Tag: craig murray

Breaking the Depleted Uranium Ceiling

It is an astonishing fact that, despite near universal recognition now that the war in Iraq was a disaster, no major British social institution is headed by a single one of the majority of the population who were opposed to the war.

Every Cabinet Minister actively supported the war. Of the fifteen Tory MPs who rebelled and voted against the war, not one is a minister. Civil servants officially have no politics but privately their opinions are known. There is not one single Permanent Under Secretary of a UK government department who was known to be against the war and most were enthusiasts. Simon Fraser, PUS at the FCO, was an active Blairite enthusiast for the war. Though no Blairite, the Head of MI6 Alex Younger was also an enthusiast.

The BBC was of course gutted following its revealing of the truth about Iraqi WMD, and the subsequent murder of David Kelly. Following the ousting of Greg Dyke, both Governors and Directors-Generals have been known supporters of the war. Of the 107 bureaucrats in the BBC who earn over 100,000 pounds pa, insiders estimate that only five were opponents of the war. Craig Oliver – who has now left the BBC for Cameron’s media operation – and James Purnell are absolutely typical of the BBC Iraqocracy.

Every current editor of a UK national newspaper supported the Iraq war. At the time of the war there was one editor opposed – Piers Morgan – who subsequently became a derided and marginalised figure. Not only are the editors firmly from the neo-con alliance, but the high profile commentators who cheered on the war – David Aaronovich, Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, John Rentoul, Rod Liddle etc. – have all seen their careers flourish. None has suffered from their appalling lack of judgement. There is no similar raft of commentators who were against the war who enjoy such constant media promotion and massive salaries. Many, like Peter Oborne, have suffered unexpected career glitches. There is no head of a major TV channel in the UK who was against the war in Iraq.

The theme runs through all the public professions. Of the hundreds of academics who took firm positions against the Iraq War, I cannot find a single example who went on to become a University Vice-Chancellor or Principal. By contrast actual war criminals Richard Dearlove and Valerie Amos were parachuted into academic leadership posts. The Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces were all true believers, compared to the massive scepticism that existed among senior officers.

The Iraq test even extends into the heads of institutions apparently quite unrelated, such as City of London banks and insurance companies. There are a tiny number of heads of FTSE 100 companies who were against the war.

It is not that there is an Iraq test. It is that Iraq is the touchstone for adherence to the neo-liberal consensus. All these professionally successful people share a number of attitudes, of which support for the Iraq War is a good indicator. There is a very strong correlation between support for the Iraq War and fierce Zionism. But there is also a strong correlation between support for the Iraq War and support for austerity economics. The strongest correlation of all lies in support for the Iraq War and for “business-friendly” tolerance of corporatism, TTIP, multinational tax avoidance, low taxation and marketization of public services including in education and health.

To return to where I started, the quite extraordinary thing is that there is a near-universal recognition in wider society that the Iraq War was both completely unjustified and a dreadful strategic blunder. Yet its support is a major pre-condition for membership of the governing elite.

The answer of course lies in its value as an indicator for a broad range of neo-liberal consensus attitudes. That is why, both the SNP and Jeremy Corbyn provide such a threat to the Establishment, through denying those attitudes. The fascinating thing is that the SNP and the Labour Party could be the only public institutions in the UK of any note with an anti-Iraq War leadership. The significance is that, in slightly different ways, both the prominence of the SNP and of Jeremy Corbyn are the result of a public revolt which the Establishment has been trying, absolutely desperately, to cut off.

Ed Miliband did not actually vote against the Iraq War, contrary to popular myth. Having both the Labour and SNP parties led by people who reject the raft of values symbolised by the Iraq test, who have broken through the depleted uranium ceiling, is a massive, massive threat to the meritlessocracy. Institutional control appeared to be complete and impermeable. Suddenly they face the danger of the opinions of ordinary people carrying weight. Expect the media control mechanisms to whir into still greater overdrive.

The above article was written by the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, originally posted on his blog on August 1, 2015.

