MI5 Far Right Agent Used Status To Terrorise Girlfriend

[Magnus McGinty]

I do think there’s similarities to spy cops but agree not quite the same.

MI5 agent used secret status to terrorise girlfriend

The government tried to block publication of the story about the agent who attacked with a machete.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is a trend for the security services to either turn a blind eye to, or actively encourage, crime if it means they get good intel as a result.

 

[planetgeli]

When I saw the first few seconds of that video I thought 'right-wing infiltrator'.

Imagine my surprise when...

 

[planetgeli]

But, as well as the women-hating, he is an actual Nazi (who shits on his fellow Nazis) isn't he? The report I saw said he was found with stuff in his handwriting about wanting to kill Jews...just to add to his self-confessed (in the video) murderous intent towards basically anyone, particularly any women in his way seemingly.

But yeah, an actual Nazi, employed by MI5 (not just a tout) - with immunity.

 

[NoXion]

There is a trend for the security services to either turn a blind eye to, or actively encourage, crime if it means they get good intel as a result.

And that's why I think that spooks (broadly defined) are a cancer on society. Deceivers and manipulators with no morals.

 

[story]

Release the man back to the community and protect his anonymity because otherwise his life could possibly be in danger. The man who beat, threatened, assaulted and caused harm and damage to several women and will very likely do so again. Protect the man who made threats to kill and rape children, because his safety is more important than those he will probably harm in the future.

This is the patriarchy in action. The multiple women he has already harmed and the women he will no doubt harm in the future are less important and less significant than the peace and safety of the male perpetrator, who works inside the system.

Fuck this shit.

 

[Athos]

It seems like two issues are being conflated: that he escaped prosecution, and that he can't be named.

With regard to the first issue, there's no real evidence that the Security Service interfered in the police investigation or CPS decision not to prosecute, such that the fact he was released into the community had nothing to do with the fact he was a CHIS. Sadly, this seems like a run-of-the-mill example of the criminal justice system failing victims of domestic violence.

With regard to the second, presumably there would've been nothing to prevent the BBC releasing the footage of him with the machete and some other details, explaining he's a threat to women. The truth is that, sadly, that wouldn't make a story - they also wanted to out him as a CHIS. That was to add spice to the story, and totally unnecessary in terms of protecting women. It was effectively the BBCs choice to go with the MI5 angle, at the cost of being able to name him.

And, however much of a scumbag he may be, the court would've had little choice regarding anonymity if there was credible evidence that naming him would put his life at a real and significant risk.

 

[story]

Well you’ve just supported my point Athos . The system, the rule, the law, the letter of the law, the checks and balances, the media and the way it rides a story, expectations, hairsplitting arguments, projected outcomes, all of it, all of it is the patriarchy in action.

If you want to see the patriarchy, look at this situation.

 

[planetgeli]

With regard to the first issue, there's no real evidence that the Security Service interfered in the police investigation

Except,

Local officers called in counter-terror detectives, who in turn seized various items. A terrorism investigation into X ensued, but he left the UK while it was ongoing.
Within weeks of him leaving, Beth had a mental breakdown and was hospitalised.
While she was there, 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. Neither Beth nor her family knew of the terrorism investigation.
The family were disturbed by this visit - concerned about how the stranger knew the address and came to have Beth's possessions.
We have established the visitor was an MI5 officer. Material seized by a police investigation, under a police warrant, had been given to MI5.
The highly unusual move is consistent with interference in a criminal process by the security service. X's own items were also handed by police to MI5, it is understood.

 

[Athos]

Well you’ve just supported my point Athos . The system, the rule, the law, the letter of the law, the checks and balances, the media and the way it rides a story, expectations, hairsplitting arguments, projected outcomes, all of it, all of it is the patriarchy in action.

If you want to see the patriarchy, look at this situation.

Yes, I don't doubt that. My point really was that the MI5 angle is largely a sensationalist red herring.

 

[Athos]

Except,

Local officers called in counter-terror detectives, who in turn seized various items. A terrorism investigation into X ensued, but he left the UK while it was ongoing.
Within weeks of him leaving, Beth had a mental breakdown and was hospitalised.
While she was there, 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. Neither Beth nor her family knew of the terrorism investigation.
The family were disturbed by this visit - concerned about how the stranger knew the address and came to have Beth's possessions.
We have established the visitor was an MI5 officer. Material seized by a police investigation, under a police warrant, had been given to MI5.
The highly unusual move is consistent with interference in a criminal process by the security service. X's own items were also handed by police to MI5, it is understood.

That's pure BBC bullshit. There's nothing whatsoever unusual about MI5 becoming involved in an counter-terrorism investigation - they frequently work hand-in-glove with SO15. The BBC has provided absolutely no evidence that his role as a CHIS for the Security Service had any impact on how his criminal case was handled; it's crappy sensationalist journalism.

