[…] Times article of 29 October 2000 Labour MP Tam Dalyell wrote: ‘I can now reveal that in 1967, I talked at some length to the head of MI6, the late Sir Maurice Oldfield, who helped to persuade Wilson not to accede to Lyndon Johnson’s request to send a battalion of bagpipers (sic) to Vietnam. […]
[…] provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 on the grounds of safeguarding national security. Similar certificates were signed (by Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary) on behalf of MI6 and GCHQ. In October 2001, Norman Baker MP won a Data Protection Tribunal appeal; the National Security Appeals Panel of the Tribunal ruled that a blanket […]
[…] is the memorandum written by Matthew Rycroft, dated 23 July 2002, after a meeting at Downing Street to discuss Iraq. In that Rycroft reports ‘C’, head of MI6, as saying, ‘There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.’ A CIA analyst at the time, Paul Pillar, dates the […]
[…] is just a poor effort on Bethel’s part. One can’t deny that it is useful – after all, it is the first book written solely about an MI6 operation – but one is disappointed by its thinness and its viewpoint. Bethel’s (partly legitimate) excuse is that documentation is unavailable because of Kim Philby’s involvement […]
[…] ban on access to personal files have been signed by Jack Straw, Home Secretary, and Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the three intelligence agencies, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, ‘for the purpose of safeguarding national security’. The validity of such a certificate can be challenged, and all three are being challenged; any person […]
[…] is still transparently false. There is no ‘syndicate’, no matter how loosely you define it – and his definition is very loose indeed. And how long are authors going to continue taking seriously John Coleman (he of the ‘Committee of 300’ nonsense, cited extensively here), and his description of himself as a former MI6 officer?
[…] around the KGB defector Oleg Gordiefsky. Gordiefsky’s public role, the quid pro quo for the pension he is now receiving, is to bolster the key myth of MI6, that while we may be the junior partner in the intelligence relationship with the U.S., we’re the best, the most subtle and the most reliable — […]
[…] times annually by two British eccentrics with a limited distribution to “about 50 like-minded friends.” N.B. It is anti-intelligence, specifically against the Western intelligence services, particularly MI5, MI6 and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The subject matter is apparently varied, eclectic, and highly interesting and informative for intelligence professionals and buffs.’ While good reviews […]
[…] ‘Special Intelligence Service’ — sic. Presumably he means Secret Intelligence Service. Stupid mistake or someone trying be clever, pretending they don’t actually know the other name of MI6? ‘At the behest of his intelligence masters’ — there is no evidence that Morris has any intelligence masters and he — while flattered, perhaps — denies […]
[…] it is. Absolute exemptions are not subject to any public interest test, and include information supplied by, or concerning: the Security Service, MI5; the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6; GCHQ; the Special Forces, e.g. the SAS; tribunals concerning intelligence and interception of communications including the Investigatory Powers Tribunal; and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) […]
