put them behind bars. What did you get in your A-Levels [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] ?
 
Being forced to acknowledge it. i.e. it wasn't widely known and they don't want it widely known
 
It is of course a slippery slope. If your Spies can commit crimes in your country then why can't other countries spies commit crimes in your country ?

We just have a free for all right ? So much for British Values of Fair Play, Tolerance, Democracy and the RULE of LAW

Just witness all the impotent and hypocritical crying from the Establishment media that one of their double agents has been supposedly knocked off by the Russians
 
It is of course a slippery slope. If your Spies can commit crimes in your country then why can't other countries spies commit crimes in your country ?

We just have a free for all right ? So much for British Values of Fair Play, Tolerance, Democracy and the RULE of LAW

Just witness all the impotent and hypocritical crying from the Establishment media that one of their double agents has been supposedly knocked off by the Russians

So attempted state murder on our soil by a foreign power is ok by you? When it means a dozen Britons are hospitalised by an indiscriminate chemical weapon?

Reads to me like “the Establishment media”, and not you, has the moral high ground in this instance.
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-violated-human-rights-with-bulk-intercepts-european-rights-court-rules-2021-05-25/

Britain's GCHQ eavesdropping agency breached fundamental human rights by intercepting and harvesting vast amounts of communications, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.

Revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden showed that GCHQ and the U.S. National Security Agency were sucking up vast amounts of communications from across the world,including on their own citizens.

The Strasbourg-based court ruled in a case known as "Big Brother Watch and Others vs. the United Kingdom" that Britain had breached the right to respect for private and family life communications and the right to freedom of expression with its bulk intercept regime.

The regime for obtaining communications data from service providers also violated human rights, the court said, though it added that bulk interception in itself was not illegal.

The law which allowed the bulk interception has since been replaced by new legislation which the British government says provides greater oversight.

"This judgment confirms that the UK’s mass spying breached citizens’ rights to privacy and free expression for decades," said Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch.

"We welcome the judgment that the UK’s surveillance regime was unlawful, but the missed opportunity for the Court to prescribe clearer limitations and safeguards means that risk is current and real."

Civil liberties campaigners,including Big Brother Watch and Amnesty International, had brought the case as they believed their communications had been harvested by bulk interception unnecessarily and without due process.

The British government argued that bulk interception was critical for national security and had enabled it to uncover grave threats. Essentially, London argued that it had to harvest vast amounts of data to find the threats.

The court ruled that a bulk interception regime did not in itself violate human rights but that it should have proper safeguards.

Britain said it had established an international benchmark with its "unprecedented transparency" over data and privacy.

"The UK has one of the most robust and transparent oversight regimes for the protection of personal data and privacy anywhere in the world," a government spokeswoman said, adding that the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act has already replaced the earlier legislation that was the basis of the challenge.

The court ruled that there had been no violation of rights by requests for intercepted material from foreign intelligence agencies.
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/classified-uk-defence-documents-found-bus-stop-england-says-bbc-2021-06-27/

Classified documents from Britain's defence ministry containing details about a British warship and Russia's potential reaction to its passage through the Black Sea have been found at a bus stop in southern England, the BBC reported on Sunday.

The BBC said the documents, almost 50 pages in all, were found "in a soggy heap behind a bus stop in Kent early on Tuesday morning" by a member of the public, who wanted to remain anonymous.

The Ministry of Defence said it had been informed last week of "an incident in which sensitive defence papers were recovered by a member of the public".

"The department takes the security of information extremely seriously and an investigation has been launched. The employee concerned reported the loss at the time. It would be inappropriate to comment further," a spokesperson said.

Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova mocked the British government on social media channel Telegram, saying: "London has used a number of lies to cover up the latest provocation. 007 (James Bond) is no longer the same."

"And now a riddle-like question for the British parliament, why do we need 'Russian hackers' if there are British bus stops?"

Britain's main opposition Labour Party said the discovery of the documents by a member of the public was "as embarrassing as it is worrying for ministers".

Labour's defence policy chief John Healey said ministers needed to confirm that national security had not been undermined or security operations affected and that "procedures are in place to ensure nothing like this happens again".

The BBC reported that the documents, which included emails and PowerPoint presentations, related to the British warship Defender, which this month sailed through waters off the Crimean peninsula, a region Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Russia said on Wednesday it had fired warning shots and dropped bombs in the path of the ship to chase it out of what the Kremlin says are its territorial waters but which Britain and most of the world say belong to Ukraine. It later summoned the British ambassador in Moscow for a formal diplomatic scolding over what it described as a provocation.

Britain rejected Russia's account of the incident. It said it believed any shots fired were a pre-announced Russian "gunnery exercise", and that no bombs had been dropped.

