MI5 protecting an agent who is a 'danger to women'

[DomesticatedZombie]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60579589

'The BBC has gone to court to try and stop an injunction against a report that would identify an MI5 agent.

The BBC report says the agent used his status to abuse two ex-partners - and naming him is in the public interest.

But the government says identifying him risks his life and national security.'

Hoping the BBC wins this one.

Unfortunately we won't know enough to know if publicising his name is a real risk or not. We have to trust the courts which we have seen do not always have women's interest at heart. I can understand there may be need to keep him secret unfortunately.

If the government knows the agent is abusing his position, his credentials should be pulled and he should be removed from duty. Poor behavior generally means a person is no longer considered worthy of security clearance. Revealing his identity might indeed endanger other agents and national security, but the government could issue a statement saying they are taking care of the situation.

@Blossom64265

If the government knows the agent is abusing his position, his credentials should be pulled and he should be removed from duty. Poor behavior generally means a person is no longer considered worthy of security clearance. Revealing his identity might indeed endanger other agents and national security, but the government could issue a statement saying they are taking care of the situation.

I agree with this. I can see reasons not to identify him publicly, but a general statement addressing his behaviour and also what action they will take to prevent agents misusing their status in the future would be sufficient. And probably a lot more helpful than just knowing the name of a man

From the BBC article, this isn't an employee but has been described by the women as a CHIS, ie informant, for MI5.

So IIUC this isn't someone who has "duties" or security clearance. It's someone outside MI5 who has allegedly been passing them info. (MI5 have neither confirmed nor denied he's an informant, because that's their standard response.)

This seems like a bizarre situation the BBC team have got themselves into.

If they're so concerned about this man, they could perfectly well have made a documentary naming him and describing his abuse of women without trying to state that he was a CHIS (which may anyway be just another fantasy by a coercive abuser).

Also, regarding genuine CHISes, as far as I can see the thrust of the BBC programme is that the security forces shouldn't use vile and dangerous people as informants.

But surely dealing with vile and dangerous people who have access to other vile and dangerous people and are willing to turn on them, is pretty much the security services' job description? If you're investigating, say, a terrorist cell, would you turn down information because the informant is a nasty piece of work?

I don't really understand why a programme would take that tack – if indeed it has.

Surely the prosecuting the abuser for the abuse is the right way to go?

They’ve been protecting informants/ dangers to innocent women, men and children for decades in the north of Ireland. The bbc know all about it. (These files will probably never see the light of day either) .
mobile.twitter.com/cjhumanrights/status/1493952353560670221?t=3zcQziHFb-4c0Emk8H-bRg&s=08

It will be interesting what the courts decide. This is a 2017 case involving a CHIS:

www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/police-boss-would-wished-police-13459750

"North East police chief Vera Baird has admitted she wished controversial police informer XY had not been necessary as part of Operation Sanctuary.
The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissionerr* said paying a convicted child rapist to gain information about grooming sex sessions was “a difficult moral decision”.
But she has defended the move by Northumbria Police, saying it “ensured the speedier rescue of vulnerable women”.
The force paid a known child sex offender almost £10,000 to act as an informer as part of Operation Sanctuaryy* but insisted he was not told to attend any parties, known as “sessions”.
The man - who can only be identified as XY - was tasked to help police in the investigation into sexual exploitation of vulnerable girls and women in the West End of Newcastlee*.
The sex offender was recruited as a police informer despite the fact years ago he had drugged an underage girl and invited another man to rape her after he had done so, it emerged on Wednesday."

He's not an agent for a start, and they're not protecting him but they are protecting the ideal that someone who risks their life to support the security of this country won't have their life jeopardised by appearing on a programme the BBC wants to make for views which outs who they are and that they have been an informant. Surely there are other ways for 'justice' than appearing on a BBC programme made for views, no?

@delurkasaurus

It will be interesting what the courts decide. This is a 2017 case involving a CHIS:

www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/police-boss-would-wished-police-13459750

"North East police chief Vera Baird has admitted she wished controversial police informer XY had not been necessary as part of Operation Sanctuary.
The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissionerr* said paying a convicted child rapist to gain information about grooming sex sessions was “a difficult moral decision”.
But she has defended the move by Northumbria Police, saying it “ensured the speedier rescue of vulnerable women”.
The force paid a known child sex offender almost £10,000 to act as an informer as part of Operation Sanctuaryy* but insisted he was not told to attend any parties, known as “sessions”.
The man - who can only be identified as XY - was tasked to help police in the investigation into sexual exploitation of vulnerable girls and women in the West End of Newcastlee*.
The sex offender was recruited as a police informer despite the fact years ago he had drugged an underage girl and invited another man to rape her after he had done so, it emerged on Wednesday."

Police chis yes, slightly different ball game. Also as a pp said, to catch nasty people you often need to use nasty people.

