BBC Allowed Security Service To Spy On Employees

[TRUTH]

07/04/06 "SMH" -- -- Confidential papers show that the BBC allowed Britain's domestic security agency, MI5, to investigate the backgrounds and political affiliations of thousands of its employees, including newsreaders, reporters and continuity announcers.

The files, which shed light on the BBC's hitherto secret links with MI5, show that at one stage it was responsible for vetting 6300 BBC posts - almost a third of the total workforce.

They also confirm that the corporation held a list of "subversive organisations" and that evidence of certain kinds of political activity could be a bar to appointment or promotion.

The BBC's reliance on MI5 reached a peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The papers show that senior BBC figures covered up these links in the face of awkward questions from trade unions and the press. The documents refer to a "defensive strategy" based on "categorical denial". One file note, dated March 1, 1985, states: "Keep head down and stonewall all questions."

It is only now, after a request by London's The Sunday Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, that it has finally been willing to release details of the vetting operation.

Another internal BBC document, dated 1983, confirms: "We supply personal details to the Security Service.

If there is any adverse information known, we receive this information and also, where necessary, an assessment based upon the involvement of the individual. This is presented to us as advice; line management then make the decision as to action."

The documents do not name any of those subjected to vetting.

Senior officials were checked because they had access to confidential government information in relation to their jobs. Thousands of employees were vetted because they were involved in live broadcasts and the BBC was worried about the possibility of on-air bias.

The vetting system, which was phased out in the late 1980s, also applied to television producers, directors, sound engineers, secretaries and researchers and even the spouses of applicants.

The BBC tried on several occasions to be more open about the system, but was blocked by MI5. A memo, dated March 7, 1985, states: "Secrecy of the complete vetting operation is imposed upon us by the Security Service - it is not of our making."

For their part, the security services were increasingly concerned about the number of people being referred to them by the BBC. During the first four months of 1983, they were asked to investigate 619 people.

The BBC declined to comment on the documents.

Telegraph, London

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13874.htm

[Maureen]

I rather hoped that they were reading the e.mails we sent to them, now I very much doubt they are getting through at all, but we can't give up at this stage.

Is it any wonder we are getting walls of silence from the media? Then again if we want change we need to stick our necks out, don't we?




Maureen


"BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE"[/i]

[Andrew Johnson]

Maureen,

Some of the e-mails definitely are being read by the Beeb. We've had responses back from Helen Boaden which seem to show this is true.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1220&highlight=boade n

[Annie]

The files held by MI5 on BBC employees became notorious during the late 80's when the story began to leak out. MI5 justified this work by saying that they needed to be confident that the state channel could be trusted to broadcast the correct messages to the country if the balloon went up - ie the Soviets invaded/nuked us. In that scenario, MI5 did not want people with "subversive" sympathies in positions of sensitivity.

Well, that was the theory. In practice the system was, of course, abused. The system was discontinued by the late 1980s. However, post Kelly, Hutton, and Gilligan, and faced with a perpetual "war on terror", what's the betting that the government has ordered MI5 to reopen this section?

[Leiff]

The irony is that as the government itself is 'subversive', being a 'subversive' broadcaster is not in fact 'subversive'.

[Annie]

Hi Leiff

I totally agree with you - the government is accelerating the erosion of our freedoms and way of life at an alarming pace!

Interestingly (or perhaps not!) David Shayler's first go at blowing the whistle in 1997 exposed how MI5 had for years considered most of the current cabinet "subversive". A section called F2 spent years gathering intel on dangerous subversives such as Blair, Prescott, Straw, Mandelson, Cook, Harman, Hewitt, Hain etc etc ad nauseam. They were seen as a danger to the security of this nation. Now of course, they are supposed to hold MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to account. A case of the tail wagging the dog, I think. And because he dared to reveal this, David went to prison, not once, but twice in a government-led prosecution.

I'd love to get these MPs to answer these simple questions. "Were you actually a political subversive? Did you really pose a serious threat to the fabric of this country?"

If yes, should these people really remain in power? If no, should they not be investigating the spies to see how many other files they opened on innocent UK citizens in the 1970s and 1980s?

Regards

Annie

[PercyPenguin]

The BBC story is an old one - surprised how much publicity it generated.

What always makes me think on this issue though is the admission of Jon Snow in his autobiography that he turned down MI5 when they wanted him to be an informant.

He said no, how many other comparable journalists said yes?

Annie?