Re: Naming of Dr Kelly as BBC's principal source
Our website-based campaign today claims that the head of the BBC has decided to put his job on the line to protect that of their real source who is probably as they first claimed a senior British Intelligence officer. And that we, our country need both people to keep their jobs.
Re the London Power cut 28.8.03. I'm not sure I believe in coincidences. New York, now London plunged into darkness. May I ask if anyone has asked these sort of questions?
Could the powercuts in New York and London by any chance have been caused by people hacking into the computers that control the Power Grid?
And If so,
does the UK/USA governments believe there is anything to be gained by not telling the public? If it is hackers, are they criminals, anarchists or terrorists? If they are criminals or anarchists -are they demanding money to stop? If so, do we intend to pay them?
I thought you might be interested in my layperson's attempt to contribute to the Hutton inquiry. The submission is a little controversial but is well intended and I hope furthers the debate. I hope it may prompt some key questions. If you have time to read it may I ask if you have a view on my suggestions to Lord Hutton at the end.
With very best wishes,
Lord Hutton, The Hutton Inquiry Secretariat, 2nd Floor,81 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DD 27.8.03
Dear Lord Hutton
For some time I have wondered if the security services maintain their officers in their ‘day’ jobs and this extends to the civil service. Is it conceivable that Dr Kelly wore two hats and was both a scientist and also a senior intelligence officer?
If this was the case Andrew Gilligan would be correct in saying that his source was a senior intelligence officer. Perhaps Dr Kelly confused his two roles in the interview with Mr Gilligan, or Mr Gilligan was already aware how the service operates and therefore felt he could legitimately mention that his source was in intelligence thus giving the story more teeth. Dr Kelly would be in difficulties either way as he would not be allowed to admit to his second role.
The leaking of his name would have caused a conflict of duty (not ever being able to admit he was an intelligence officer) and that of self-interest (that it might being in his best interest to admit this to the House of Commons Select Committee and that his employers were stitching him up while depending on his esprit de corps to be discreet). In the end he was not able to resolve this conflict and what must have been his huge sense of betrayal, and the result was this personal tragedy. He would have been undone by the BBC journalist guessing his second role and his employers then feeding him to the press (whilst knowing Dr Kelly had a second role that he could not admit to for fear of prosecution, and because of his sense of duty).
If the Security Service do keep some of its employees within the general civil service it has wider implications.
The service will have enhanced influence. For example if there was an overspend and they had an officer in the Treasury might it give them the ability to rubberstamp the expenditure? Having officers in other branches of the Civil service such as the Passport Office and the Home Office would have clear advantages.
I would also imagine that their people might be assisted at their promotion boards, possibly resulting in the promotion of less able candidates within the civil service.
They would probably operate under other outlets ie the media. ie Was not the Times/Sunday Times journalist murdered in Cairo about thirty years ago rumoured to be a MI6 officer? The editor of the Sunday Telegraph is also rumoured to have close connections with the security services. Again this carries clear dangers to our democratic way of life as the journalist may be security officer first and impartial reporter of the news second. It would also put other journalist lives in danger and the dissemination of information from around the world by the media which has helped make it a safer place. As a Churchgoer I would object to the security services using Mission stations as a cover for their activities. As well as putting the lives of missionaries (and aid workers) in more danger it compromises the vital work they do.
As a nation we have to make a judgement whether the short-term advantage of the security services using certain occupations as cover outweights the long-term disadvantages. I’m not sure that it does.
What would the personal advantages be to people with two roles? Perhaps if some people had two incomes their standard of living/home would be more comfortable than they could expect on one income.
I have thought very carefuly before writing to you. (I have no inside knowledge). I do not wish to harm this country which I love or put security service officers in danger. I pray for these people. They are brave and valiant people who sometimes pay the ultimate price. Their family life can be badly affected. (Stephen Lander lost his son a year or two ago)
However a man has died and we have a Prime Minister who I am now convinced is working willingly or unwillingly for the Americans.
Please could you look at www.vetmps.org.uk which carries the full text of a revealing letter sent to me by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull on the issue of security checks (or lack of them) for the government. As a nation we seem to have adopted an ostrich-like position on this issue. This is at variance with our vigilance elsewhere.
I fear that the higher echelons of our security service have being disabled and prevented from doing their duty both informally and formally. This being by the restrictive terms of reference under which MI5 and MI6 operate. These prevent them from from investigating the government.
When the security services had genuine fears about Harold Wilson and the possibility that he was been blackmailed they had no official mandate to investigate or official independent channel through which to voice their fears. This surely puts our country at risk? All the officers could do was to spread rumour and innuendo among journalists which was clearly unacceptable.
Today, because the influence of the security services may well extend far beyond their official buildings into other executive branches of goverment such as the Home office these organisations may also be stopped from investigating similar threats to our security. As a nation we are wide open.
If a rascal gets elected to the highest office or goes bad or is the victim of blackmail there is little we can do about it. Our democratic system is not protected as it should be. This urgently needs to be put right. The intelligence community need clearly set out procedures to follow in such cases.
Am I alone in wondering how Carole Caplin and Peter Foster have maintained their relationship with Tony and Cherie Blair despite the embarrassment they have caused them? It is uncharacteristic of number 10 not to have frozen them out a long time ago. Some people believe that the Prime Minister is gay. Of course this does not matter in itself but were it to be true hiding it could conceivably open him or anyone else to blackmail.
Alternatively if politicians are unfairly smeared there must be logical well-thought out procedures to check them out and clear them.
I believe Dr Kelly bravely stuck his neck out to protect our country.
America wanted war with Iraq for internal political and economic reasons. Our Prime minister went along with it in spite of the evidence that Hussein did not threaten our country. He did so on the behest of the Americans and in doing has created a more dangerous and unstable world. Lower ranking intelligence officers seem to believe this.
The BBC and other media outlets vital in protecting our national interest are also under attack. They are another bastion of our freedom. The goverment also wishes to close down the BBC website which is a vital source of information to people around the world.
American chief constables are being considered. How can we security check them?
You have probably also read that Online voting is likely to be introduced. This is part of the wider picture. It is well known that ther is no such thing as perfect encryption. The head of Microsoft security in the Uk recently said theire was no such thing as perfect security. Hence we would open up the possibility of our elections being tampered with by external organisations. If this happened anyone challenging the result of the election would be seen as being undemocratic. Why are we even considering giving up our well tested system which with it’s large paper-chase and mass witness at the count protects our democratic system so well. Why indeed?
Put all these events together and they represent a massive onslaught on our liberal democracy from abroad. The storm is upon us and our first line of defence the security service are by their terms of reference prevented from protecting us.
I hope these thoughts are helpful or perhaps suggest questions that can be asked. With very best wishes,Good luck with your inquiry.Yours sincerely, Bob Goodall Campaigner www.vetmps.org.uk
Members of the Government and MPs should be subject
to the same security checks and monitoring as their senior civil servants.
It is hugely worrying that no such checks are currently in place.
For More Information Contact: