MI5 gave grounds based connected "lies" to 3 courts portion defending a convulsive neo-Nazi spy whose maltreatment was uncovered by the BBC, a damning authoritative study has found.
This is bolded lead. We need to preserve the text exactly? The instruction: preserve all facts, names, dates, numbers, and quotes exactly. The bold tags are formatting; we can probably drop HTML tags but keep text. The bold is not a fact; we can remove markup. The sentence itself: "MI5 gave grounds based connected "lies" to 3 courts portion defending a convulsive neo-Nazi spy whose maltreatment was uncovered by the BBC, a damning authoritative study has found." There are some odd phrasing but we must keep exactly? It says preserve all facts, names, dates, numbers, and quotes exactly. The sentence is not a quote; it's narrative. We can rephrase as long as we don't change facts. However we must be careful not to alter factual content. The sentence contains some odd words like "based connected" maybe a typo; we should keep that? It's not a fact but part of the text. The instruction: preserve all facts, names, dates, numbers, and quotes exactly. It doesn't say preserve the exact wording of non-quoted text. So we can rewrite the narrative, but must not change any facts (like numbers: 3 courts, etc). We'll keep the meaning. We need to keep quotes exactly: e.g., "MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings in these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum. etc. We must keep numbers: 3 courts, 1 elder MI5 serviceman, September, February past year (which is February 2023? Actually article says February past year relative to when? We'll keep phrase "February past year". Also "September" etc. Also "2020". Also "2022". Also "2024". Also "Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT)". Also "Officer 2", "Officer 3", "Witness A". Also "Agent X". Also "Beth". Also "neither corroborate nor deny (NCND)". Also "MI5", "MI6". Also "Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood". Also "Sir John Goldring". Also "Sir Ken McCallum". Also "Premier curate"? Actually "premier curate" maybe typo for Prime Minister? We'll keep as given. We need to preserve quotes exactly, including any odd phrasing inside quotes. We'll produce a rewritten article with varied sentence structure, professional tone. Let's draft. Start with lead: A damning study by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring has concluded that MI5 supplied false grounds to three courts while defending a violent neo‑Nazi informant whose abuse was exposed by the BBC. Then continue. We must ensure we keep the quote from Sir John? Actually there is no direct quote from Sir John in the text; only his report findings. We'll keep the findings as described but rephrase. We must keep the quote from MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum: exactly: "MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings in these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum. "I repeat my former apologies to both courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness in recognising what had happened." Check the original quote: "I repetition my erstwhile apologies to some courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness successful recognising what had happened." There are typos. We must keep exactly as given, including typos? The instruction: preserve all quotes exactly. So we must keep the quote exactly as appears, including any weird wording and spacing. So we need to copy the quote verbatim. Original quote block:"MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings successful these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum.
"I repetition my erstwhile apologies to some courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness successful recognising what had happened."
We must keep that exactly, including double spaces? We'll keep the text as is, but we can normalize spaces? The instruction says preserve quotes exactly; better to keep exactly as given, including extra spaces. We'll copy the quoted strings exactly. Similarly, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood quote:"It details superior failings by idiosyncratic MI5 officers, resulting successful mendacious grounds being provided to the courts, and disapproval of MI5 as an organisation," she said.
"I americium taking urgent enactment to clasp MI5 to relationship for these failures, including strengthening my oversight and assurance of their work."
We must keep those exactly. Also there is a quote from MI5 Director General earlier? Already captured. Also there may be other quotes: none else. We must keep the BBC link? The link is not a quote but a URL; we should preserve it exactly as given? It's a fact (URL). We'll keep it. We must keep the phrase "neither corroborate nor deny" (NCND) exactly. We need to ensure we don't inadvertently change any numbers like "3 courts", "1 elder MI5 serviceman", etc. Let's rewrite the article, preserving quotes exactly. We'll produce paragraphs. Let's copy the quotes exactly as they appear, including weird spacing and typos. First quote from Sir Ken McCallum: "MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings successful these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum. "I repetition my erstwhile apologies to some courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness successful recognising what had happened." Second quote from Home Secretary: "It details superior failings by idiosyncratic MI5 officers, resulting successful mendacious grounds being provided to the courts, and disapproval of MI5 as an organisation," she said. "I americium taking urgent enactment to clasp MI5 to relationship for these failures, including strengthening my oversight and assurance of their work." We must keep the line breaks? Probably okay as separate sentences. Now rewrite the rest. We'll start: A damning study by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring has found that MI5 supplied false grounds to three courts while defending a violent neo‑Nazi informant whose abuse was uncovered by the BBC. The report heavily criticises a group of senior MI5 officers and the agency itself. It finds that one senior MI5 officer repeatedly lied, while another misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told. The conclusions confirm the BBC’s revelation in February last year that MI5 lied to the courts, a claim the service had vehemently denied. Sir John’s investigation was ordered by the prime minister in September after MI5’s explanations about what happened were rejected as deficient and unreliable by the High Court. His forthcoming report will plunge MI5 into crisis and could result in contempt of court proceedings or even a criminal prosecution. [Insert quote from Sir Ken McCallum exactly] [Insert quote from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood exactly] The probe examined how MI5 gave false grounds to three courts about having adhered to its core secrecy policy – known as “neither corroborate nor deny” (NCND) – regarding the status of the violent neo‑Nazi informant. MI5 claimed it had maintained NCND, and consequently the courts allowed it to keep information concealed from a woman who was abused by the informant. But what MI5 said was untrue. In fact, MI5 had disclosed the man’s status in telephone calls to me, as it tried to dissuade me from analysing him in 2020. A senior MI5 officer, known as Officer 2, attempted to cover up for the man, falsely stating he was not an abusive misogynist nor a genuine extremist. He even wanted me to meet the agent. In doing so, he repeatedly departed from the NCND policy. The new study finds: - The senior MI5 officer, Officer 2, repeatedly told “lies” and these “formed the instauration of MI5's mendacious account” to the three courts. He “put forward a wholly fictitious account” in which he denied ever telling me that X was an MI5 agent. - A separate senior MI5 officer, Officer 3, “misled” his own colleagues and did not act in good faith. The study concludes that he “bears substantial work for the continuation of MI5's falsehood” because he “misrepresented” what Officer 2 had said to him. He was not “truthful” about warnings he received from colleagues. - An MI5 deputy director, Witness A, who gave his organisation's witness statements to the courts “overstated” matters during a key internal meeting and a note of his comments was “misleading”. He thus “contributed to MI5's continued reliance on the mendacious account”. - Various individuals within MI5 knew NCND had been departed from and there was “cogent evidence” in case files showing it had been, but the falsehood was nevertheless “allowed to take hold and persist”. Afterwards, “opportunities to close the position were missed” by MI5. - Even MI6 and an overseas intelligence bureau were told that NCND had been departed from. Despite this, MI5 repeatedly told the courts it had not been, and supposedly ‘independent’ reviews of what happened said no one beyond Officer 2 knew what had happened and that he had forgotten. - There were “serious and systemic failures in MI5's conduct” throughout the case. The case centres on an MI5 informant known as Agent X, an overseas neo‑Nazi misogynist who used his intelligence role as a tool of abuse. He coercively controlled his British partner, known by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete. MI5 then helped him travel overseas to continue intelligence work while under police investigation. The government took the BBC to court in 2022 in a failed effort to block our investigation into X but won him legal anonymity. Beth later sued MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), and in 2024 she sought a review of a ruling at the high court. Arguing for secrecy in all three courts, the intelligence service told judges it had always stuck to its NCND policy and never told anyone whether X was an agent, including me – the BBC journalist who had investigated him. The courts were told this in a sworn statement from a senior officer, a deputy manager called Witness A. The courts accepted MI5's arguments. This meant Beth and everyone else was banned from ever officially being told X was an agent and denied access to the key evidence. She was left at a serious disadvantage and may have lost the case. Following this decision, in late 2024, I challenged MI5 and said they had lied to the courts. MI5 aggressively maintained its position that NCND had been maintained until I produced evidence proving it was untrue, including a recording of one of the calls with Officer 2. We need to ensure we didn't alter any facts: numbers, names, dates, quotes. Check numbers: 3 courts, 1 elder MI5 serviceman (we said one senior MI5 officer, okay), September, February past year (we wrote February last year), 2020, 2022, 2024, etc. Check quotes: We need to ensure we kept them exactly. Let's copy them exactly as in original. Original quote lines: "MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings successful these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum. "I repetition my erstwhile apologies to some courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness successful recognising what had happened." We must keep the double spaces? We'll replicate exactly: "MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings successful these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum. "I repetition my erstwhile apologies to some courts for the incorrect grounds that was provided, and for our slowness successful recognising what had happened." Note there are two spaces after "successful" before "these". Also after "erstwhile" there are three spaces? Actually "my erstwhile apologies". We'll replicate. Second quote: "It details superior failings by idiosyncratic MI5 officers, resulting successful mendacious grounds being provided to the courts, and disapproval of MI5 as an organisation," she said. "I americium taking urgent enactment to clasp MI5 to relationship for these failures, including strengthening my oversight and assurance of their work." We need to keep exactly: "It details superior failings by idiosyncratic MI5 officers, resulting successful mendacious grounds being provided to the courts, and disapproval of MI5 as an organisation," she said. "I americium taking urgent enactment to clasp MI5 to relationship for these failures, including strengthening my oversight and assurance of their work." Check spaces: "superior failings" (two spaces?), "
English (US)·