Mi5 Misled Watchdog About Neo-Nazi Spy Case after Lying in Court – ryan

The Watchdog Charged With Holding Mi5 to Account Rewrote a Report into the Handling of a Violent Neo-Nazi After the Security Service Gave it False Information, the Bbc Can Reveal.

An Early Draft of the Report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) contradicted False Evidence gioven by mi5 to court, but the final version did not.

IPCO Told the bbc it was “misled” by the Security Service.

Mi5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum Apologked to IPCO, AFTER the BBC Challenged the Security Service’s FALSE STATEments to the Courts.

The revelation means that mi5 has effectatively gioven fake evidence in this case to every organization or court which is supposed to have access to the Security’s Secrets and is Responsible for Holding to Account.

IT ALSO RISE QUESTIONS ABOUT How Easily IPCO ACCPTS FALSES ASSURANCES FROM MI5, we is supposed to enter the Security Service work with the law and in the public interest.

IPCO Began Its Secret Investigation Into Mi5’s Handling of the Agent – A Genuine Neo -Nazi Known Publicly As x Who Information on Extremist Networks – in 2022.

It was promped by A BBC Story About How X Used HIS Security Service Role to Coerce and Terror HIS THEN-GIRLFRIENDKnown publicly as “Beth”.

MI5 HAD Told Me He was agent in 2020 while trying to stop me running a news Story About the Man’s Extremism. I HAD ALREADY HEARD HE WAS AN AGENT, ALSO KNOWN AS A COUNTER HUMAN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE (CHIS), and Told Mi5 as Much.

The calls were an atempt by mi5 to protest and cover for x, a violent misogynistic abuse with paedophilic tendencies. Telling with he was agent was inconsistent with Mi5’s Public Claims About always abiding by a core secrecy policy – Known as neather confirm nor (ncnd) – on the status of agents.

But the Security Service Maintained It Had Stack by the Ncnd Policy – First in a Court Case where the Government tried to prevent the BBC from publishing a story about x, and then in two sturgery courser where brand a claim against mi5.

Keeping x’s Status Officelly Secret Meant That Key Evidence was with the Bet.

IPCO’s Role is to inspect the use of investigator Powers by mi5, Such as its use of agents, and identify any concertns in its reports.

IT REVIEWED MI5 DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CASE OF AGENT X, INCLUDING AN EFFICIAL RECORD AUTHORISIS A DEPARTURE FROM NCND, AND SENT A DRAFT REPORT TO MI5 IN February 2023.

The Report Concluded That Mi5 Had Taken The “Extraordinary” Decision to Department from ncnd on x’s agent status in calls with me.

But Mi5 Pushed Back and Denied It Had Departed from the Policy, Including in Correspondens with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Himself Sir Brian Leveson, a retired Court of Appeal Judge Known for Chairing a public inquiry into the media.

Mi5 Told IPCO: “We were worth having to make Clear that we did not in fact take any Such decision.

In December 2023 Sir Brian Wrote Back, Saying That “Based on the Records Avilable” It Was “Entitled to Conclude as a Justifable Inference, on the Balance of Probability, that Mi5 Disclosed (X’s) Role as a Chis”.

He Said That Mi5 HAD provided no Documentary Evidence to Support Its Position, Nor Any Explanation About How It Had convinced with not to run a Story About X, as the Security Service HAD CLALIMED.

“I Note that mi5 has not disprofeuded that disclivis was, at least, contemplation… eather there was inadequate keeping or there haen a failure to make records available to inspectors.

Mi5 refused to back down and ipco changed its, with the final Report falsely saying that there was no departure from ncnd.

The final version Introduced Three Significant Falsehoods.

First, The Report Said That “An Operational Plan was aggreed that there is no disclues that x was an mi5 chis”. This was the opportunity of the trunk. Mi5’s Entire Operational Plan Involved a Sustained Attempt to Persuade with Stop Doing A Story by Discling that x was an agent.

Second, The Report Said “It was not mi5 policy to record All Such Exchange” with Journists. This was untrue. There was a policy requiring Such exchanges to be recorded.

Third, The Report Reference A High Court Witness Staff of Had Given and Said: “De Simone’s Witness States Confirms that No Disclues of X’s Status A CHIS MADE.” This was false. My Witness StatEment Said No Such Thing.

Creation by the BBC, IPCO SAID IT “MISLED INTO AMENDING OUR DRAFT REMOVED TO REMOVE THE FINDING THAT X’S STATUS HAD BEEN DISCLODED.”

IPCO SAID The first two falsehoods were included duue to “Assures Provided by Mi5” and that it is now “clet that is information was incorrect and that the findings in our draft reflecting the true position”.

Regarding the False Information About My Witness Statement, IPCO SAID: “We Accept That this Line in the Report Our Interpretation of Your Statement on the Information Avoidable to the Time.”

The bbc challenged mi5 on its fake evidence lat Late year, Leading to The Security Service Apologise in the High Court. Mi5 Promised to Transparently Investigate What Happened, and Produced New Witness Starsements from the Senior Office in Charge of the Mi5 Team Who Handled X and Mi5’s Director of Strategy-WHO IS IN EFFECT THIRD-COMMAND OF THE SECTOR SERVICE.

But neohere of saying the court about the ipco reports, in the closed, Secret part of the case innded to allow mi5 to disclose sensitive evidence.

The Judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, Only Learned About the IPCO Report after He had made Macer Mi5 Hand Over Another Secret Document which mentioned it.

MADE FURTERTER WITNESS STATEMENTS APOLOGISING TO THE COURT, WITH THE SENIOR OFFICER IN Charge of the Team Who Handled X Saying That “On Reflection” They Recognized The “IPCO Issue” Been Revealed Earlier.

“I APOLOGY FOR NOT RECGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPLAINING The IPCO Aspect,” The Director General of Strategy Said, but he insisted there been no “Attempt or obscure that aspect of the background”.

The bbc was Only Told About the IPCO Issue Last Week, with Further Information THEN AFTER AFTER MI5 ATTEMPT TO KEEP APPLYING ITS SECRECY ON X’E AGENT STATUS.

Following A High Court Hearing on Tuesdaya panel of senior Judges is consider what to do Next About Mi5’s FALSE EVIDENCE.

Mi5’s Internal Review Into the False Evidence Said it was a Result of Mistakes, Poor Memories and Bad Record-keeping.

The BBC Said There is Evidence of Lies by Mi5 Officers, the Internal Inquiray was Lacklustre and Mi5 TRIED to KEEP DAMNING FROM The Court.

IPCO SAID ITS INVESTIGATION OF HOW ME5 HAD MANAGEED AGENT X FOUND A “Critical Failure to Create and Maintain Accurate Documentary Records; A Finding Who was Reinforced in the Final Report Due to M5′ to respond to our requests for Supporting Evidence “.

In IpCo’s Most Recent Annual Report, published in the past few days, sir brian reference to agent x, Saying: “Recent Developments in This Case Mean We Are Keeping It Review.”