for the government and government are going to need to have more oversight as to how these transactions occur. what difference bring me going with my debit card and paying for things, but with a digital river, what is the plan difference? yes, so really absolutely nothing to you is to use the union that the fundamental difference is you are not going to have these, these cumbersome payment networks involved. so for example, your debit card. if we're, if we're talking to all of us in the west, that will be using mastercard and visa, mastercard and visa, but we taking a chunk of the fee in order to process that transaction. this way, that transaction happens directly from russia. the central bank to the merchant or the shop where you're buying, you're, you're good. so that middle man is essentially cut out understood, okay. in terms then of benefits, will people be able to use these digital roubles? when a network connection is all available? you know, that could be issues like that, right? yes. so reading the, the white paper from the russia center by saying yes, you can know how they actually do that. we'll have to see when they, they come up with more color. but i imagine it would be the same way if you've ever

been on an airplane and you have to something on your cause, that transaction isn't actually process because you're in the ad, there's no internet connection to actually process it. so what happens is when the plane lands that transaction is then processed by machine, it will probably be a similar mechanism. chris, other countries, are they planning similar? is russia to the oven guard of this? are they climbing in the box to somebody else? piggybacking? well yeah, so rushes pretty far ahead. the fact that they said they were implementing how a china was the 1st move back in april 2021, which is around the same time processing. april 2023. april 2021. china conduct what they call beth public pilots. and now in china, the digital women b is used quite widely across china. so it's not the 1st, but it's definitely a brave move and also the bank of japan and out today that they're also going to launch the digital chinese one at the same time the rosters. so i think we're probably going to see a whole vast riot countries moving in this direction. or i tend to check in again with former ca,

hey alice. john. carrie aka is new. show the whistleblowers on today. john speaks to x m, i 5 officer. must sean expect stories about the british government that may or may not surprise you? it's right ahead. ah, those of us who live in the west and are citizens of western countries know that our governments like to talk about the rule of law. we're all supposed to be proud that we live by the rule of law under governments that respect their constitutions, their basic laws and court precedents. with that said, those of us who have worked for our countries perspective intelligent services and national law enforcement organizations. no, that's just not the way things are in real life. certainly are governments talk a lot about law and order and human rights. but what happens when one realizes those same governments are breaking the law both domestically and internationally. what happens when you can't report wrong doing through your chain of command

because it's the chain of command committing the crime. i'm john kerry. aku, we'll talk about that and more on this episode of the whistleblowers. ah. 2 2 2 2 2 2 any mesh on is a former intelligence officer from m, i 5, the case domestic intelligence service. when she began her career with the british government mash on intended to become a diplomat. but as happens in many countries, in the midst of the process, she was recruited by m i 5 and sent to work in the organizations counter subversion department known as f 2. she later told the yorkshire post that her job included quote, trying to track down old communist trotskyites and fascists. which seems like a waste of time on quote. during the 1992 general election mesh on and her partner david schaler were tasked with providing summaries on literally anybody who stood

for election to parliament. nash on later said that she and schaler were horrified by the scale of the investigations and they argued and my 5 should not be in the business of spying on people who had never even been suspected of committing a crime. 2 years later, she and schaler transferred to t branch which investigated irish terrorism in 1996. however, life for both meshawn and schaler changed forever. in october of that year, both of them resigned from my 5, with the intention to blow the whistle on crimes they had seen committed inside that service. these crimes included maintaining secret files on the government's ministers responsible for overseeing the intelligence services. illegal phone taps, making false statements to government overseers. failing to prevent bombings by the irish republican army failing to prevent the 1994 bombing of the israeli embassy in london. and the attempted assassination of then libyan leader, mar, fee, mash,

