Downloading PDF. Please wait... Issue 2806

Government wins case to protect its abusive Nazi spy

Troublemaker looks at the week's news including the Spy who can't be named and cover of a US airstrike
Issue 2806
spy with a machete

The Spy who the courts ruled can’t be identified threatened his partner with a machete Picture:BBC

The government last week successfully blocked the publication of the name of an MI5 spy who had Nazi materials and used his status to terrorise his partner. The BBC has a video ­showing the man ­threatening to kill the woman and ­attacking her with a machete.

It also says, “Evidence shows that he is a right wing extremist with a violent past.” Beth, a British national, met the agent on a dating site. The couple went on to live together in Britain.   Beth—not her real name—says he sexually assaulted her, and was abusive and coercive. She says he used his ­position with the British ­security ­services to terrorise her. The man collected weapons and made her watch terrorist videos of executions and ­murders, she says. He praised various white supremacist mass ­murderers and stated his intent to commit similar acts.

During a search of the home after the machete attack, local police officers had discovered material including the man’s Nazi paraphernalia.

The BBC has seen a police log showing the evidence found by officers, such as a private diary in which X had written about killing Jews. He had also written about killing Beth. Local officers called in counter-terror detectives, who in turn seized various items. A terrorism investigation into the agent ensued, but he left Britain while it was ongoing.

When the BBC put its ­findings to the government, it took the broadcaster to the High Court, trying to stop this story being made public. In a legal battle, the ­corporation argued that women had a right to know his identity and it would ­protect potential victims from harm. The court legally prevented the BBC from naming the man. The government said it “will not comment on security or intelligence”, but the court order is “aimed at protecting national security and avoiding a real and immediate risk to life, safety and privacy.”

No come back for US massacre in Syria

No US personnel will be held accountable for a 2019 airstrike that killed scores of Syrian civilians including women and children, the Pentagon said last week. It announced that an internal investigation found that no laws of war were broken and that there was no cover-up of the incident as alleged in a New York Times investigation.

It admitted that after the attack near the Syrian town of Baghuz that “policy compliance deficiencies at multiple levels of command led directly to numerous delays in reporting”. It also said “administrative deficiencies contributed to the impression” that the US military did not take the incident seriously. But the conclusion was that there was “no malicious or wrongful intent” by the military and that there was “no evidence” to support allegations of a cover-up.

The New York Times reported that US troops watching real-time footage of the strike “looked on in stunned disbelief,” according to an officer who was there.

One military analyst said that “we just dropped on 50 women and children.” After the strike, civilian observers “found piles of dead women and children,” according to Times reporters Dave Philipps and Eric Schmitt, who spent months investigating the attack.

“A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike,” the reporters explained. “The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitised, and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.”

World military expenditure surpassed the two trillion US dollar mark for the first time in 2021, reaching £1,694 billion. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global spending in 2021 was 12 percent higher than in 2012.  Britain was the world’s fourth largest military spender, above Russia, which has twice the population and 70 times the land mass of Britain. The top 15 countries accounted for 81 percent of global expenditure.

The government has said it will not implement measures—recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry—that would have ensured disabled people could more safely evacuate high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies. The inquiry recommended that owners of high-rise residential buildings should be legally required to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan  for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”. But the home office said last week that it had concluded that such laws would cost too much.

DWP failure kills again

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failed to alert GPs and social services to the “very extensive” difficulties a disabled man was facing, three months before he died in conditions of severe self-neglect. A safeguarding review of the death of Mr A, from Leeds, concluded that a healthcare assessor working for a DWP contractor was probably the last person to see him alive, other than his disabled wife.

The face to face benefits assessment was carried out so Mr A could be transferred from long-term incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance (ESA). The assessment report was passed on to the DWP, and he was placed in the ESA support group, but no attempt was made to contact his local GP or Leeds council, to inform them about the substantial problems he was facing. It is just the latest evidence of years of failings by the DWP to prioritise the safety of benefit claimants, with ministers repeatedly saying it does not have a legal duty to “safeguard” its claimants.His body was found in his bed “surrounded by piles of household waste, his body severely neglected, emaciated and decomposed”.

Captain Tom gin scam  

Gin sold to raise money for a foundation set up in the name of Captain Sir Tom Moore has been pulled from sale after an apparent breach in charity law. Bottles of Captain Sir Tom branded gin were sold for £100 on Otterbeck Distillery’s website since April last year, with “All profits” donated to the Captain Tom Foundation.

Despite legislation stating that the actual amount going to charity from a commercial partnership must be specified, the limited edition 50cl bottles were flogged without meeting this requirement. After The Independent newspaper had raised a series of questions, the gin was quietly removed from sale.

In another development, the Captain Tom Foundation—already at the centre of an ongoing Charity Commission regulatory compliance case—is subject to “regulatory enquiries” by the Fundraising Regulator. Accounts published in February showed that the Captain Tom Foundation had paid tens of thousands of pounds to firms run by his daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore, and son-in-law, Colin. The accounts described the transactions as reimbursements.

Things they say

‘I will not stand by and let anti-social individuals keep causing misery and chaos’

Home Secretary Priti Patel trying again to put curbs on protesting


What Tories call a group of wealthy donors who collect honours after donations

‘The PM was drinking and enjoying himself along with everyone else and pretty much gets away with it’

A senior civil servant is miffed that they were fined more than Boris Johnson

‘Parliament  could burn down today, tomorrow, any day’

Former minister Andrea Leadsom offers hope to us all

‘The government is going to have to take on rail unions just as Mrs Thatcher took on the NUM—by destroying them’

The Spectator magazine is excited about the government attacking strikes


Sign up for our daily email update ‘Breakfast in Red’

Latest News

Make a donation to Socialist Worker

Help fund the resistance