The security service has accepted it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior MI5 officers were repeatedly dishonest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3j4jz07e2v8o
No one will be charged or convicted.
The security service has accepted it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior MI5 officers were repeatedly dishonest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3j4jz07e2v8o
No one will be charged or convicted.
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
"Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:118jn3l$3jgl6$4@dont-email.me...
The security service has accepted it gave evidence based on lies to three
courts and that senior MI5 officers were repeatedly dishonest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3j4jz07e2v8o
No one will be charged or convicted.
Not O.K. but often necessary when protecting sources.
While the source "S" himself may have been a thoroughly disreputable character, identifying him as an MI5 source in Court, would not only
have put him at risk, but potentially also put at risk, totally innocent members of his family, friends, and even people he just happened to know.
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*; and their determination
to expose an MI5 source regardless of the consequences.
Everything else is just hand waving.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action.
We already know that MI5 officers are allowed to kill without criminal charges. So it seems remiss not to have included "allowed to commit
perjury" to the list of things they can do such as not to break the law.
Quis custodiet custodes indeed ?
Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote: |---------------------------------------|
|"No one will be charged or convicted. "| |---------------------------------------|
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
says George Orwell.
A judge in Germany said years ago said that it is legal to perform defamations in a court case.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
|---------------------------------------|
|"No one will be charged or convicted. "| >|---------------------------------------|
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
says George Orwell.
A judge in Germany said years ago said that it is legal to perform defamations in a court case.
On 19/09/2026 05:31 PM, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in
situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action.
We already know that MI5 officers are allowed to kill without criminal
charges. So it seems remiss not to have included "allowed to commit
perjury" to the list of things they can do such as not to break the law.
Quis custodiet custodes indeed ?
A general personal "permission to commit [any old] perjury", or a duty
to protect specific official secrets as (ultimately) directed by the Minister?
I can see the point of the second of those.
Would you have compelled a member of the military to reveal the plans
for D-Day if appearing as a witness (or defendant) in a court-case in
the winter of 1943/44?
But the security services already have a route to producing
substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go
to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not testifying on national security grounds. This has the same result in
that the judge or jury does not get to hear any admission about their
agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security
service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does
not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust
the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a
constitutional issue.
On 2026-09-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
But the security services already have a route to producing
substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go
to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not
testifying on national security grounds. This has the same result in
that the judge or jury does not get to hear any admission about their
agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security
service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does
not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust
the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a
constitutional issue.
My reading is that someone at MI5 went against policy and confirmed
that someone was an asset, then lied to their bosses about doing so,
and when MI5 management found out about it they tried to cover it up
in order to protect the concept that the policy was always followed
with no exceptions ever.
On 2026-09-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
But the security services already have a route to producing
substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go
to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not
testifying on national security grounds. This has the same result in
that the judge or jury does not get to hear any admission about their
agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security
service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does
not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust
the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a
constitutional issue.
My reading is that someone at MI5 went against policy and confirmed
that someone was an asset, then lied to their bosses about doing so,
and when MI5 management found out about it they tried to cover it up
in order to protect the concept that the policy was always followed
with no exceptions ever.
On 2026-09-19, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter <thanks-to@Taf.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm not sure what "perform defamations" means, but it is true in the UK
that you cannot be sued under defamation for what you say in court,
On 19/09/2026 10:05 PM, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote:
Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
|---------------------------------------|
|"No one will be charged or convicted. "|
|---------------------------------------|
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
says George Orwell.
A judge in Germany said years ago said that it is legal to perform
defamations in a court case.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
That is also the case in England and Wales.
I can vaguely recall a case where a man stopped paying his rates, waited
for a summons to court and when giving evidence (and having taken the
oath), accused someone of something to do with the murder of his daughter.
On 19/09/2026 05:31 PM, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in
situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action.
We already know that MI5 officers are allowed to kill without criminal
charges. So it seems remiss not to have included "allowed to commit
perjury" to the list of things they can do such as not to break the law.
Quis custodiet custodes indeed ?
A general personal "permission to commit [any old] perjury", or a duty
to protect specific official secrets as (ultimately) directed by the Minister?
I can see the point of the second of those.
Would you have compelled a member of the military to reveal the plans
for D-Day if appearing as a witness (or defendant) in a court-case in
the winter of 1943/44?