and schaler went on to the media with proof of their allegations. and that's when their problems began. we want to introduce our guest. now any meshawn, welcome. any 1st i want to ask you about your decision to enter. am i 5 in the 1st place? you strike me as someone who has a conscience, someone who would never have been comfortable working on the other side of the law . it's clear that illegalities allegedly committed by m, i 5, bothered you from the outset. i was exactly the same way at the cia. tell me about joining m i 5 and about your initial impressions when you started reading those secret files, files that were clearly inappropriate. so i was recruit in 990 long time ago now and, and this was one year off to my funds have been put on an official footings. the 1st time in 80 years of its existence, with the security have attacked. and also when the new official secrets act came into play,

which was there to stop with ablaze that was based in 1989. during my recruitment, i was told time and time again that they had changed that they no longer have to look at counter espionage because the soviet union was disintegrating. they no longer had so for read under the bed political actress, u k. because the soviet union was disintegrating and they needed a new generation of intelligence officer to investigate terrorist. and that's what i thought i was signing up to do. the recruitment processes about 10 months my case, it can go between 6 to a year in terms of recruitment. and i was reassured, every time i got through, i didn't think i was the right person to this job. and every time i still kept getting through and i thought by the end of it i was quite reassured, and that it would be a good job to do and make a difference and potentially have life actually. i mean, it's not the agenda stick, but that's what i want to do. so that's why i joined in terms of the things i saw,

an inside my 1st disillusionment was the fact that i was posted to the red under the bed section, which was known as at to where they were still looking at political from versus political activists. that social and we saw huge number of us when i say we my and my former partner david shader. it became the primary with simpler and 997 for a huge number of files. hell got just on regular u. k. systems, but also people who are in politics, many of whom became part for the government in the 1997 general election. so you have a situation where the notional political masters of m. i 5 and i, 6, the foreign intelligence agency has filed, held him so you know, in terms of a democracy who's got the power. when you and david schaler resigned from my 5 year intention,

was to blow the whistle on illegality. david took documents to prove your allegations to the mail on sunday, which published them in august of 1997. what was the immediate fall out from the government? what was the response from the public committee pull out from the government was interesting because this was the union acted landslide victory of tony blair. and we thought, you know, labor government off to a, how long of a conservative government in the u. k. would mean that they would take all allocations more seriously. what we want to do was created a bit of a scandal and ensure that there was going to be appropriate inquiry into how the spies were running a mold. and to make sure that they were reforms putting taste to regulate what they were doing, then they needed to be tighter than even the reform. so put in place in 980. so that was a me, it didn't quite work out that way because one we have to, the allegations came out and there was a huge press push for an inquiry one week after we made the allegations.

princess diana died in paris. so everything else called blanked out with a huge media hysteria about the death of princess diana. so he can try and trim most things in life and try and plan for those things in life, but something like that with on a different scale. and so we found the last in europe on the run and living in hiding and without much press support. off until that point though, the press whether can you get angry about the government response? because the government tried to in junk them to try to get them tried to shut them up in terms of pressurising for a proper inquiry into what the spies were doing. and easily, a judge blocked the mail on sunday from publishing the allegations you were making that concern the i r a specifically. but what about the other information? what about the attempt on kodachi? for example? what was the reaction from the fremont, from the courts and from the public? this is a weird one because the good article, as it became known, which was an m,

i 6 funded backing. and i'll kind of group in libya to try and assess the nature for and head of state which went wrong. he killed innocent people. okay, how much was, can it get? was the biggest case and this is why we actually question. this is why david wanted to get public, and this was the story that did not get published initially. and he had to fight it out that finally officer about a year when we're living and hiding. the b. c decide just make a panorama special. and the mel sunday and the sunday times decided to run with the story to finally. and it was at that point that david was arrested and put into prison and had to spend 4 months in the tourist hell hole waiting and failed extradition. attempt back to the u. k. so in terms of how people reacted that, the, and how the government reacted that the press was incandescent they wanted on. so they want to know if this is true. and what happened was that the black government