@Blossom64265

If the government knows the agent is abusing his position, his credentials should be pulled and he should be removed from duty. Poor behavior generally means a person is no longer considered worthy of security clearance. Revealing his identity might indeed endanger other agents and national security, but the government could issue a statement saying they are taking care of the situation.

As other have posted, MI5 'agent' means a CHIS.

If it was an employee, they wouid be described as an MI5 officer.

The abuse may well be utterly unrelated to the role for MI5. But of course the security services have to run agents who can tell them about shitty, criminal, dangerous things. Which means of course they have to deal with shitty, criminal, dangerous people

What I don't understand is how the role for MI5 is relevant to a court case - after all you can't just drag up anything and use it in court unless it has some relevance.

MI5 has a remit against serious and organised crime (not just national security in the sense of terrorism or spycatching) and so maybe the case is something to do with that? What I'm imagining is maybe someone who could report on trafficking, who was himself a trafficker.

A bit like IRA informers of old, where there was some tolerance of crimes because if they stopped their IRA activities (because MI5 couldn't have relationships with shitty, dangerous, people who were committing crimes during the time they were in touch) then there wouid be no information flow (as source would be cut off immediately if he became a non-participant).

But if you start looking at organised crime, then the range of likely offences changes, and we're just not used to thinking about that kind of 'how far can you go' in source protection if it's not terrorism.

Great post @meditrina.

I question why the BBC is so desperate to show it, I suspect genuinely keeping women safe is quite low down the list.

@Cablefable

Great post *@meditrina*.

I question why the BBC is so desperate to show it, I suspect genuinely keeping women safe is quite low down the list.

Good point.

I question why the BBC is so desperate to show it, I suspect genuinely keeping women safe is quite low down the list

It awkward isn't it.

If - and I am just hypothesising wildly here - the accused was informing on a sex trafficking gang, and during that time he himself had sex with trafficked women, but he provided the information that brought down the ring (saving some women, making it harder for them to regroup and start up again, giving information on criminal methodology that makes other traffickers easier to catch). Do you leave him in situ, until you can bring off the operation to bring down a ring, or have him arrested immediator because he - like all the other perpetrators - abuses the women? Essentially meaning you can never run a source within a trafficking organisation of that kind

OTOH, what if the informant role is itself unconnected to abuse or rape of women, but the (alleged, as not yet been tried) offence/s were carried out at the time when he was performing some other role for MI5. Wouid MI5 have even known about it - even with some form of due diligence, they may well not pick up on offences against partners, until,a victim speaks up it can be nigh-on invisible. And so then you're left - perhaps - with a scenario that MI5 is appalled by what he did when they found out, but they cannot let it become known that he was one of their sources, maybe because the operation he was involved with is still ongoing or either he or it is linked to others. Speculative I know, and they're just the immediate thoughts whilst I have my morning coffee - just showing there are many possibilities.

We're unlikely to ever know, which is frustrating.
But it's good that it has come to court to,p be argued over by lawyers and decided by a judge. The Security Service has extensive powers (for good reason) and proper scrutiny is in everyone's interests.

Particularly in setting out what are the limits of toleration when sources could themselves be committing offences

Its alleged the CHIS used his status to threaten and coerce the women, I believe. Agree there are surely other ways of dealing. Is the implication he is somehow protected from usual recourse?

On the topic of CHISs and this kind of defence: "to catch nasty people you often need to use nasty people." I get the argument but I think on balance I disagree. I also don't agree that we should be less concerned about use of CHISs by the police as opposed to by intelligence agencies (or vice versa).

There's room for exploitation but also, if you're using the bad guys, how can you ever be sure you're not being double crossed, and more crimes aren't being committed?

You probably never can be totally sure.

But I expect they'd do a form of due diligence - does this person exist, and what are the official government records on them (I believe the security and intelligence services have the right to access all government databases). Does the information they can verify that way match what the person says about themselves? What can be found out about their online presence and does that match as well?

How did they cone across this person, are their reasons for wanting to co-operate plausible? Is it likely someone in their position has the contacts or access to places etc that they say they have?

Have they actually produced results? Were those results worthwhile?

If they claim to have relevant associates, can the link be externally proved, rather than just relying on their say so?

If they've been a contact for some time, do all those things stay consistent and verifiable over time? Have their results held up?

It must be a bit like being a turbo-charged PI!

I guess MI5 won't just be concerned about this individual - if they even are - but if they can't protect the identity of informers and that is made clear by it being broadcast by the BBC, then they are going to have a lot more trouble recruiting others where the risk may be higher.

I think it's entirely possible that he could be a nasty piece of work and that naming him risks national security. I'd rather we kept national security as secure as possible !

I'd like to think the authorities will take the necessary actional against him (although accept that might not happen) but allowing the BBC to publish, puttingultiple lives at risk isn't the answer. They could of course hand their evidence to police, if it's all about the victims.