Tweet this post

Toby Young Regurgitates Old Labour Myths In Order To Denigrate Corbyn

In a debate on yesterday evening’s Channel 4 News (August 11) between Toby Young and Owen Jones, the former was aghast at the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn victory in the forthcoming Labour Party leadership election campaign.

For the metropolitan elite, who Young speaks on behalf of, any notion that Corbyn could actually be victorious is invariably met with incredulity, derision or mockery.

Corbyn’s runaway lead in the polls, and the fact that he continues to pack out halls to capacity in rally after rally, is simply mystifying to people like Young. In a typically patronising fashion, the right-wing journalist was aghast at how Labour Party members could possibly support Corbyn.

Such support “beggars belief”, he said. He continued: “How many elections does Labour have to lose when it puts up a left-wing leader in order for the message to sink home”? Here, he is perpetuating the myth discussed here and here that left-wing leaders are unelectable.

He then made a reference to former Labour leader Michael Foot’s lack of apparent popularity in an attempt to bolster his argument. But again, he was dealing in myth rather than reality. A commentator on Craig Murray’s blog by the name of Bevin put Young straight on the matter:

“What happened to Foot’s campaign in 1983 was that a large part of Labour’s leadership seceded calling the Labour platform extremist and Marxist. This had the effect, amongst other things, of confusing much of Labour’s traditional support.

Occurring at the same time as a massive media campaign celebrating the SDP and its purported radicalism – ‘breaking the mould of British politics’ – it divided the Labour vote and handed the election to the unpopular Tories.

Then there was the Falklands effect. The notion that Foot was defeated in a straight contest with Thatcher and that his mild socialist policies were rejected in favour of her hard right programme is nonsense.

His position was sabotaged by a well financed and carefully co-ordinated campaign to split the Labour party, by a right wing faction that has, since the 1940s, relied upon US governmental patronage on condition that it use every weapon to thwart those in Labour opposed to the Cold War and in favour of nuclear disarmament and peace.

Those who actually recall the history of the period will confirm that both within the Labour party and in the broader population, nuclear disarmament, getting out of NATO and declaring British independence from the US were very popular policies.

The membership of the Labour party was overwhelmingly in favour of the left. The proto Blairites and the Grosvenor Square groupies invariably relied on block votes from the authoritarian Union leaders at the party’s annual conference. The membership of the Constituency parties always supported the left. And so did most Trade Unionists and Labour voters.

When predicting the result of the next general election it would be best to understand that, for the great majority of the electorate, the coming five years are likely to see the NHS going the way of free education, a housing crisis which will see large numbers of working families, once again, living in crowded slums, an enormous increase in unemployment and a radical decline in living standards. A return to Victorian conditions.

Any politician who can offer an alternative is likely to do better than those declaring that nothing can be done, which is what the Blairites say. That any such politician will be crucified in the media, slandered and misrepresented goes without saying.”

Banking Racketeers Set For Another Windfall

A sign is displayed outside of a branch of The Royal Bank of Scotland in central London, Britain May 20, 2015. REUTERS/Neil Hall

The UK Chancellor’s announcement that he plans to sell-off £2 billion worth of the 79 per cent stake the government has in RBS over the coming fortnight is, according to Unite national officer for finance Rob MacGregor, “recklessly irresponsible”(1). RBS shares that stood at £6.88 in 2007, are now valued at £3.30 (2). It should be noted that the shares have not been offered to the people who bailed out RBS, that is us, the taxpayers but to the Tories’ city friends.

The decision by Aristocrat Gideon Osborne, who seems set to be next in line to take the reins of PM from his friend David Cameron (3), and who promised action on tax avoidance (4), despite the fact that his family business has avoided tax (5), is defended by Treasury minister, Harriet Baldwin. Why would she defend the sell-off which will result in a £1bn loss to taxpayers, you may ask?

Well, it could have something to do with her connections within in the banking racket. Having joined investment bank JP Morgan Chase in 1986, she then became managing director and Head of Currency Management at their London office in 1998. She left the bank in 2008, after more than two decades with the bank (6). Maybe she has advised Cameron to get shot of the RBS millstone before his transition to PM.

