Thu, 23rd July Cardiff 18°
Nation.Cymru wordmark
Advertisement

Opinion

Spies like us: could someone you know be an MI5 agent?

By Mark Mansfield
MI5 HQ Thames House. Photo by Fred Dawson is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Hayden Williams

The UK government allows MI5 undercover operatives to illegally spy on lawful citizens.

These spies have more than likely already infiltrated the Welsh independence movement.

Clause 1 (5) of The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act of 2021 says that a “criminal conduct authorisation” is an “authorisation for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source.”

In other words, these undercover spies — a.k.a. Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHISs) — are authorised to infiltrate social movements, using false identities, in order to keep law-abiding citizens under surveillance.

Though the Act was primarily designed to keep tabs on potential threats to national security (e.g. from Russia or China, or from potential terrorists), the UK government deliberately expanded the original Bill’s scope to include spying on any citizen or group they’re interested in.

[mid-content-banner]

Safeguards

Proposed amendments to the Bill, which were specifically intended to exclude trade unions from the reach of CHIS spying, were defeated, along with a number of other amendments which would have provided safeguards against the abuse of these powers.

The extraordinary Act, which is surely inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, has worrying implications for civil freedoms we largely take for granted.

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party abstained from voting at the second reading of the Bill, and so did not oppose the UK government’s authorisation of unlawful conduct by CHISs.

A second related Bill, Boris Johnson’s Online Safety Bill, is currently before the House of Lords.

This Bill seeks to weaken end-to-end encryption in the name of child safety and anti-terrorism; however, critics say the Bill will simply enable the government to carry out mass surveillance.

The passing of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, along with the government’s recent attempts to get the Online Safety Bill passed, are signs that the British state is once again serious about spying on citizens.

History

The UK government has a long history of spying on its citizens, of course.

The recent TV series Sherwood is a dramatisation around the state’s known use of agents assuming new lives and identities to infiltrate coal mining communities during the miners’ strikes of the 1980s.

Though MI5’s interest in the labour movement waned after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the decline of trade unions after Thatcher, spying on members of the public has clearly continued.

Disillusioned MI5 officer and whistleblower Cathy Massiter left no doubt MI5 had been abusing their powers, often carrying out wholly unnecessary political policing, unrelated to the ‘defence of the realm’.

MI5’s ‘Special Demonstration Squad,’ later known as the ‘Special Duties Squad’ (SDS), understandably investigated the Free Wales Army — but the Mitting enquiry revealed in 2020 that peaceful left-wing political groups, which posed no threat to public safety, were also infiltrated by SDS operatives.

SDS recruits would go deep undercover for years, equipped with false documents supporting fake identities.

They never visited police stations, but regularly reported information back to MI5 bosses whilst living in communities, passing themselves off as ardent political campaigners.

In 2006, the SDS was subsumed into SO15, Counter Terrorism Command.

Created in the same year, the ‘Welsh Extremism and Counter-Terrorism Unit’ (WECTU), which still operates in Wales today, is now presumably keeping a close eye on political activists involved with the Welsh independence movement.

Infiltration

Head of strategic development for Scottish independence think-tank Common Weal, Robin McAlpine, recently talked about government surveillance with Yes Cymru’s podcast host Sean Jobbins:

“The thing the British State does, it infiltrates bodies it has no place infiltrating, denies it, until twenty years later when it says, ‘oh that was terrible, we’re never going to do that again.’ So, it was anti-racist movements in the 1950s, it was the Labour movement in the 1960s, it was the trade unions in the 1970s and the 1980s, it was the environmental movement in the 1990s, it’s still the environmental movement now — there’s been infiltration of social movements since time immemorial.”

Mr McAlpine said he believed government agents were eavesdropping on his family’s landline phone calls back in the 1980s:

“My mum was [a] . . . Scottish political activist on the ground. Let me just put it like this, growing up in the 1980s, most phone calls you’d get a click 20 or 30 seconds after. So don’t kid on that we weren’t under observation from the British State, that’s what they do . . . do you think that’s ever not the case?”

Control

The present UK government’s agenda to “take back control” is a poorly disguised resuscitation of Anglo-Imperialistic pride, and as such, it will surely clash with the Welsh independence movement.

The UK government can spy on the Welsh and Scottish independence movements, and it may well seek to confound them — but it nonetheless cannot stop them.

The legalising of state spying should concern all UK citizens, but especially activists working for an independent Wales.

However, gaining independence, and rejoining the European Union, would be one way to ensure the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are restored for Wales.

Hayden Williams is a New Zealand based journalist, a member of Plaid Cymru, and a member of the New Zealand Labour Party.