just came out and said this is pure fantasy, it has no basis in fact. and there's never been a proper police investigation into it. now when ah, david returned the u. k in 2000 and was put on trial in 2002 have to sentence by 2003. and then he got as possible back and when we went to pick it up from new scotland yard, the police officer said, we're really sorry. we were just following orders, we had to do to get through this process. but we knew it was saying was true. the cover up was astonishing. and the fact that the cover was so systematic at that point. and yet, you know, you, phosphorus, 2011. when there was the nato bombing of libya, because they were humanitarian aid and get off, he was dragged out and tortured and murdered with that point. and that was seen as a glorification of the west power in 2011. so the moral slide between what happened

in 1996. what have me, 2011 in terms of perception in the west is terrifying the fact that we can all of this sort of thing rather than keep it secret and condemn it. shortly after the mail on sunday published your allegations, you and david schaler were forced to leave the country for france. you truly believed if you were to return to the u. k, you would be arrested. but you went back to london, and much to your surprise, you were not arrested. so you returned again to france. but in 1998 after david began working with a british media on a documentary about the cadets the plot. he was charged under the official secrets act, and the french detained him at the request of the british for 4 months. what happened then? i knew i was going back to be arrested and i was indeed arrested at the immigration gate in gatwick airport. and then i was taken off to a counter terrorism suite in central london police station. and then in terms of

the rest of the day, with key point is i was never charged with anything, let alone convicted whatever. because i hadn't done anything. right. you know, i did with, you know, support what david was trying to do. so yes, i was arrested, i was kept on police spell, which means you don't have money, but you have to keep offering bound, going back every month. and, and one of david's brothers was also treated this way and to his best friends as well. so it was very much a case of trying to intimidate david by threatening legal penalties against the people who love the most were speaking with m. i 5, whistleblower and mash on on the odyssey that she and her partner david schaler experienced after going public with allegations of official wrong doing. we're going to take a short break and go deeper into this important story. stay tuned. 2 2 2 2 2 2

ah ah ah ah the. 2 2 welcome back to the whistle blowers. i'm john curiosity, who were speaking with m. i 5, was the blower? any mesh on about her revelations of illegality and the difficult fall out for she

and her partner any in august of 2000. you and david schaler did a very brave thing. you returned to the u. k. both of you knew what likely awaited you there, but you did it any way. tell us what went into your decision to return. i think there are a number of issues around why we decided to return at that point. we've been living in hiding and in excel for 3 years at that point in france. and from my perspective, i could still travel back and forth because i'd never been charged with anything. but for david once, he'd been released from the french prison because the print fail text revised in 998. it meant that if he had left the cross to go to any other european country, he would have been arrested and probably extradited from any other country. france had a particular lore back in the 1990, which said that if you are a whistler, it was deemed to be a political offense and they did not extradite people for those political offences . so we taken advice before we went. we knew that was going to be legal protection

and that's why you enter. so yes, the, the courage that david showed when he went back to face the music that they say. and to stand trial with quite exceptional. i mean, i had to do it myself without having to stand trial, but he knew he would have to. he knew he'd probably be convicted and he would probably go back to prison. and after 4 months in paris, that was pretty bad. but he still did it because he wanted to have his evidence origin to the public records in a public court of saw what happened with it. he returned in 2000 didn't go on trial until the end of 2002, during which there are a number of an eagle herrings which actually shut down every line of defense he could have used. so by the time he got in front of his jury of his peers, he was not allowed to say why he'd done what he'd done in any way. so cautious convictions. and he went back to prison. it was disgusting. this is the way the all

whistleblowers are treated. and i think can, i'm talking from british perspective web. back in the day we face 2 years per charge in prison. they're trying to increase that 14 years per charge in prison. now, not just for the whistleblower, but also the janet and of course what we're looking at in the usa and you will know because you've been to prison is if you blow the whistle, you can face up to 35 years in prison. a per charge, as chelsea manny did, and that was snowden, he will probably face life and jimmy and songs. but note that he's a whistleblower, he publishes that even the penalties were pulling everything over in the usa. so anyone who blew the whistle and anyone who then is told to go and faced the music and wants to put it on the public record, was playing the whistle on faces. huge penalty in the west. and people score 8 countries like russia or china or iran,