 

[planetgeli]

Sorry Athos I'm confused.

Is it,

there's no real evidence that the Security Service interfered in the police investigation

or

There's nothing whatsoever unusual about MI5 becoming involved in an counter-terrorism investigation

?

Or are you just debating the semantics of 'interference'?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's pure BBC bullshit. There's nothing whatsoever unusual about MI5 becoming involved in an counter-terrorism investigation - they frequently work hand-in-glove with SO15. The BBC has provided absolutely no evidence that his role as a CHIS for the Security Service had any impact on how his criminal case was handled; it's crappy sensationalist journalism.

The thing you quote is that evidence.

Isn't your position here a bit faux-naif?

 

[Athos]

Sorry Athos I'm confused.

Is it,



or



?

Or are you just debating the semantics of 'interference'?

No, interfering in the DV case would be protecting him from prosecution. That'd be really significant. But there's no evidence of that happening. That they may have been involved in a CT investigation into him is something different, and not particularly unusual.

 

[Athos]

The thing you quote is that evidence.

Isn't your position here a bit faux-naif?

No, I accept it's possible that MI5 got him off the hook. But there's no evidence for that, and to pretend that's what happened rather minimises the fact that men who aren't CHISs get away with exactly the same stuff in comparable circumstances (less the Security Service angle) every single day.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, interfering would be protecting him from prosecution. That's be really significant. But there's no evidence of that.

The police force concerned and the CPS insist the case was discontinued due to lack of evidence.

Despite Beth having more than once covertly filmed him threatening her.

And then of course, there's this:

Police took a year to interview her, but have since claimed there is nothing to look into as everything was investigated previously. It was not.
During the course of a complaint process with the police, Beth was told the force did not hold information about her property being seized but could see from "notes" that some property had been taken and returned to X. Police said they did not seize any items as part of their own investigation, and were "unable to advise when or why these were taken".
This was untrue, as the police force concerned was responsible for calling in counter terror officers.
The police claim that property had been returned to X was also untrue - the material had been given to MI5.

So the police lying. Now I do agree with you that this level of police incompetence/lack of giving a shit is far from proof in and of itself of interference. But this bit, if true, says otherwise:

We have established that, after X disappeared, he moved abroad and began working for a foreign intelligence agency.

So either they did interfere to save this fucker's skin or the BBC are lying about what they have found out.

 

[Pickman's model]

So either they did interfere to save this fucker's skin or the BBC are lying about what they have found out.

or both

 

[Athos]

Despite Beth having more than once covertly filmed him threatening her.

And then of course, there's this:



So the police lying. Now I do agree with you that this level of police incompetence/lack of giving a shit is far from proof in and of itself of interference. But this bit, if true, says otherwise:



So either they did interfere to save this fucker's skin or the BBC are lying about what they have found out.

Yes, despite the filming. Men get away with DV in the face of damning evidence, all the time. And, frequently, police fail to investigate them properly. That's the real scandal. There's no evidence that this isn't just a typically instance of police failing a DV victim, despite the BBC's best efforts to suggest otherwise - because the MI5 involvement adds a bit of spice.

I don't follow why you think him going overseas and working for another agency is evidence of MI5 getting him off charges in the DV case.

 

[Athos]

Don't get me wrong, I've no time for nazis, wife beaters, cops, spooks, or the BBC. And I suspect none of them really cares much about Beth's interests or women's safety throughout this. But it doesn't do anyone any favours to pretend this was unusual conspiracy rather than a common failure.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't follow why you think him going overseas and working for another agency is evidence of MI5 getting him off charges in the DV case.

I'd have thought that bit was obvious. They moved him abroad and got him a job with a foreign intelligence agency. You think he found that job himself? It's not exactly a stretch to suppose that part of that process involved getting the investigation stopped. You don't have to be a spook expert to see that there are disadvantages to having an active agent under police investigation.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

And, however much of a scumbag he may be, the court would've had little choice regarding anonymity if there was credible evidence that naming him would put his life at a real and significant risk.

Firstly, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Secondly, he is already blown. Think about how small active fash groups are and that they will now will likely be discussing who this could be. It won’t be hard to work out. Who’s fucked off abroad recently?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Firstly, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Secondly, he is already blown. Think about how small active fash groups are and the fact that they will now will likely discussing who this could be. It won’t be hard to work out. Who’s fucked off abroad recently?

Yeah, I was thinking that as well.

 

[Athos]

Firstly, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Secondly, he is already blown. Think about how small active fash groups are and that they will now will likely be discussing who this could be. It won’t be hard to work out. Who’s fucked off abroad recently?