On 20 Sep 2026 at 10:36:33 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/09/2026 05:31 PM, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in >>> situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action. >>
We already know that MI5 officers are allowed to kill without criminal
charges. So it seems remiss not to have included "allowed to commit
perjury" to the list of things they can do such as not to break the law.
Quis custodiet custodes indeed ?
A general personal "permission to commit [any old] perjury", or a duty
to protect specific official secrets as (ultimately) directed by the
Minister?
I can see the point of the second of those.
Would you have compelled a member of the military to reveal the plans
for D-Day if appearing as a witness (or defendant) in a court-case in
the winter of 1943/44?
But the security services already have a route to producing substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not testifying on national security grounds.
This has the same result in that the judge or jury does not get to
hear any admission about their agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a constitutional issue.
On 20/09/2026 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
But the security services already have a route to producing
substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go
to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not
testifying on national security grounds. This has the same result in
that the judge or jury does not get to hear any admission about their
agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security
service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does
not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust
the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a
constitutional issue.
My reading is that someone at MI5 went against policy and confirmed
that someone was an asset, then lied to their bosses about doing so,
and when MI5 management found out about it they tried to cover it up
in order to protect the concept that the policy was always followed
with no exceptions ever.
The BBC report states that some spies were dishonest. Surely, what's perplexing is that anyone thought spies wouldn't be?
Helen Duncan was a Scottish medium, considered the last person to be imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act 1735, and came to the attention of the authorities after claiming to have contacted the spirit of a sailor who had been killed in the sinking of HMS Barham in November 1941, at a time when
the ship's fate was being hidden from the general public allegedly for operational reasons.
ItrCOs generally thought that she was trying to cash in on the sinking, having heard gossip arising via the official notices sent to relatives of
one of the 862 officers and men that were killed when the shiprCOs magazines detonated shortly after being torpedoed.
One wonders why she wasnrCOt done under one of the myriad of wartime regulations, or the extant Acts relating to Official Secrets; but
Witchcraft, FHS?
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:17:23 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-19, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter <thanks-to@Taf.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm not sure what "perform defamations" means, but it is true in the UK
that you cannot be sued under defamation for what you say in court,
You can however be charged as a result and convicted on it's evidence
On 2026-09-20 16:57, Spike wrote:
Helen Duncan was a Scottish medium, considered the last person to be
imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act 1735, and came to the attention of the >> authorities after claiming to have contacted the spirit of a sailor who had >> been killed in the sinking of HMS Barham in November 1941, at a time when
the ship's fate was being hidden from the general public allegedly for
operational reasons.
ItrCOs generally thought that she was trying to cash in on the sinking,
having heard gossip arising via the official notices sent to relatives of
one of the 862 officers and men that were killed when the shiprCOs magazines >> detonated shortly after being torpedoed.
One wonders why she wasnrCOt done under one of the myriad of wartime
regulations, or the extant Acts relating to Official Secrets; but
Witchcraft, FHS?
Charging her under the OSA would have confirmed that her claims were true. Charging her under the Witchcraft Act lets her be prosecuted whilst giving the casual observer the impression that her claims were imagined.
The sinking was filmed by John Turner of British Path|- aboard the nearby
HMS Valiant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrISbwy_zI
On 2026-09-20, Graham Nye wrote:
On 2026-09-20 16:57, Spike wrote:
Helen Duncan was a Scottish medium, considered the last person to be
imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act 1735, and came to the attention of the >>> authorities after claiming to have contacted the spirit of a sailor who had >>> been killed in the sinking of HMS Barham in November 1941, at a time when >>> the ship's fate was being hidden from the general public allegedly for
operational reasons.
ItrCOs generally thought that she was trying to cash in on the sinking,
having heard gossip arising via the official notices sent to relatives of >>> one of the 862 officers and men that were killed when the shiprCOs magazines
detonated shortly after being torpedoed.
One wonders why she wasnrCOt done under one of the myriad of wartime
regulations, or the extant Acts relating to Official Secrets; but
Witchcraft, FHS?
Charging her under the OSA would have confirmed that her claims were true. >> Charging her under the Witchcraft Act lets her be prosecuted whilst giving >> the casual observer the impression that her claims were imagined.