The chief architects of the RBS collapse, Fred Goodwin and Sir Tom McKillop seemed to have disappeared into the ether.

To sell these shares when business is slow, many are on holiday and the stock market depressed, means its the opportune time for these scoundrels to defraud us for the second time round, which of course is really what this latest scandal is all about.

If, after this latest act by the page boy to his dads banker friends in order to further the interests of the banking racketeers, won’t have awaken the masses from their slumber, then I fear nothing will. There is no clearer illustration we are being taken for a ride than the governments collusion with the bankers as highlighted by this sell-off.  Austerity amounts to the raiding of the public coffers to bolster the pockets of the super-rich (7).

As economist Andrew Fisher alludes, this is clearly an ideological and dogmatic move by Osborne, not a financially pragmatic one:

“Banks that owe their continuing existence to public funds should be acting in the public interest — investing in the productive economy, reducing the margins between their lending rates and savers’ rates, and ending the fat-cat bonus culture at the top, while underpaying and laying off cashiers at the other end.”(8).

The Financial Times reported yesterday (August 3) that Osborne wants to flog off £32bn worth of public assets by the end of the financial year, as part of a strategy to reduce the role of the state that will do nothing to stimulate growth (9). The £32bn worth of public asset stripping that is to include the Met Office, Ordnance Survey and air traffic controller Nats, breaks even Thatcher’s record (10).

We are not in this mess because politicians are stupid but because of the cozy relationship that exists between them and the bankers who the latter lobby on behalf of (11). The Guardian outlines how it all works. A commentator on Craig Murray’s blog argued that:

“The entire RBS saga is a scam from start to finish:

• All banks make huge profits by lending prodigiously.
• Concentrate bad debts in a few banks.
• Instill ‘too big to fail’ meme.
• Order politicians to ‘nationalise’ compromised banks at huge cost to tax-payers.
• Continue injecting billions until ‘nationalised’ banks have paid off the lion’s share of bad debt.
• Sell bank back to bankers at knock-down price” (12).

Another commentator from the same blog makes another apt point:

“Note the bastards didn’t buy voting shares in RBS: the taxpaying sucker didn’t even have the opportunity to reform the bank. Lovely little restructure: the retail arm goes to another retail bank for a knockdown price (W&G may not have been too wise buying it even then), while the crooked division ends up divvied up between hedge funds. And lives to cheat another day” (13).

Don’t forget dear readers, we are all in it with the aim of getting the deficit down.

Don’t Believe The Hype

Much to the almost certain consternation of Harriet Harman, forty-eight labour MPs did the honourable thing by voting against the Tories’ welfare reform legislation. As I alluded to previously, Harman’s concession to the Tories was predicated on the belief that Labour has to move right in order to be electable.

Given the Liberal Democrat’s close ideological proximity to the Tories during their power sharing term, and their subsequent virtual demise following the last election, the strategic move by Harman and the party hierarchy is clearly a calculable risk.

Harman’s assumption appears to be that there is no longer any more political and electoral traction to be gained by appealing to a diminishing band of traditional left wing voters. But the question is, are the abandoned merely lying dormant and waiting to be awoken from their slumber by a parliamentary opposition worthy of the name?

If we accept that the class structure remains in tact and that the real life experiences of the vast majority in the country will be made worse by the impending cuts, then rationally the answer to the question is they will at some point make their voice heard. But neither Harman or any of the Blairites competing for the leadership will be the catalyst.

In essence, there is no fundamental difference between the people of England and the people of Scotland. And yet, with the exception of a solitary seat, the latter wiped out from power a pro-austerity party, while the opposite was true for the former.

Outside the relatively small band of Labour Party dissenters, the opposition to benefit cuts in England will come from the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. The dominance of the SNP in Scotland and the popularity of both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, puts the lie to many of the claims in the corporate media that you have to be right wing to win elections. The forthcoming labour leadership battle is likely to bring this myth into even more of a sharper focus.

The reality is the people of England are inherently no more right wing than the people of Scotland. But the media who marginalize, ridicule and smear those with left wing views, most certainly are. So it’s not a question of their being no appetite for left wing views among the public, rather, the issue is one in which a right wing consensus is arrived at between the political establishment and the media. This is a policy that works.

