View Full Version : David Shayler

tony draper
4th Nov 2002, 22:11
Traitor or whistle blower?
Must be quite a few here that have signed that piece of paper,

Select Zone Five
4th Nov 2002, 23:09
I can't talk about it...:rolleyes:

4th Nov 2002, 23:19
...but you just did, now I'm going to have to shoot you...

tony draper
4th Nov 2002, 23:31
Ah well two fell for me trap anyway. ;)

4th Nov 2002, 23:58
Bally hero. Although a bit self-involved.

Ditch the Official Secrets Act and pass a Freedom of Information act.

Ralf Wiggum
5th Nov 2002, 00:03
He put agents lives at risk!!!

Personally hope he does a long stretch. Besides, he looks like a right slimey toe rag too.

WE Branch Fanatic
5th Nov 2002, 00:12
What sort of message would have been sent out if someone who leaked TOP SERCRET and SECRET information to the press did not recieve a custodial sentance?

Remember: Careless talk costs lives - as true now as in WWII.

5th Nov 2002, 01:53
And he's obese, hang him.

5th Nov 2002, 01:58
A fat, sweaty, wheezing bloke to be precise. Should be a minicab driver really. That might be an appropriate sentence.

5th Nov 2002, 10:07
I say starve him. Thats going to be murder for him....:)

5th Nov 2002, 10:58
He's too fat to hang - he'd just break the rope. Just send him to a 'safe' house for a nice meeting with some of the agents whose lives he's probably put at risk and see if the same number of people leave as arrive.
:mad: :mad:

5th Nov 2002, 11:11
Yeap he signed the Act now he must pay the cost of breaking it. But at the end of the day is it not a good thing that we bug the Labour Governments offices and keep files on half the cabinet?

Remember most of this lot at one stage or another have been arrested trying to break into places such as Greenham Common for example.....

If only he had mentioned the following ......................................

tony draper
5th Nov 2002, 11:15
I would think that the way things are now, the security services should be given more freedom to bug or put to the question anyone they like.
The last thing they need at this point in time is a bunch of touchy feely libs looking over their shoulder.
I'm a tad old fashioned, if you give your word, if you sign the document you should keep to the agreement.

5th Nov 2002, 17:48
He's been banged up for 6 months.

5th Nov 2002, 19:04
Sorry DuckDodgers what exactly is your point about Greenham Common? Don't see what is has to do with this. And are you suggesting that it's right to bug Labour governments but not Tories? I don't understand why you specified Labour governments. Presumably you are suggesting that Tories can't constitute a risk to national security and Labour can.

The usual pro-secrecy line is 'he put agents lives at risk'. There is no evidence that he did that, you have swallowed the Security Service line. If any of you have such evidence then please enlighten me - if you can't I will assume you are just regurgitating the prosecution rhetoric.

The security services do a valuable job and I am not suggesting that all their work should be open to public scrutiny. I am suggesting that their activities need to be made more transparent, as they are in the States for example. At least the American government admits the existence of the CIA and there are roadsigns to their offices!

Shayler did break the terms of the Official Secrets Act and while it is law he deserves to be punished. However we need to have a reform - ie a Freedom of Information Act whereby information can be released into the public domain if it is in the public interest AND does not constitute a threat to national security.

Tony - no one is suggesting they should have 'touchy feely libs looking over their shoulder'. Change the record mate.

5th Nov 2002, 19:31
There is a Freedom of Information Act. It was passed in 2000 but some provisions will not come into effect until 2005.


5th Nov 2002, 20:39
Few folk here seem interested in the fact that Shayler may just be genuine in his attempt to curtail the danger to agents created by incompetence within the various secret services.

If such incompetence does exist and I suggest it is a strong possibility that this is so, then the services themselves are endangering a lot more lives than Shayler ever could.

Or, do senior MI5/MI6 bureaucratic backsides justify more protection than the lives of those in the field?

If the safety of agents in the field is being compromised more by internal incompetence than by whistleblowers within any service then, surely, this should be rectified regardless of who signed what?

Or is it all "stiff upper lip" and stuff the spies?

5th Nov 2002, 21:09
The Daily Torygraph has an interesting article on DS today. It is pretty dismissive of DS. It claims that DS was the person running the operation which he gave to the Mail on Sunday as an example of MI5's "expensive and time consuming lack of judgement"!

Send Clowns
5th Nov 2002, 22:41
Wedge - neither have you seen evidence that he did not put agents' lives at risk. I think publishing a list of their names has a chance of doing so. Shayler admitted under oath to trying to publish such information.


Cathar is correct about the article, I suggest you read it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/05/nshay105.xml). Since the BBC decided that on the day they were finally allowed to publish certain details of the case against a traitor who threatened British agents this was not newsworthy (maybe because they got excited when he first blew the whistle), beyond the fact he had been convicted, the Telegraph report is all I have to go on, so will be believed until I see reason not to.

Shayler apparently first went round touting for Fleet Street money with copied documents and stories complaining that the security service (MI5 as the press would have it) is run by liberals who would not sanction mail interception and phone taps. Since this did not interest them, he changed his tune and pedalled gossip and old news.

Of the reports that he could back up only two were new. One is not in the public domain, the Mail on Sunday having had an injunction against them because the papers Shayler copied on this contained a list of agents. The other was a surveillance on a dumb Guardian reporter who allowed her bank account to be used to channel money that, unbeknownst to her, came from Libya, then still considered a terrorist-sponsoring state. Now the reason seems to me legitimate, as were some of the tactics. However a year-long investigation culminating in a desperate plea by the officer leading the investigation to be allowed to break into the reporter's home and search it seems a little extreme. Fortunately the request was denied, and the investigation halted by a more senior officer.

As Cathar says, the officer at fault was Shayler himself, and he resigned in disgust at not being given free reign. He thinks himself cleverer than his bosses, so wants to "blow the whistle". The man is a deluded, self-opinionated, arrogant little schitt.