I'd shed no tears for him. But the state is under a legal obligation to act to protect his life, if it has intel that he's at risk.

 

[dylanredefined]

And that's why I think that spooks (broadly defined) are a cancer on society. Deceivers and manipulators with no morals.

Should only be pointed at people who would do great harm to society. Also kept on a tight leash.

 

[Athos]

I'd have thought that bit was obvious. They moved him abroad and got him a job with a foreign intelligence agency. You think he found that job himself? It's not exactly a stretch to suppose that part of that process involved getting the investigation stopped. You don't have to be a spook expert to see that there are disadvantages to having an active agent under police investigation.

You've just invented this! You don't know they moved him abroad, or got him a job.

I suspect he'll be "working for" in the sense of being an agent i.e. a tout, not an employee! It's quite possible that's come about because MI5 shared intel regarding possible agents with friendly countries.

But even that's far from being evidence of any interference in the criminal case.

 

[Pickman's model]

Should only be pointed at people who would do great harm to society. Also kept on a tight leash.

so, other spooks, politicians and capitalists

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course the Security Service would share intel regarding possible agents with friendly countries.

aka 'get him a job'.

I didn't say he was on paye and a pension scheme. It's weak to try to pick on an argument like that. Substitute the word 'gig' for 'job' if you like.

Also I didn't 'make it up'. He moved abroad and got a job with a different agency. And that had nothing to do with MI5? Of course it didn't have nothing to do with them. They fixed it up for him. Do I know this? No. But I haven't made it up.

You're doing that lawyer thing again where you can't say anything you can't prove even when the thing you're saying is bloody obvious.

 

[Athos]

aka 'get him a job'.

I didn't say he was on paye and a pension scheme. It's weak to try to pick on an argument like that. Substitute the word 'gig' for 'job' if you like.

Lol, that's like saying the police "give a job" to a member of an organised crime group when they sign him up as an informant.

But, first, we don't know MI5 got him that gig - he may already have been in the radar of that foreign intelligence agency; secondly, there no evidence that MI5 moved him abroad as you claimed, rather than going under his own steam; and, thirdly, even if they did move him and get him gig, that's not evidence that they got him off DV charges, as you suggested.

And, if he's out and about and still moving in those circles such that he's able to provide valuable intel why shouldn't they alert a friendly intelligence service of a potentially valuable asset? For all we know they may have passed intel about his propensity for violence that wouldn't have been shared otherwise.

Of course what you claim is possible. But it's by no means obvious, and, despite an in-depth investigation the BBC hasn't presented a shred of evidence. And nor have to you. They wanted to make to story more exciting, and you seem to want it to be true.

To present it as fact just conceals the more boring truth of just how common it is for police and CPS to let down victims of DV - you don't need to invent some spook conspiracy to explain what's happened here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Lol, that's like saying the police "give a job" to a member of an organised crime group when they sign him up as an informant.

Yes, it is. If you're giving someone money, you're giving them a job. If you give someone something to do, you're giving them a job.

As I said, it's incredibly weak to pick on someone's choice of words like that.

I'll just repeat for the hard of thinking:

If it is true, as the BBC says, that this man left the country and started working for another agency, that means he remained a 'live' agent. As such, we can only assume that MI5 helped him to do this. Be far more strange if they would allow a live agent to act independently in this kind of thing. And pretty implausible that he somehow found someone in a foreign agency to offer his services to on his own. They probably instructed him to do it.

 

[Athos]

If it is true, as the BBC says, that this man left the country and started working for another agency, that means he remained a 'live' agent. As such, we can only assume that MI5 helped him to do this. Be far more strange if they would allow a live agent to act independently in this kind of thing. They probably instructed him to do it.

Why can we only assume that? It's not unlikely that members of extremist groups are known to other intelligence agencies. When he relocated to their country, they may well have approached him independently. And even if they were tipped off by MI5, there's no evidence that was motivated by a desire to assist him rather than, say, to ensure he was exploited as an asset. You don't seem to understand how CHISs work; there'd be nothing they could do to stop him. That they "probably instructed" him is pure uninformed speculation.

But I think we're just going round in circles, now. You're determined to believe in some conspiracy in which MI5 went out of its way to help this guy despite the lack of any evidence for that.

For the record, I don't deny that what you claim is possible. We just don't know. But Occams Razor and all that - there no need for MI5 protection for any obviously guilty bloke to escape DV charges.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Rock up in a new country and you'll be approached to become a spy soon enough.

I agree that this is now going round in circles. But you continue to contradict yourself, sometimes within the same sentence:

And even if they were tipped off by MI5, there's no evidence that was motivated by a desire to assist him rather than, say, to ensure he was exploited as an asset.

You think I think they are motivated in any of this by anything other than what they can get out of him as an asset? Weird.