Sure it was the security love

A spy has been exposed by his wife over a gay sex scandal, The Telegraph can disclose.
The case was raised in a military divorce heard in court recently, involving an intelligence officer in an Army unit that targets al-Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
The scandal emerged after the officer’s wife discovered he was having one-off sexual liaisons with men he met near his Army base and close to the headquarters of MI6 in south London.
The woman is divorcing him but reported his activities to military commanders as she feared he had broken his security clearance and would be vulnerable to blackmail by hostile intelligence services.

Nowt to do with woman scorned at all….

7 thoughts on “Sure it was the security love”

  1. Okay.

    So, he’s probably not a “spy” in any conventional sense.

    As the report says, he identifies high-value targets, has taken part in interrogations and has been an agent handler.

    And you don’t “break” your security clearance. You can have it withdrawn, or you can be put on special monitoring.

    As for DV not being fit for purpose, does she actually know what he told the DV officer? He could have straight up and admitted it. It isn’t as if being gay (or, presumably in this case, bisexual and promiscuous) is still against military law. All sorts of odd people have passed vetting – especially if they have skills that are required. It is a risk balance thing.

    And it isn’t an “honesty box system” – they do actually check up on you. As well as interview people about you.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Once upon a time I had an absolutely trivial involvement with these sorts of people. Even less than that. They explained to me that it didn’t matter what they did, as long as they told everyone else. They could shag sheep. As long as their family knew and accepted it, it didn’t matter.

    So the question is did the wife know? Would it expose him to blackmail if she didn’t? If she didn’t and it would, he might be a little trouble.

  3. I’ve never had DV clearance but the (lower) SC application notes made it quite clear that not mentioning something relevant that was later discovered, landed one in far worse shit than just owning up to something potentially embarrassing in the first place. And the potentially embarrassing revelation may not preclude clearance being granted anyway.

    So it’s quite possible that the bloke in the news told his vetting officer all about his hobbies.

  4. Bloke not in Cymru

    I was interviewed as someone’s character witness, person that they drink/socialise with for his posting requiring security clearance and that was tough enough, but yes they said it was better to admit to something and let them decide than hide something.
    Similar born a friend took a lie detector test for a police job and they asked if she had ever smoked pot, told her afterwards it wouldn’t disqualify you they just wanted to see people’s reaction and if they lied.

  5. Surreptitious Evil


    Don’t worry about me – consumer not producer.

    I’ll try to reply to the substantive points when I’m a bit more compost mental.


  6. @SE

    “Don’t worry about me – consumer not producer.”

    Ah, but you would say that wouldn’t you?

    (Also- I flicked straight to this thread from the Bree Olson one; your comment discomforted me until I remembered where I was)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *