BBC forbidden from naming MI5 agent who attacked his ex girlfriend (potentially upsetting to read)

[nettie434]

The BBC wanted to name an MI5 agent who attacked his ex girlfriend and was abusive in multiple ways. The government has prevented the BBC from publishing his name and wanted to prevent them from publishing the story. How can other women be protected from him?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61508520

He will be prohibited from having any future girlfriends and as they are MI5 they’ll know if he tries to disobey that. If he doesn’t go to prison that is. Most men who attack women never get named in the news anyway. It’s so common place.

Above the law.
When he does kill her or someone else none of this will be linked.

They can't without a domestic violence register. Without that, you get horror stories like this one from Ireland:
www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/if-there-was-a-domestic-violence-register-jennifer-might-be-alive-family-of-murdered-mum-appalled-to-hear-her-killer-had-violent-history-41602230.html

It was on R4 this am. Its shocking. The government tried to stop the BBC running the story. He works, I think it said, for an intelligence agency in another country. Nobody is keeping tabs on him 😥

Violent man’s job more valuable than lives of any women unfortunate enough to be involved with him. What a surprise.

Appalling. Women and children so clearly don't matter.

Violent man’s job more valuable than lives of any women unfortunate enough to be involved with him

it’s not about “a” job (singular) it will be about a network of people or security operations that could be compromised. You’ll never know what will be happening behind the scenes.

It's appalling, but realistically if they named him it wouldn't protect anyone in itself - I'm sure that this man, more than most, can very easily change his identity. It would be nice to think MI5 has taken other steps to neutralise the threat, but we will never know.

Not really, revealing his identity to the public would almost certainly be a death sentence. MI5 agents are secret for good reason. And it is highly unlikely he’d keep his job if he is so unstable as to attack his ex girlfriend. He’s likely been psychologically assessed, failed the fit to work criteria and is currently being discharged from service. As a former agent though, he will be under constant monitoring and surveillance.

I personally think his behaviour means he has lost his right to protection but accept that it might be more complicated to protect his contacts.

The Centre for Women's Justice are helping his ex girlfriend lodge a formal complaint with the watchdog for the intelligence agencies, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) about the way MI5 treated her.

He can do what he wants with no repercussions, that's how it works. They can lie about you, they can break the law. So no, they won't stop him having any more girlfriends.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/24/uk-set-to-introduce-bill-allowing-mi5-agents-to-break-the-law

It’s shocking. Police basically did nothing to protect these women and dropped charges. He should be hold responsible for what he did in his private life as a private citizen, it’s nothing related to his job.

How on earth are the security services going to prevent him having girlfriends?! You are very naive.

I can see why the Court won’t let the British media publish the name of a British spy, that’s standard. And I wish the BBC would stop saying he ‘worked for MI5’ it’s clear from the BBC article that he was a paid informant.

But what I’m unclear on is where is he now and how do we get him behind bars for a very long time? That’s how you make women safer.

How on earth are the security services going to prevent him having girlfriends?! You are very naive.

You don’t have a clue as to their capabilities do you?

If they were as 'capable' as all that, it's a pity their background check and ongoing checks didn't unearth his penchant for terrorising women, isn't it?

I'm not so sure their checks didn't unearth his penchant for terrorising women. I think it's likely they knew he was an abuser, but didn't care. They valued the information he provided more than women's safety.

Abusers are made, not born. There’s a first time for every violent offender. There is also a massive difference in surveillance between those working for MI5 vs those on the active watch list.

But the article is clear it wasn't the first time.

And for the person who days he was a paid informant not working for MI5, if you are paid by someone you are working for them are you not?

I don't think BBC just want to name him, of course he can change his name, they surely want to publish photos of him and I know even then he can change his appearance somewhat, but that's more limited. He shouldn't be able to do this and just walk away because his information is useful.

I know it wasn’t the first time, my main point is that the checks and surveillance while working for MI5 are much lighter touch than the checks and surveillance done on those on the watch list. The fact they were not watching him in the past, doesn’t make them incapable of doing so in the future.

That's very interesting, what's the legal basis for prohibiting an individual from forming intimate/domestic relationships?

And what are the practicalities for his potential partners?

Are MI5 going to swoop in and ... warn the women off? Warn the man off? Detain him? How exactly does this protect women, given that abuse often goes on behind closed doors and unreported?

Is MI5 really going to be interested in whether this man terrorizes his partner, or will they be focused on whether he seems to present a risk to national security/other agents?

Like the spy cops story, this incident raises very difficult questions around how to balance between transparency and upholding the law and protecting (some) vulnerable individuals, while also protecting undercover operations and national security. There are no easy answers that don't risk somebody's safety.

I don't have much faith in MI5 being knights in shining armour to protect women from potential abuse, however.