We can expect greater media vilification of Corbyn as his campaign gains momentum in the coming period. The notion that a singular right wing ideological elite are first and foremost motivated by an overriding quest for the reins of power, has been addressed by former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray.

As Murray contends, persuasively, not only are the supposed parameters between left and right upon which electoral battles are fought based largely on an illusion, but as evidenced by successively low electoral turnouts, there is little enthusiasm for their leaders either.

Blair may of been the exception, but as Murray points out, his popularity was predicated on a set of left-wing policies outlined in his manifesto that he subsequently u-turned on once gaining power. As people discovered that New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, to quote Mandelson, their popular support plummeted. “The great communicator” Blair for 90% of his Prime Ministership was no more popular than David Cameron is now. 79% of the electorate did not vote for him by his third election.

Nevertheless, since Blair’s election victory in 1997, successive Tory-lite labour strategists have appeared to have taken the view that the preferred direction of travel for the party is that which is undertaken by their opponent. This ignores the fact that this ‘race to the bottom’ is in nobody’s interests other than the narrow careerist and financial ones of those at the top. And that, as far as Harman is concerned, is clearly the crux of the matter.

Increasingly, the political battle lines are being drawn, not between the ruling party and the opposition, but between the ruling party, opposition and the rest of us. I don’t remember a time when the disconnect between the political establishment and the people has been greater. For the vast majority of the political establishment and their paymasters in the corporate media, they really are all in it together. But that doesn’t mean that left wing views are unelectable as Nicola Sturgeon has shown. Maybe Jeremy will become England’s Nicola. We need him.

Royal Nazi Salutes Hero

Yesterday’s leaked film footage from 1933 or 1934 of the Queen Mother and her young daughter, the Queen, giving a Nazi salute alongside the future Edward VIII, was not an aberration as some commentators within the mainstream media have claimed. As Craig Murray posited:

It is completely untrue that its racism, totalitarianism and violence was unknown in 1933-4. They knew what they were doing. Nazi sympathies were much more common in the aristocracy than generally admitted. Their vast wealth and massive land ownership contrasted with the horrific poverty and malnutrition of the 1930’s, led the aristocracy to fear a very real prospect of being stood against a wall and shot. Fascism appeared to offer social amelioration for the workers with continued privilege for the aristocrats. 

The fact that the picture emerged in the public domain is clearly an embarrassment for the Royal’s a decade after Harry was photographed wearing a Nazi SS uniform at a fancy dress party. Just as the media are portraying this latest embarrassment as an aberration, so to were the British Crown when they described King Edward VIII as a black sheep in relation to his support for the Nazis which prompted his subsequent abdication to the throne in 1938. In reality:

the British monarchy, and the City of London’s leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Fuhrer’s election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain’s planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia. Support for Nazi-style genocide has always been at the heart of House of Windsor policy, and long after the abdication of Edward VIII, the Merry Windsors maintained their direct Nazi links.

The person on the other end of the camera filming the Nazi salutes was the husband of the late Queen Mother – King George VI who shortly before Germany invaded Poland, sent Hitler a birthday greeting. In 1970, George’s brother, former King Edward VIII, remarked: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.” When Edward made this remark it was widely known that Hitler and the Nazis had directly and indirectly killed more than 40 million civilians and soldiers.

Prince Philip, who was recently filmed swearing at photographers during a photo shoot with war veterans recently and who has probably never been corrected or challenged by anyone in his entire life, not only trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, but his German brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

In May last year, Prince Charles provoked a diplomatic row by comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler. This is particularly ironic considering the well-established fact the British royal family was cozy with the real Hitler back in the day.

The Lesson Of Greece – Stuff Your Money Under The Mattress.

The manager of one of Britain’s largest bond funds has effectively urged investors to put their money under their mattresses. Ian Spreadbury, who invests more than £4bn of investors’ money across a handful of bond funds, is concerned that what he describes as a “systemic event” could rock markets possibly to the magnitude of the crisis of 2008 (1).