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News

25 comments

Stephen Morris

Certainly the most plausible explanation for what's happened to Plaid Cymru over the last 20 years, and for what happened to YesCymru in 2021.

Reply
Kerry Davies

That is the SIS or MI6 building, MI5 is at Thames House just one bridge downriver. No wonder their mail goes astray.

Reply
Rhian Davies

Well perhaps this explains why Wales seems to be awash with drugs, because M15 are spying on the wrong people. The true destructive threat to this country is drugs surely? If MFI put more energy into finding out who is behind supplying drugs we'd all be alot safer, and tax-payers money would be better-spent surely?

Reply
Ivor Schilling

Don;t be so sure. The British State and its operatives have often used drugs to its own ends, whether disrupting communities, colonising entire countries, undermining regimes. Hell, they even tacitly permit drugs into those institutions under their closest watch: the prison system. British prisons are awash with drugs as a means of control within their walls.

Reply
Cathy Jones

First, the spies infiltrate the targeted group, then they gather intel and then when that intel file reaches a certain level of clarity they use divide-and-rule tactics to splinter, hinder and possibly even disable the group's activities.... Their favourite tactic at the moment is the same one they are using in the media: use a minority group (current favourite: transwomen) to breed enmity amongst members. In YexCymru it was those who suddenly decided there was no place for trans rights in an Independent Cymru. Read the last chapter of the Art of War, most spying, even today is based on that last chapter. They will send in a returning spy who aside from gathering intel and eventually causing rifts within the group, will also be creating converted spies within the organisation.... Also, check out Cuckooed by Mark Thomas.

Reply
defaid

re. YesCymru, I never doubted it. The source of dissent seemed obvious, right from when the first bickering started. It's easier to believe than to think and easier to hate than to cooperate, and most people are happiest being led by whomever shouts loudest. This works in the most insidiously trivial ways. Herd mentality trumps team play every time. Dump a load of likes on a comment and everyone will support the poster. The converse is also true.

Reply
Ivor Schilling

Were these dissenters on the left or the right? Bolsheviks I am guessing.

Reply

In reply to Ivor Schilling

defaid

Bolsheviks. lol. Both, and neither. Wales is broadly left wing and the independence movement has greater traction on that side of the spectrum. Starting a left-right fight might not have had much of an effect. Worm's Playbook, chapter 1: "If you're trying to break up an organisation through its leadership, you need to get two sides fighting..."

Reply

In reply to defaid

Ivor Schilling

Its weird, but you are the first person I have heard who has not ascribed the kerfuffle, within YC, to far left elements, nor seen it as a left vs right 'battle of minds'. Ok, so if the fault lines did not lie along that axis, where?

Reply

In reply to Ivor Schilling

defaid

Us and them, huh? Good & bad, black & white, left & right? You are the first person to have suggested it to me. Before that nasty saga got underway, what fault line existed? Every YC supporter I spoke with prior to it understood party politics and the ideology of governance to come after independence. The idea I'd wanted to put across is that any perceived 'fault line' was an artificial one deliberately inserted into people's minds. I suspect the 'far left elements' you mentioned were just another attempt -- through association -- at painting Welsh politics, and particularly any desire for self-determination, as extremist. If your elements existed a couple of years ago and were so vociferous, why didn't we hear of them before then? Where are they now?

Reply
Cathy Jones

...and check this, another reason to be independent of Westminster, from this morning's Open Democracy email: "Dear Catherine Would you like an American spy-tech company owned by a billionaire Trump donor to have access to the most personal data about you? No? Well, if you live in England then I’m afraid you’re out of luck. We’ve just revealed that all NHS hospitals in the country have been ordered to share people’s confidential medical records with Palantir Technologies – a secretive Silicon Valley firm first funded by the CIA and co-founded by Peter Thiel, who has also funded Donald Trump. We’ve been at the forefront of reporting on health data deals and Palantir. We broke the news that the UK government had given Palantir a £23m two-year deal to process patients’ sensitive medical data. The contract was framed as an emergency response to the pandemic, with government lawyers claiming that the public did not have a right to have a say. Along with tech-justice non-profit Foxglove, we brought multiple legal cases seeking to shed light on Palantir’s involvement in the NHS. We made the government release all the contracts governing such deals with Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and controversial AI firms Faculty and Palantir. We’re not going to stop digging. There are many more stories to tell about the way people’s health data is being used. But we believe that a key part of making sure people’s medical records are protected starts with dragging the facts into the light." For me, five pounds a month to both Open Democracy and The Good Law Project has been money I could ill afford to spend but has seen good returns. If you can give a little something, good stuff, but if not, its worth signing up to their mailing list. Having the good fortune to live in Cymru keeps us free from this kind of nonsense, for now. DO NOT FORGET that all the Westminster government has to offer other countries is the labour o the people in the UK and their data, they've sold off and wrecked everything else.

Reply
Another Richard

The Good Law Project loses about 80% of its cases, wasting a lot of judicial time along the way. It is however a very nice little earner for its founder, Jolyon Maugham KC, a tax specialist. https://labourpainsblog.com/2022/06/12/good-law-project-i-won/

Reply
CJPh

Giving money you can "ill afford" to try and reform a system you purportedly want to leave? More proof that you aren't in favour of Welsh freedom, just a British reformer wanting to ride the wave of the indy movement.

Reply
hdavies15

Perhaps one of 5's agents provocateur or saboteurs.

Reply

In reply to hdavies15

CJPh

Nah. Just philosophically confused enough to appear like one. A simulacrum, to get a bit Frankfurtish for a moment 😉😂

Reply
defaid

Genuine question: Can one not support both a fairer Britain and an independent Wales? I've been away for some time and am not up to speed with character development among the regulars.

Reply

In reply to defaid

CJPh

Croeso nol, bugail y comment section - sorry for a long reply, but I think this point is important to address fully. It's a complex issue, depending on ones interpretation of 'support', and the degree it is applied. Broadly, if a person seems to regularly rail against the very movements pushing for independence, only ever seem to talk about Westminster-based issues, and only ever regards a specific 'type' of independent Wales as being preferable (with either tacit or explicit refusal of any other positions - "my indy or no indy") to what extent are they not using indy as a means to a different end? If x type of government/policy gets instantiated in a free Wales, they support indy. If it gets through at Westminster, great. Either way independence for Cymru is an after thought or a useful idiot-type ideal. This commentor has too long a list of anti Welsh positions and ideologically possessed comments for my liking. Confused and too 'online'? Maybe. Bot or wumao? Maybe. Either way, the cause for our freedom is secondary and thus erodes with their approach. Not once have I received an answer from them to a question which I think is the decisive one on this issue: "If a government were formed in Westminster that implemented every policy and passed every law you would like, but vehemently opposed independence for Cymru, would you support that government?". I've received silence on this from Cathy, with some brave attempts at obfuscation from others that lead me to conclude that there's a significant number within our movement that would drop the cause at the slightest whiff of the leftist pie being placed on the Westminster windowsill. It's important to note that plenty of leftist commentors on here aren't like this, clearly willing to put the cause of independence first, considering it an end in and of itself (if memory serves, you being one of them). We can disagree on future policy, even on current tactics and definitions, but all come together to push for freedom. This is what gives me hope, not only that we can secure our freedom, but that we can form a coherent, adversarial system of governance like any other functional Nation. Liberals like myself are typically disengaged from our cause. Once we join in greater numbers, that's a big step (this is due to the fact that we tend to focus on governance, not specific policy, until we form governments). To answer your question more on its face value - I don't believe so. Favouring reform in Britain at an institutional level (not merely in principle) is to bolster the extant system. I can support 'x' law proposed to be introduced in Indiana, but to dedicate money or time campaigning for its introduction? Principled positions should be modelled on what one wants to see in a free Cymru, based on a more applied view. For instance, what may be good for a medium-sized nation like England may not work in Wales - were I English, I'd probably favour an insurance based healthcare model. For a free Cymru, however, I think our size and demographics suggest an NHS-style model would be best. As you mentioned elsewhere, Wales' indy movement is very left wing (such movements almost always are, with progress and reform being a central motivation for the Left). The Cymry, however, don't fall neatly into this box. I regard us as (very broadly) economically left, culturally more right, party-politically apathetic. Plurality within the indy movement (1 or 2 new, competitive parties) may be key here. Da i gael ti nol ar faes y gad. Ymlaen.

