Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Are they too much of a security risk?
11 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-104607 0/MI5-tell-spies-come-drive-begins-recruit-hom osexuals.html
Should Homosexuals or Muslims be recruited into M15, or are they too much of a security risk?
Food for thought are these two extracts from the report.
"People from all minority communities do have experience of getting on with people who are different and of fitting in.
"They are also good at doing these things in a way that is not conspicuous."
Examples would be appreciated.
Should Homosexuals or Muslims be recruited into M15, or are they too much of a security risk?
Food for thought are these two extracts from the report.
"People from all minority communities do have experience of getting on with people who are different and of fitting in.
"They are also good at doing these things in a way that is not conspicuous."
Examples would be appreciated.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
With regards Gays, they used to be a security risk since they were open to blackmail - this is no longer a threat.
Why not? there must be many who still do not wish to come out of the closet, so therefore they are still wide open to blackmail
With Muslims, it would be pretty difficult for a white person to infiltrate a mosque.
May be, but it seems we are opening our secret service to any who may be under-cover terrorists.
Why take these unnecessary risks, when there is no need ?
Why not? there must be many who still do not wish to come out of the closet, so therefore they are still wide open to blackmail
With Muslims, it would be pretty difficult for a white person to infiltrate a mosque.
May be, but it seems we are opening our secret service to any who may be under-cover terrorists.
Why take these unnecessary risks, when there is no need ?
-- answer removed --
Why not? there must be many who still do not wish to come out of the closet, so therefore they are still wide open to blackmail
True.
But homosexuality is not the only thing you can blackmail somebody on. If I remember right, a recent study has shown adultery to be alive and kicking (though I confess I can't find it online) - which might not be as juicy as homosexuality, but it's still a very possible and very easy route to blackmail.
I'm not convinced that homosexuals are anything more than very slightly more open to blackmail than anyone else.
True.
But homosexuality is not the only thing you can blackmail somebody on. If I remember right, a recent study has shown adultery to be alive and kicking (though I confess I can't find it online) - which might not be as juicy as homosexuality, but it's still a very possible and very easy route to blackmail.
I'm not convinced that homosexuals are anything more than very slightly more open to blackmail than anyone else.
Why not? there must be many who still do not wish to come out of the closet, so therefore they are still wide open to blackmail
If they are advertising to and for Gay people, the presumably they would already be out of the closet?
Why take these unnecessary risks, when there is no need ?
As explained, there is a need to infiltrate Muslim terrorist organisations. How do you propose that will happen?
Every person who is a candidate will undergo extensive background checks.
Every person is also a potential blackmail target or may have an allegiance to another organisation.
If they are advertising to and for Gay people, the presumably they would already be out of the closet?
Why take these unnecessary risks, when there is no need ?
As explained, there is a need to infiltrate Muslim terrorist organisations. How do you propose that will happen?
Every person who is a candidate will undergo extensive background checks.
Every person is also a potential blackmail target or may have an allegiance to another organisation.
-- answer removed --
Oneeyedvic has hit the nail on the head.
A gay man or lesbian who is still in the closet would be a huge security risk back in (say) 1955, when it was illegal and a huge social stigma.
But now?
It's not even newsworthy. Remember when that lad from Westlife came out (actually, he was forced out because the Daily Mail were about to out him) - what was the general reaction of the nation?
It was a massive yawn. We're living in a country where people couldn't even get properly worked up about the introduction of civil partnerships.
I think we're now looking at a 'transitional generation'. In 30 years time, being gay will be about as shocking as women wearing trousers (in my first job women were banned from wearing trousers - and that was in the early eighties!!!).
Oh, and if you were still in the closet, its doubtful whether you would join a profession where personal 'blackmailable' secrets were an issue.
A gay man or lesbian who is still in the closet would be a huge security risk back in (say) 1955, when it was illegal and a huge social stigma.
But now?
It's not even newsworthy. Remember when that lad from Westlife came out (actually, he was forced out because the Daily Mail were about to out him) - what was the general reaction of the nation?
It was a massive yawn. We're living in a country where people couldn't even get properly worked up about the introduction of civil partnerships.
I think we're now looking at a 'transitional generation'. In 30 years time, being gay will be about as shocking as women wearing trousers (in my first job women were banned from wearing trousers - and that was in the early eighties!!!).
Oh, and if you were still in the closet, its doubtful whether you would join a profession where personal 'blackmailable' secrets were an issue.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.