(it’s not satire – it’s UK ‘intelligence’ today)
The heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are being questioned by MPs for the second day in the House of Commons today.
Judging by the weak questioning they received from MPs yesterday, don’t expect the head spooks to break into too much of a sweat though.
Here are 5 questions which might produce a bead or two of perspiration if they were to be asked:
1) Until the late 1980s, the BBC used MI5 to vet its staff, including its reporters, newsreaders and presenters.
That means you were either so incompetent that you didn’t notice top BBC presenter Jimmy Savile was a paedophile or you noticed it and decided to cover it up.
So my question to you is this.
Which are you – incompetent or corrupt?
2) Jimmy Savile was a friend of Margaret Thatcher and other top cabinet ministers. He regularly stayed at number 10 with the Prime Minister.
You were either so incompetent that you didn’t vet someone in such close proximity to the PM, or you vetted him and didn’t notice he was a paedophile – or you noticed he was a paedophile and decided to cover it up.
So which is it – incompetence or corruption?
3) Jimmy Savile was a friend of Prince Charles and other senior members of the Royal Family. He also regularly visited and socialised with British Royalty.
Therefore, you were either so incompetent that you didn’t vet someone in such close proximity to the Monarch, or you vetted him and didn’t notice he was a paedophile, or you noticed he was a paedophile and decided to cover it up anyway.
So which are you – incompetent or corrupt?
4) Special Branch have said that a file they compiled which was full of paedophile allegations against Cyril Smith was taken by MI5 agents in the 1970s and has never been seen since.
What happened? Are you just so incompetent you lost the file or so corrupt you deliberately destroyed it?
5) You claim you are all worth the 2 billion a year the British taxpayer forks out for your ‘intelligence’. But surely if you can’t detect dodgy paedophiles openly operating at the heart of the British establishment – how can you hope to be able to uncover much more hidden threats to national security from terrorists or foreign agents?
Or is it just that when you say you are protecting the nation, you don’t consider threats to British children from high-ranking establishment paedophiles important enough to warrant your consideration?
.
Related articles:
MI5 vetted Savile. And decided paedophilia was nothing to worry about?
Was Cyril Smith allowed to get off scot-free as part of a possible Con-Lib coalition deal?
Savile wasn’t ‘hiding in plain sight’. It was a cover-up.
Jimmy Savile, West Yorkshire Police and the Friday Morning Club
Was it MI6 – not the Blair government – that drove Dr David Kelly to suicide?
Child abuse scandal can of worms – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?
High level child abuse cover-up? Why has Theresa May barred a US journalist from the UK?
Cock-up, cover-up or conspiracy in the North Wales child abuse scandal? You decide.
.
Please feel free to comment – you don’t need to register and I’m extremely minimal with the moderating.
.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you can share this article with other people. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
You know what I think of that, and that is that Jimmy Saville was a known and hired paedophile pimp for the establishment. And the use of sex agent provocateurs and creating sexual liaisons and blackmailing scenarios at childrens homes and parties. The game moved up from trapping important people in liaisons with prostitutes, gays or orgies, With the swinging sixties and the sexual freedom such liaisons were not thought of anything wrong or problematic any more.
So I think Saville was a known hired underaged sex pimp and paedophile party provider for establishment and anyone they wanted to entrap.
Sex is a peculiar area and subject and traps many. You might brave it for a liaison with a call girl of gay lover, but most could not chance a accusation and expose as a paedophile.
Captured and caught, by establishment and Mi5 et al and US all in on it.
We are corrupted with rot from top to bottom.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, the old Christmas Tree files at the BBC.
http://www.bilderberg.org/mi5bbc.htm
I wonder who destroyed the Saville files? MI6, C section of MI5? Or the BBC Personnel Department?
During the time in question, the managers’ life at the BBC was more than cushy, especially for those Public School scroungers who were too dumb to work anywhere else, always promoted above their level of incompetence. The BBC that had different grades of chairs to go with the different grades of worker / management. The whole place at times felt like a branch of MI5 /6 because of the degree of public school & Establishment cow-towing that went on. The management – and I include the HR department – were there to look after the establishments status quo.
Your questions are very, very pertinent to what happened at the BBC, and in the wider Establishment in the cover-up of Saville and his fellow criminals and paedophiles.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on kickingthecat.
LikeLike
they could ask how the dident know that news international was spying on the roayle family.
LikeLike
In fact why not ask the Murdochs to do the job instead of the spooks? They appear to have much more effective data collection systems. And bring pleasure to millions.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
LikeLike
yes thats a good idea.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Douktris's Blog.
LikeLike
As the Guardian’s Nick Davies has often said – the power elite protects the power elite. One rule for them and another for us.
LikeLike
As much as I am furious with internal corruption within the government, I do like a reasoned, fair and substantiated argument… Unfortunately there’s a lot of holes in that article, although there is a lot that collectively MI5,6,GCHQ need to be answerable and responsible for (including some intelligence failings from the last 5 years), their remit would not include the investigation of an individual’s illegal sexual activities – that would be a matter for the police force. There are questions that should be asked of them (phone hacking of MPs/Royals by News International, the Jean-Charles de Menezes incident, etc.)
The intelligence services are responsible for counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, counter-proliferation and protective security, so it is unlikely that Savile’s activities would have flagged to them as an issue of national security. Similarly the vetting on BBC staff in the 70’s and early 80’s has been known about for about 7/8 years and was about reporting unbias and connection to subversive political organisations and was also only a proportion of staff (most of which were most likely news gathering/reporting staff not entertainment talent), so these vetting would probably have missed Savile. All the failings that are listed in this article are failings of the police force and not the intelligence services per se.
LikeLike
I’ve given this a lot of thought, especially because the media are portraying our hard-up little security people as hard done by. The MPs seem to not really ask anything of value for fear that it may set off an all out attack by terrorists everywhere. So they act in their usual disengenious manner, ask nothing, apply no ‘democratic accountability’ and all go home till the next time
well, for what it’s worth, here’s my 5 questions:
1.Why?
2. Who?
3.When?
4. Who stands to gain?
5 How long will it take for you to leave your post – your fired?
LikeLike
thanks Teresa
LikeLike
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & THE SIEGE OF BRITAIN POLITICAL JOURNAL.
LikeLike
Much like you’ve put on a number of other peoples articles on different blogs Jed, where is the evidence for this, it’s wholly unsubstatiated. If anything, media portrayal of the intelligence services is heavily weighted in their failings and their incompetence. And this is evident across ITV, Sky & the BBC. Of late there are far to many blogs and discussions where a stubbornly held personal opinion has gotten in the way and isn’t backed up with any form of evidence and is demeaning the strength of any argument we are all trying to make – without any thoughts or responsibility on the effect it will have. I think it was in another discussion recently on the use of profanity was a perfect example of this.
LikeLike
Pingback: Paedophile Threatens Libel Over Speculation He Was Former Thatcher Cabinet Minister | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Lord Rennard on Cyril Smith: “a personal inspiration to me” | Pride's Purge
Pingback: REVEALED! Massive 20-year conspiracy to deprive Lib Dem peer of party membership | Pride's Purge