That act was superseded by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, which was superseded by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
2008. I wonder what they would use for that purpose now.
On 20/09/2026 16:33, GB wrote:
On 20/09/2026 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:I do recommend everyone to watch the documentary "Rainbow Warrior" on
On 2026-09-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
But the security services already have a route to producing
substantially the same result without committing perjury. They can go
to the judge through back channels and get his or her approval for not >>>> testifying on national security grounds. This has the same result in
that the judge or jury does not get to hear any admission about their
agent and the litigant has no ability to cross examine the security
service's witness about the role of the security services. But it does >>>> not involve perjury in open court.
I think this case is fundamentally about the failure of MI5 to trust
the judiciary to do the right thing. And this makes it a
constitutional issue.
My reading is that someone at MI5 went against policy and confirmed
that someone was an asset, then lied to their bosses about doing so,
and when MI5 management found out about it they tried to cover it up
in order to protect the concept that the policy was always followed
with no exceptions ever.
The BBC report states that some spies were dishonest. Surely, what's
perplexing is that anyone thought spies wouldn't be?
Sky Documentaries.
The French secret service arranged to blow up the Greenpeace ship
"Rainbow Warrior" in a New Zealand port, and in so doing, killed one
member of the crew. The secret agents made a number of careless mistakes
and were arrested by New Zealand police and put on trial. They were convicted, then rather shamefully released for diplomatic reasons and received a heroes welcome in France.
What was quite remarkable in the documentary was the way the French government, including the Defence Minister, repeatedly denied that there
was any involvement by that government or by any government employees.
It was as if a "deniable" secret mission entitled the most senior politicians to lie to the Press and deny everything right up to the time when the Press revealed the truth based on evidence from whistleblowers.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action.
Maybe he wrote about a perjury.
"Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:118mdco$3jgl6$6@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in
situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action.
It's all about the determination of the BBC, and one reporter in particular to publish a story about a neo nazi abuser who was also an MI5 informant. Despite their first being asked nicely (by their explaining his MI5 role), and then being taken to Court by MI5 and the UK Govt (where they had no alternative but to deny his MI5 role*), to prevent them from doing so.
" How I exposed MI5's lie about its violent abusive agent"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25m231n8xo
So much for "investigative journalism".
bb
* So as to protect others. Common Sense 101
On 22 Sep 2026 at 09:28:54 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:118mdco$3jgl6$6@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:10:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:It's all about the determination of the BBC, and one reporter in particular >> to publish a story about a neo nazi abuser who was also an MI5 informant.
As suggested before this story is *all about the BBC*;
I disagree. It's all about people who break the law not being punished in >>> situations that have punished plenty of other people for the same action. >>
Despite their first being asked nicely (by their explaining his MI5 role), >> and then being taken to Court by MI5 and the UK Govt (where they had no
alternative but to deny his MI5 role*), to prevent them from doing so.
" How I exposed MI5's lie about its violent abusive agent"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25m231n8xo
So much for "investigative journalism".
bb
* So as to protect others. Common Sense 101
To fundamental points I disagree with; firstly that it is the duty of a journalist in a democratic society to refrain from investigating security services without a court order, in peacetime at least.
And secondly that the security services were under an obligation to lie. They weren't; they could have asked a judge to hear the relevant evidence in camera.
On 21/09/2026 19:34, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-20, Graham Nye wrote:
On 2026-09-20 16:57, Spike wrote:
Helen Duncan was a Scottish medium, considered the last person to be
imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act 1735, and came to the attention of the >>>> authorities after claiming to have contacted the spirit of a sailor who had
been killed in the sinking of HMS Barham in November 1941, at a time when >>>> the ship's fate was being hidden from the general public allegedly for >>>> operational reasons.
ItrCOs generally thought that she was trying to cash in on the sinking, >>>> having heard gossip arising via the official notices sent to relatives of >>>> one of the 862 officers and men that were killed when the shiprCOs magazines
detonated shortly after being torpedoed.
One wonders why she wasnrCOt done under one of the myriad of wartime
regulations, or the extant Acts relating to Official Secrets; but
Witchcraft, FHS?
Charging her under the OSA would have confirmed that her claims were true. >>> Charging her under the Witchcraft Act lets her be prosecuted whilst giving >>> the casual observer the impression that her claims were imagined.
That act was superseded by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, which was
superseded by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
2008. I wonder what they would use for that purpose now.
Why did they feel the need to *replace* one law with another? Surely
fraud was illegal in any case?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 34:28:34 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,696 |