whatever for stigmatizing and penalizing dissidence. that's precisely what the way of doing when they treat whistleblowers in this way to the british government tried hard to convict and to imprison david, even if they decided not to charge you with a crime, you were by his side through the entire time in the end david was given 6 months in jail for violating the official secrets act. we all know this incredibly short sentence was meant as a fee saving measure for the government. when governments go after former employees for violating the official secrets act or in the united states, the espionage act, they usually seek decades in prison. they didn't get it in this case. what happened? how did this play out? partly, and he was facing a match for 6 years in prison. so that was 3 charges, a t as each under the 1989 official secrets act after he was convicted that before he was sentenced, i was allowed to give a mitigation fee to the judge. this is the only time either of us had ever been

able to, to anything in public, in court about why we've done what we've done. so i explained that and explained our motivation explained what had happened, explained everything. and the judge actually said that he had been minded to give david 13 those from prison that he was going to give him 6 home. so that sounds really light compared to what goes on in the u. s. and it sounds really like what might come into play in the u. k. when they bring in what they are going to call, the new espionage act, which is an amalgamation of the old official secret pact which is going to indeed increase the terrorist school with los angeles to 14 years volunteer. so this is all to discourage others. of course it's a power play and i think it's so important. remember that people do not blow the whistle just because they want to, you know, get a certain bit, gloria, whatever they ruined allies by doing it. they turn their lives inside out and

upside down. and they can never again, your professional status as you know, as i know, and for people to be penalized and even worse even more badly with the senses. you know, 14 years in prison because you're a treasure or something like that. you're not sure i should trying to protect the rights for your country and your fellow assistant. you're trying to protect the very nature of democracy rather than trying to allow the government to encroach on all civil liberties. i cannot say this strongly enough at this point as well because one of the things i learned through always yes and also having the privilege to it with other with letters, including yourself and also what would hack to this is that the more we will move and see online world, and the more that we live our lives online, the easier it is for the spies to look at us to follow is to watch it. and if we don't have people, most recent, of course, edward snowden,

which is almost 10 years ago, coming out and saying this is what is happening, you know, between nation states and corporations and the hackers and criminal hackers and all that sort of thing. we are so vulnerable, we are sitting dogs with our lives on line. so we need to be aware of it. we need to spread the word about it, and we need to protect people who come out and reveal research with nation robin. prosecute them and peskin put them in prison after discussing. one of the things that is consistent for all whistleblowers is after the actual act of revealing evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality. life is just never the same. how have things changed for you? and for david over the past 20 years. oh, as a big question. no, i totally agree. and i would say this is true or whistleblower if across all sectors, not just intelligence government military. although we tend to be the ones who pay the biggest penalty. so nice people will lose their professional reputation. they

might lose their with all to earn a living that might lose, you know, to homes or their families, whatever it is, which is bad enough. and it should not happen if people want to expose wrong doing and improve the work organizations. but we are the ones who, if you know phase prison go to prison as well. so i think the win win situation would be a such a stretchy, where people can be encouraged to expose wrongdoing and not certainly public key ordered for it, but just be recognized and not just treated as troublemakers. so that would be the 1st step. but yes, in terms of how you rebuild a life of doing that, it's an incredibly hard, i suppose, for me. i mean, it cost me my relationship with david schaler that disintegrated in 2007 but also is trying to rebuild. what i found useful is trying to learn lessons from what

i gone through, particularly when it came to medium in depletion. because i watched how the major been manipulated during david's case. i mean, i remember sitting in the courtroom when his judgment, final judgment. read out. and it said, david schaler, you know, hadn't done, we've done for money, no lives would put it risk, blah, blah blah. and the next day or the headline said you can deal with it. so hang on, how did that happen? so the media manipulation and moving forward to what's going on online and deep fakes. and the rankings and the disappearances of articles online is frightening. but i think the key issues that i've really brought forward in my work now is about privacy. because during those 7 years of the whistle blowing story, you know, going on the run living in hiding in the next, i'm going to court cases double blow. i never felt that i had privacy my at home to