What Spreadbury advises people to do is increase their liquidity by ensuring they have access to physical money. Spreadbury is honest enough to address concerns relating to global debt, particularly mortgage debt. It’s in the interests of banks to increase the value of property. So what they have traditionally done is to lend ever larger amounts of money to individuals. The circulation of increasing amounts of debt-fueled cash for mortgages results in greater competition for property. This in turn, means an increase in prices resulting in banks’ lending even more money, and so on and so forth.

For the bankers this process amounts to an apparent never ending cycle of growth. But for the vast majority of the rest of us, its an increasing burden of debt. Mortgage debt is being pumped up to record levels. What Chancellor Gideon Osborne is relying on for future demand is an ever-expanding household debt which is already tipping £2 trillion a year. The financial crisis in 2008 largely resulted from the fact that many people acquired houses and goods with money they didn’t have. Since then, more people have acquired even more houses and goods at greater expense with money they don’t have.

Seemingly, the only thing people learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history. Given the fact that our mistakes are part of a continuum, one might reasonably argue it’s not even an historical thing but rather akin to placing ones left hand into a fire to retrieve a coin, getting burned and then using the right hand to do the same in the false hope that the result will be different. The current record level of debt is predicated on historically low levels of interest. Problems will inevitably arise further down the line when interest rates begin to climb.

One might think that putting savings into a bank would be a more secure option than taking on a potentially precarious mortgage debt. But I wouldn’t count on it. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is supposedly intended to cover depositors for a limited amount invested per bank in the event of any collapse (2).

But under such circumstances, depositors’ would likely panic and demand all of their cash back at the same time. Inevitably there would be shortfall of available cash since the banks who in theory hold it would be unable to release it on mass given that it would almost certainly be tied up in high risk off shore investments.

Will the government be in a position to underwrite each individual depositor? Not so according to Spreadbury who says that such a suggestion is unfunded (3).

Following the 2008 crisis, the line pumped out by the leading figures within the establishment, was that governments’ could not allow banks to collapse because as institutions they were too big to fail. It was this rationale that underpinned their bailing out by taxpayers’. The government have since made assurances that tax payers’ money will no longer bail out failing banks (4).

But here’s the problem. The reach of these banks is greater now than previously because other smaller banks that were teetering on the edge have been swallowed up by the larger ones. So the banks who in 2008 were regarded as being too big to fail are even bigger in 2015. Contrary to government claims, taxpayers will continue to underwrite the inevitable future collapse of these larger banks at a far greater cost to the tax payer at least until 2019 (5). This is be predicated on the notion that in doing so the government will be protecting the savings accounts of depositors to the value of £75,000 (downgraded from the supposed FSCS limit of £85,000) (6).

The priority of government is to protect the bankers from their own incompetence, as opposed to protecting depositors in the event of a run on banks. As far as the banking racket is concerned, losses are ‘socialized’ and profits ‘privatized’. So for them, it’s ‘win-win’ situation.

Due to the close knit ‘revolving door’ culture that exists between leading parliamentarians’ taking their places on the boards of financial companies’ following their “retirement”, and the fact that the irresponsible actions of bankers continue to be underwritten by the tax payer, there is no incentive for either the politicians or the the bankers to change their destructive course. The continued suffering of the Greek people resulting from austerity in which their government is implicated, cannot be divorced from this kind of close knit relationship.

It was, for example, no accident that Greece didn’t do the rational thing by defaulting on its debt but has instead decided to continue with the ‘negotiation process’ predicated on further bail-outs. As Craig Murray succinctly put it, “the ‘Troika’ [of creditors comprising the EU, ECB and IMF] is very keen that there will be another bail-out because of course the money goes to the bankers to whom the political elite are beholden” (7).

In Britain we can see how this insane system has played out in terms of the so called relationship between house price and stock market inflation and what we have been told has been a growth in living standards. House prices in Britain have risen by 26% since 2009. In London during the same period they have risen by a massive 68%. Meanwhile the footsie 100 increased by 75%. And yet the economy is no better then it was in 2009. “Green shoots” have been talked about for years but never materialized. Stock markets and particularly house prices – which some forecasters assert could double within the next five years (8), has no bearing on reality (9).

We have reached a stage in human development whereby an elite backed by governments’ are able to gamble the money of other people with impunity. Even if by some quirk of nature, we as humans make it into the next century which on current trends seems increasingly doubtful (10), future generations’ will surely be amazed at how we have allowed the actions of a small parasitic minority to effectively asset strip the public realm owned collectively by the vast majority whose well-being and, in some cases, very existence depends. Craig Murray put it well when, in relation to Greece, he stated that “It will seem strange to future generations that a system developed whereby middlemen who facilitated real economic transactions by handling currency, came to dominate the world by creating a mathematical nexus of currency that bore no meaningful relationship to real movements of commodities” (11).

The price of nearly all assets – shares, bonds, property, land etc – have been rising for years. One of the reasons why this is so is because the money we have used to prop up the banks has not been to make them more secure in the long-term. The bankers are not interested in long-term stability but, on the contrary, are motivated by short-term gain. The way to ensure short term gain is to encourage people to buy assets. If, for instance, a lot of people invest their money into the same company by buying shares, then naturally the value of those shares will increase and so will their return on their initial investment. It can appear, therefore, that it’s of mutual interest to pump up these assets like a body-builder on steroids. Of course, rather like an over inflated balloon, these assets will at some point explode.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Warner, states, “The trigger for an inevitable “correction” [financial armaggedon] could come from a clear blue sky – a completely unanticipated event” (12).

A systemic event could, in other words, rock markets thus precipitating another financial crisis akin to 2008 – a “recovery” which we haven’t yet recovered from. The last thing leading investment brokers – who advise investors as to where and what to invest in want to do, is to advise people to hold on to their actual money. Obviously, this is because in so doing, it doesn’t profit them personally. But that’s precisely what many of them ARE doing.

Have we escaped the worst of the crisis that began in 2008 or is the worst yet to come? The unresolved crisis in Greece, as well as the advice of people like Ian Spreadbury, would suggest we may be merely delaying the inevitable.

References:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11686199/Its-time-to-hold-physical-cash-says-one-of-Britains-most-senior-fund-managers.html

2. http://www.fscs.org.uk/

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11686199/Its-time-to-hold-physical-cash-says-one-of-Britains-most-senior-fund-managers.html

4. http://rt.com/business/204155-taxpayer-bank-bailouts-rules/

5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29982181

6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html

7. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/07/bail-out-or-sell-out/#comments

8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/10216786/House-prices-Why-prime-London-property-could-double-by-2020.html

9. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/02/the_housing_bub.html

10. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42281.htm

11. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/07/bail-out-or-sell-out/#comments

12. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11679761/Are-overvalued-stock-markets-heading-for-another-crash.html

The Sunday Times Continue To Lie As If Iraq Never Happened

It seems as though the lies establishment journalists’ peddled in relation to claims that Saddam had in his possession WMDs that in reality never existed in order to sell to the public an illegal war, are at it again. 

Murdoch’s Sunday Times (June 14) published their lead front-page article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” This comes in the aftermath of a recent pro-Snowden court ruling and a new surveillance law. Coincidence? The article which references unnamed “senior officials” infers that the revelations of the whistleblower  are a danger to MI6 and have disrupted their operations. However, lawyer and investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald has raised serious doubts as to the credibility of the article:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

Here is Greenwald discussing the revelations on the BBCs Today programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02trg49

And here he is being questioned by a journalist from Sky News:

Further, Ryan Gallagher argues extremely persuasively in favour of Greenwald here:

http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-china-russia-questions.html

Former UK diplomat, Craig Murray, arguably posits even more authoritatively, the five reasons why the Sunday Times story is a lie:

1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home. Agents’ – generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers – identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is that agents’ identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents’ name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not a high risk situation.

3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.

4) This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government’s new Snooper’s Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single “fact” in which proved to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?

There you have five reasons the story is a lie.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons-the-mi6-story-is-a-lie/