| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 98265 | 2009-03-17 23:38:00 | SIS Files on MPs and public servants.... | Terry Porritt (14) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 757302 | 2009-03-18 04:18:00 | Sorry Terry, at the risk of creating more heat, you made a mistake there. You should have said "Then in NZ there wasn't Sutch...." There was never any real evidence that Sutch was a spy. Unlike Blunt. So some believe........... |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 757303 | 2009-03-18 04:48:00 | Sutch not a spy lol. Wonder why he was meeting a commy KGB agent at night in Wellington, think the SIS got it on film. But then again Elvis might still be alive and Princess Di's driver wasnt pissed when he crashed in a road tunnel. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 757304 | 2009-03-18 04:55:00 | Whether Sutch was or was not a spy is open to conjecture, he was certainly aquitted in a court of law. However his openly espoused views most certainly did give cause for a watchful eye to be kept on him and files to be maintained. As the SIS file "WB Sutch - Target Assessment 30 May 1974", in Part1 says: "Since 1932, when SUTCH first visited the USSR, he has been the subject of security interest and assessment both in New Zealand and overseas. This current target assessment has been called for as a result of the observation of a meeting between SUTCH and Dmitriy Alexandrovich RAZGOVOROV (First Secretary, Soviet Embassy, Wellington and known KGB) on 18 April 1974, at approximately 2025 hours, under circumstances which strongly suggested a clandestine relationship. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 757305 | 2009-03-18 05:01:00 | So some believe........... The judge for example, who heard all the so-called evidence and dismissed the case. |
John H (8) | ||
| 757306 | 2009-03-18 05:04:00 | Whether Sutch was or was not a spy is open to conjecture, he was certainly aquitted in a court of law. However his openly espoused views most certainly did give cause for a watchful eye to be kept on him and files to be maintained. As the SIS file "WB Sutch - Target Assessment 30 May 1974", in Part1 says: "Since 1932, when SUTCH first visited the USSR, he has been the subject of security interest and assessment both in New Zealand and overseas. This current target assessment has been called for as a result of the observation of a meeting between SUTCH and Dmitriy Alexandrovich RAZGOVOROV (First Secretary, Soviet Embassy, Wellington and known KGB) on 18 April 1974, at approximately 2025 hours, under circumstances which strongly suggested a clandestine relationship. That is evidence? Remember the context of the times. All they had on Sutch was their own fantasies about their own importance, smears, and McCarthyism. I repeat - they never proved anything in a court of law. Mind you, the SIS was never capable of getting out of their own way, let alone catching a spy! All they were good for was making fools of themselves. I met two of these so-called spies in the 1970's. What a bunch of wallies. |
John H (8) | ||
| 757307 | 2009-03-18 05:38:00 | For heavens sake...... I am not presenting evidence in support of him being a spy, I am saying that the security services thought fit to keep a watch on him from 1932, and to have files on him. This is what this posting is about..... should the SIS keep files on MPs (such as Locke ) and public servants because of their 'espoused views' ? |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 757308 | 2009-03-18 06:01:00 | On the other hand of course, Peter Ellis was convicted on far less real evidence than that which did not convict Bill Sutch :) | Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 757309 | 2009-03-18 07:00:00 | We have the SIS like it or not. We have a Police force. In my view either Dept can investigate any person they want for real or imagined sins but to keep a file on a person for the length of time that the SIS did appears to be rather paranoic. We don't know if he has done anything wrong but he's going to we think. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 757310 | 2009-03-19 12:58:00 | Civil Servants and Miltary personnel are subject to security clearance before they have access to classified or sensitive information. The basic clearance is Negative Vetting, which is simply a check that there are no criminal or other records within official data, that could indicate that the individual may be less than completely loyal and trustworthy. To have access to information classified secret or higher the individual must be "Positively Vetted" this is a comprehensive check on the individaul, close family and associates to ensure that there is no behaviour or associations that could compromise the security of information that the individual has access to. All Armed Forces' Officers plus Civil Service staff with access to classified or sensitive information are subject to PV clearance by the security services. MPs, are not subject to any security vetting. When I was a staff officer in the Ministry of Defence, it was made very clear to us that as MPs were not subject to security vetting they were not entitled to access of information Classified above "Restricted". This was necessary as MPs frequently tried to fish for infromation from unwitting Officers and Civil Servants, for which they did not have clearance to access, let alone a need to know. There was a standing black joke during Harold Wilson's term as Britain's Prime Minister, that if the balloon ever went up and anything happened to Harold Wilson, then the security service would have to take out his deputy, Michael Foot, to ensure that a known communist sympathiser was not in the position to veto the use of Nuclear weapons if it became necesary to use them. To sum up, to many MPs. "Self interest is seen as in the party's interest, and the Party's interest is identified as the National interest. " |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 757311 | 2009-03-19 18:56:00 | I suppose it must be a big worry for the SIS when they had a labour government in power along with green MPs. The people you were spying on would be having contacts with the labour MPs. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||