this day. i didn't feel i have privacy talking on the phone with my emails in my own home either. i'm not saying that that's happening. i've just aware of that potential essential thread. so this is why i'm, i've dive deep into a lot of these technical issues trying to check out how we can protect ourselves both individually and societally and democratic as well. so i'm going to do a shameless plug. i have a new book out. it's called a pretty mission at i'm sorry about that, but and also i also, i work with an organization called the world ethical data for him and the world ethical pace translation to try and look at the sort of issues and take deep dive into them. and to mitigate some of these issues as well, particularly the intersection teen corporations, government and the state and government and things like that. because if people are not aware, one of the potential threats and 2 of the potential tarnishes which might be much

more utopian rather than just opium than we have no hope. so it's all that education, it's all about trying to make people aware. and i think that's what whistleblower to that. just the the think this is the key motivation for all of us. i think of whistles and to try make people aware. so even though my whistle playing was 25 years ago, i still try and make people aware now of other things that i find fascinating and interesting. and i can see my potential credit. but there might be potential bonuses and benefits from the technology that we're now working with, particularly as we now will have to live a life on line any. you have been one of julian sanchez, most outspoken supporters in the u. k. tell us what's new in julian's case. we know what is probably his final appeal of his extradition to the united states is being heard right now. we've come to understand those of us who support julian expect nothing from the u. k. government. what are julian's chances in the british court

system at this point? is there any hope for him in the european court of human rights? and is there any reason to believe that the new prime minister re she soon act will be any different toward julian than boys johnson and list trust were. i think my face probably said it all, and i would doubted the british system is raked and offer they were a bit of a vessel stay towards us anyway. we know that, you know, they're asking you, they need the us bus. the whole point about the, the song case is that he is no stray in publisher and journalist award winning. he's won global award over the years and he is imprisoned in the u. k. unwanted by the us on the espionage child, which is a permanent okay? so the, the key point is one and it should not be happening to someone who is not american, who hasn't been by is not involved in espionage. she is a publisher,

pure and simple. he and the case around him as well, means that all journalists around the world are equally vulnerable to predation by the us legal system. anyone who writes anything that might challenge us again, many it, you know, some sort of war somewhere in some country, most people don't even have an interest. and of course the people in the country are going to be totally interested in totally horrify by it. but it just means that the reporting proper journalism is going to be stifled. because if that can happen to julian as an award winning global journalist, it can happen to anyone else. i remember a quote i, i think it was in new york times as her way back in the day with geico, bill keller. and he was one of the very 1st journalist partners

that julie worked with along with the guardian in the u. k. and the new times editor said, we don't consider him a publisher, we can sit him just the source. and i found this absolutely astonishing. because either he's a publisher, which means that okay, he's published that the new york times books that i mean to equally vulnerable or she is a source, but the source protection of the forfeit is the prime direct to any good jugglers. so how can you say he's just the 4th not protect him? so in a sense that shows the whole concept of proper investigative journalism in both feet with both barrels. i can't believe that the editor in york times at that point said that so, julian's case is so important. it's such a case of principle as well as the case of a poor man being tortured psychologically for years now. and robin wrongfully tact . but it's such a principle for gender around the world. and i can't believe that more journalists

and shame on them for not doing it across the west. not standing up for him. thank you so much to our guest, any mash on and thank you for joining us. i'm john, carry on to next time for another episode of the whistleblowers the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i i rick sanchez and i am here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else. welcome, but please. if you have the state department, the c, i, a weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my

show, stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the wayne thing with my mommy depleted if there degrading russian on the whole says they are increasing all security and less than booting was not when this war you will be held to account bombastic messages against moscow continued to emerge from countries who claim they're not directly involved in the ukraine conflict. lots of thousands of anti war protesters rally outside were those remarks were heard that munich security conference call to coming up on the appeal letter award. winning journalist doubles done on his investigation findings into america's ro.