Seems reasonable? I don’t need to know this person’s name. None of us do.
Not sure what the answer to this one is – both sides have valid arguments.
He should never have been employed in that position in the first place though, that’s for sure. The security services, and indeed the police, should be vetting candidates in far greater depth than they obviously do at the moment.
At this stage the story is more important than the name, BBC should publish what they can and leave it the public to decide whether they demand more information from government.
Ah yes… The wonderfully corrupt “justice” system where the government gets to give evidence in secret and have a quiet word to ensure they can dictate the outcome.
“In the OPEN part of the proceedings, the Attorney’s stance has been neither to confirm nor to deny (“NCND”) that X is or was a CHIS. Either way, the Attorney says that to publish the allegation that he is or was one would endanger X and ***cause material damage to national security***. In the CLOSED part of the proceedings, I have been told more.”
His misconduct already has the MI5 publicly looking like they cannot handle themselves. Maybe not direct material damage to national security but he’s started to undermine a nation’s ability to trust their domestic security apparatus’ hiring decisions.
Reads like an abusive cop getting caught for domestic violence and the excuses that are made by people who intentionally use their employment to abuse/victimise.
Doesn’t sound like he’s even been found guilty of anything yet. Maybe wait until that happens at least before fighting to be allowed to anounce his name to the world.
“Without confirming or denying whether X was an MI5 agent – a covert human intelligence source – she said the story would place X at risk of harm or death and damage national security by making people less likely to work as agents”
If people are being deterred from joining the MI5 from fears of being exposed as woman abusers, I think that these are especially the sorts of people that you would want to be deterring from joining, no?
Well, that is handy … sure opens up the barn door for a whole lot of other abusive buggers to run rampant in society. What excuse will be used later to avoid identification, court, and trial? Useless courts … might as well have said he could not be named for “deeply held religious’ belief, maybe that comes next.
If it’s an ongoing case where no conclusion has been reached.. why would they release the name of an MI5 agent?
Newspapers and police Facebook pages post people’s id’s daily on those they have arrested and attempt to prosecute for crime. So I don’t understand the attorney generals argument.
Surely the same argument could be apply
11 comments
[*Attorney General v BBC*](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HMAG-v-BBC-judgment-070422.pdf) [2022] EWHC 826 (QB) – full judgment (PDF). Also [on BAILII](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/826.html) (HTML).
[Press summary](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HMAG-v-BBC-summary-070422.pdf) – four pages (PDF).
Seems reasonable? I don’t need to know this person’s name. None of us do.
Not sure what the answer to this one is – both sides have valid arguments.
He should never have been employed in that position in the first place though, that’s for sure. The security services, and indeed the police, should be vetting candidates in far greater depth than they obviously do at the moment.
At this stage the story is more important than the name, BBC should publish what they can and leave it the public to decide whether they demand more information from government.
Ah yes… The wonderfully corrupt “justice” system where the government gets to give evidence in secret and have a quiet word to ensure they can dictate the outcome.
“In the OPEN part of the proceedings, the Attorney’s stance has been neither to confirm nor to deny (“NCND”) that X is or was a CHIS. Either way, the Attorney says that to publish the allegation that he is or was one would endanger X and ***cause material damage to national security***. In the CLOSED part of the proceedings, I have been told more.”
His misconduct already has the MI5 publicly looking like they cannot handle themselves. Maybe not direct material damage to national security but he’s started to undermine a nation’s ability to trust their domestic security apparatus’ hiring decisions.
Reads like an abusive cop getting caught for domestic violence and the excuses that are made by people who intentionally use their employment to abuse/victimise.
Doesn’t sound like he’s even been found guilty of anything yet. Maybe wait until that happens at least before fighting to be allowed to anounce his name to the world.
“Without confirming or denying whether X was an MI5 agent – a covert human intelligence source – she said the story would place X at risk of harm or death and damage national security by making people less likely to work as agents”
If people are being deterred from joining the MI5 from fears of being exposed as woman abusers, I think that these are especially the sorts of people that you would want to be deterring from joining, no?
Well, that is handy … sure opens up the barn door for a whole lot of other abusive buggers to run rampant in society. What excuse will be used later to avoid identification, court, and trial? Useless courts … might as well have said he could not be named for “deeply held religious’ belief, maybe that comes next.
If it’s an ongoing case where no conclusion has been reached.. why would they release the name of an MI5 agent?
Newspapers and police Facebook pages post people’s id’s daily on those they have arrested and attempt to prosecute for crime. So I don’t understand the attorney generals argument.
Surely the same argument could be apply