It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: New Head Of MI6 Is Blair's Boy

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:25 AM
United Kingdom - The new head of the foriegn intelligence operation MI6 has been announced, and it's none other than John Scarlett, the man who saved Tony Blair's reputation during the Hutton Enquiry into the death of Government WMD expert Dr. David Kelly.

The appointment, so far labelled "inappropriate" and "highly controversial" by the leaders of the two opposition parties, is the latest example of Blair's nepotistic instict and his enthusiasm for the politicisation of the intelligence services.

Scarlett, the former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was involved in the preparation of the notorious September Dossier that laid out the (now clearly fradulent) case for Iraq's stash of WMDs.

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Valhall]

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:30 AM
Scarlett is by far and away the best man for the job. It makes me sick that because of some over-zealous reporting during the Hutton Enquiry that Scarlett has been left high and dry by nearly everyone.

This man is going to be heading the SIS (or, as you may know it, MI6) and doing his best to protect the interests of the UK from all manner of potential attacks and hazards.

Now that the decision has been made we should get behind him and let him get on with his job.


posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:46 AM
As far as I'm aware, there has been no criticism of Scarlett's suitability for the the post. The issue here is one of the impartiality of the intelligence services. Regardless of his CV, Scarlett has been too close to the Downing Street machine, and has been irredeemably politicised.

Catagorically, he will never be allowed to "get on with his job", because the twin spectres of Hutton and Campbell will haunt every decision he makes. For that reason, if no other, he should not have been appointed to such a sensitive position, at such a sensitive time.

And, as a footnote: Blair, for all his faults, is not stupid. He must have known that the Tories would make political capital out of this appointment, and that such gains would be potentially devastating at the present time. Why, therefore, did he go ahead with it? Because he believed Scarlett was "the right man for the job"? Or because he had to honour a prior agreement?

Which of these is more compelling, given Blair's somewhat grubby history?

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:52 AM
Scarlett has been in the SIS for farrrr longer than Blair has been in power.
He was on the Joint Chiefs of Intelligence (is that the right name?) and his appointment was fairly logical.

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:53 AM

Fair point about Scarlett becoming too embroiled in the finer workings of the cabinet, but this alone is no reason for his appointment to be referred to as inappropriate.

Every major piece of 'work' that SIS do has to be passed by, and sanctioned by, the current government. It just so happens in this case that we got to hear all about it. The Hutton Report was an utter fiasco, bringing people into it that need not have been.

Despite the common man's presumption that SIS can work entirely automously, this is total rubbish.

The head of SIS/MI6, commonly referred to as 'C' (for Chief), always has a very close relationship with the PM and cabinet advisors. In this instance that relationship was exposed to try an get to the bottom of the Hutton 'incident.'

The people of this country ought not to know the finer workings of our security service(s), but rest assured that they are among the best in the world and get the job done.


[Edited on 7-5-2004 by benjj]

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:57 AM

That is not technically correct.

John Scarlett has been Chairman of the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) which, though works with from time to time, is entirely seperate from the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, or commonly known as MI6).


posted on May, 7 2004 @ 03:42 AM
The connections between the intelligence services and the current government are well understood and accepted. My point is that Scarlett does not have undue links with "the current government", he has them with Blair's regime in particular.

Hutton was a fiasco, agreed, but I suspect we approach it from opposite positions. I feel it should have been an investigation into the claims the government made regarding WMDs, with special reference to Kelly, rather than following the rather limp agenda which it did.

I agree wholeheartedly that the intelligence services should be free to pursue whatever activities they deem necessary without undue public scrutiny - but Scarlett's appointment will, I suspect, make that impossible. He will be under tight observation from the anti-Blair tabloids, from the Tories, from the conspiracy community (and hello to everyone from ATS
), the anti-war movement.

I would contest that his appointment compromises the integrity of the services more than a quiet reassignment would. Couple that with Blair's increasing unparliamentary behaviour, and this is lose-lose scenario.

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:59 PM
Call me biased, but I can't take seriously anyone put into a position by Blair. He has to be the most nepotistical bastard in English history. Plus he's a fecking traitor.

top topics


log in