Reply

In reply to CJPh

defaid

Diolch am y croeso. Neges hir yn wir -- mae hi di cymryd dipyn o amser i mi ddeall (fel y Borg... cymathu?) pob pwynt. Dyma ateb rhwy tamaid hirach. Maddeuwch i mi. In total ignorance of 12 months' correspondence through comments, I thought this after reading your reply. Those ifs go a long way. What if the UK government were to offer a referendum on Wales' future (I'm keeping this necessarily vague) but Cardiff refused? What if, after such disillusionment, England voted Lib Dem and Starmer refused to countenance any freedom for Llafur? The superficial aspect of those who derailed YC struck me as very like 'My indy or none'. That malice was not what I expected from sincere members. Hmm... some surely would campaign for independence with a different expectation and then campaign for reunion if indy failed to deliver that agenda. I guess that opting to fence sit until a govenment promises what one demands, with independence being a happy bonus, does seem to be a recipe for union, if only because we are so willing to be led. Westminster only has to make a small offer for independence to be off the cards for so many. And yet... On the other hand, education about the vital need to have the clean slate of indy before arguing about personal preference might encourage firmer support, particularly if current governments' - and oppositions' - dishonest and authoritarian track records were held up for scrutiny. Cathy, I'm pointing this directly at you: what have you ever seen in the current arena that gives you cause to trust any UK politician's word? Personally, I want independence because I'm convinced that an independent Wales, free to make our own choices, will result in a better (cleaner, more prosperous, happier, more reputable, cultured, confident, fairer, equitable... whatever) country. I hate seeing my country as an adjunct. But that's only my ideal and, in practical terms, I am no different to those who would support independence if only it offered the different things they wished for. The metaphorical clover is what we all want. We just have different lists of ingredients. Except that I'd rather be poor and Welsh than wealthy but having erased my country, nationality and identity. 'Independence for independence's sake' was a twisted expression I saw here last year, tied to the suggestion that it was a bad thing. That independence could be used as a tool is anathema to me: the list above is one I equate with independence. Still, Lithuania and Slovenia have both done it. On a much larger geographical scale, Ukraine has very nearly done it, Georgia and Kazakhstan too though that particular toxic hegemony has a much more malicious grasp. Cathy, do you really think Ukrainians would be free to campaign for a different kind of inclusive government if they were still part of the RF? Honestly? Compare some recent Kremlin laws with our government and opposition stances on any number of human issues. CJPh, the answer to your question would undoubtedly be a resounding "Yes!" but only from someone who has yet to acknowledge an error of perception. I may simply be naive but I'm not so naive as to think we can all have our cake. The question remains of what kind of country we would have. Those who merely use independence as a potential route to something else need to be helped to a fundamental realisation that the status quo -- in Wales or in the UK -- will never, ever deliver what any of us want. Trying to change that sort of establishment by using its own tools will only make more Borg. The time to deal with those other issues can only be after we've created the chance for dealing with them. Those who are unconvinced because the Yes voters are still a minority, or because they've been subjected for so many years to the 'too small' or 'too poor' arguments, or because they are so indoctrinated that any alternative is almost incomprehensible, are the very ones we should be encouraging. Got any friends who are unconvinced and have a birthday coming up? Drop by Y Lolfa and get them a copy of the Indy Commission's report. Sure, a concrete independence only offers the possibility of the outcome any of us want but all the status quo has to offer is its impossibility. The way forward is not rejection or derision but education, showing that a future of only "My independence or none" will always result in the perpetuation of today's failure. For myself, although I have yet to join any matching organisation, I'm fully in favour of UK reform. Funny thing though, when that education takes a hold and the current minority in Wales grows into a majority, I won't give two hoots about the UK... More than Indiana, less than openDemocracy.com

Reply

In reply to defaid

CJPh

yeah, what he said... Gwnai ateb yn fy fasiwn arferol - hir - pan wy ddim ar fin cwmpo allan o nghadair yn trio aros ar ddihun. Ma' safon y chat wedi codi a gostwng, ond ma' 'na lot o fots (a lot o bob bot-aidd, sh'fod) wedi bod o gwmpas ma'n ddiweddar. Sa' i'n siwr pam yn union - falle ChatGPT wedi mynd yn rogue?

Reply
Another Richard

The use of the wrong picture for the MI5 HQ doesn't give one much confidence in the article. Neither does the inaccurate reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, which remains in force in the UK as it is a Council of Europe rather than an EU instrument.

Reply
Hayden

You've made a factual error too: the writer didn't supply the photograph.

Reply
Che Guevara's Fist

It's about time to turn the tables and infiltrate these institutions.

Reply
CJPh

Now THIS may be a bot. How do you feel about el Che's tenure as chief executor of homosexuals in Cuba? 'Work will make you a man' read the sign above the camp, but senor Guevara preferred 'a bullet to the back of the head will set you free'. Looks good on a £19.99 tshirt made by Chinese slave-labourers though, right? Afiach.

Reply
Che Guevara's Fist

Oh, that old chestnut spouted by right wing idiots. Never gets old, does it. Try parroting some other nonsense rhetoric, you sound boring with that one.

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to hdavies15 Cancel

Perhaps one of 5's agents provocateur or saboteurs.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.