It confirmed the destroyer had sailed through what it said were Ukrainian waters, describing its path as "innocent passage" in accordance with international law of the sea. The BBC said the documents suggested the ship's mission was conducted in the expectation that Russia might respond aggressively.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/03/civil-servant-who-lost-mod-files-at-a-bus-stop-was-to-be-uks-ambassador-to-nato

The senior civil servant who misplaced 50 pages of classified Ministry of Defence documents, which were later found at a bus stop in Kent, was being lined up to be appointed the UK’s ambassador to Nato at the time of the incident, according to two government sources.

The elevation of Angus Lapsley is now understood to be unlikely but not definitely ruled out in light of the unfortunate episode, in which the mislaid paperwork – some of which was marked secret – discussed sensitive deployments in Afghanistan and the Black Sea.

It became public because the paperwork was handed to the BBC at the end of June, prompting the broadcaster to put together a report detailing some of its contents.

Lapsley, who has not previously been named, has already had his security clearance suspended pending a full review and has been redeployed from the MoD to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, from where he was on secondment.

Without security clearance he could not continue in his MoD position, acting as a director general, responsible for defence policy on Nato and the general Euro-Atlantic area. But a final penalty has yet to be decided.

The lack of a definitive public sanction and talk of the Nato job has left some security sources in government unhappy. One argued it would make it harder for the MoD or other government departments to firmly penalise junior employees for making a similar mistake. “It used to be the case that people would be hung out to dry for something like this,” they added.

One of the documents was, the BBC said, marked “Secret UK Eyes Only”, and included sensitive recommendations for the UK’s future military footprint in Afghanistan, including any role for its special forces, once US and Nato operations finally wind up over the summer.

Such secret documents, printed out on pink paper, are not supposed to be taken from government buildings unless they are properly logged out and securely stored. A special case was used to store them when they were retrieved from the BBC, a Whitehall source said. The source added: “The documents should not have been taken out of the building in this way and in this case.”

Last month, James Sunderland, a former soldier and backbench Conservative MP, said the person who removed the documents “must be held fully to account” because “the incident must have involved the deliberate removal of pink – secret – documents from the MOD secure area”.

Last week, the MoD said in a written statement to parliament that “there was no evidence of espionage” and concluded that all the classified material was recovered after the leak to the BBC. There “has been no compromise of the papers by our adversaries”, the ministry added.

The abandoned papers also revealed that there were two possible routes under consideration for the HMS Defender in its recent voyage across the Black Sea, one briefly passing through the territorial waters of Russian-occupied Crimea and the other sailing many miles away.

It confirmed that the decision to sail the warship close to Crimea and provoke Russia was a deliberate choice by the UK.

Lapsley is a respected long-serving official, who first became a civil servant in 1991 and acted as a private secretary for Tony Blair in the early phase of his premiership before moving on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The civil servant regularly features on thinktank panels discussing defence and foreign policy issues, and deputised for the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, at the Munich Security Conference in February 2020.

Last week the MoD said it would not make any comment on the identity of the individual who mislaid the documents, citing security reasons. But government sources told the Guardian there was no security reason not to name Lapsley.

The most likely punishment the civil servant will face is the further suspension of his clearance to see classified material, which is likely to last months rather than weeks.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said the UK took the protection of classified information seriously. “The individual concerned has been removed from sensitive work and has already had their security clearance suspended pending a full review,” they added.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/15/british-man-accused-of-spying-for-russia-will-not-be-extradited-from-germany

The British national accused of selling secrets to Russia will not be extradited back home to face justice despite the seriousness of the claims.

Britain’s “archaic” counter-espionage laws have been exposed, say sources, by the arrest of David Smith, 57, a security guard contracted to the Berlin embassy. They say there is little point in bringing him home because the current legislation is too weak to deal with spies acting against British interests.

The case of Smith has thrown a spotlight on the UK’s inability to prosecute foreign agents despite widespread concern about the activities of Russian spies in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attack in March 2018 which left victims Sergei and Yulia Skripal in hospital for several weeks.

However, the source added that the situation was being rectified with the government’s Covid-delayed counter-state threats bill which will mean foreign agents working for a country such as Russia have to register when they start working in the UK. Based on the US system, anyone employed on behalf of foreign governments, officials or political parties in future will first have to notify the British authorities.

Smith was motivated by ideology, not money, sources have confirmed.

They indicate that he had rightwing leanings which drove him to help Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Although he received payment for allegedly passing on sensitive documents about British counterterrorism operations, sources say the money was merely an added “bonus”.

Smith is alleged to have been paid a cash bribe to pass information to Russian intelligence and is suspected of at least once passing to a handler documents he had acquired through his work.

According to the website of Der Spiegel, Smith drew the attention of investigators after going for an unusually long time without making payments by card or withdrawing cash. German federal police and public prosecutor investigators concluded that Smith was covering his expenses using cash he had been paid with directly.

Pictures taken from inside his flat last week in Potsdam appear to demonstrate his affinity to the Kremlin with at least two Russian flags alongside scores of military history books, some in Russian.
 
Back
Top