In a cesspool that is Canberra, one of the main aims of all the various bureaucracies is to maintain and increase their power and funding. This is why you see so many of the various agencies crowing about what they've done for the alleged benefit of the public and/or their political masters and why there's massive pressure to suppress any detrimental information.

If you are part of the clandestine brigade, you need to be constantly finding dangers in the shadows so that you can justify your existence and hopefully increase your prestige and funding.

This is the origin of the claims that the greatest danger to the nation is the domestic terrorist. Give us more money to protect you from a danger that only we can see.

But what to do when you claims about domestic terrorists aren't backed by any actual domestic terrorists. Well you create some. That he's an autistic kid who was a danger to no-one other than himself is by-the-by. 'We got our man - give us more money', T'was always thus.

_________________________________________________________________

The claimed traitorous pollie did his as yet unidentified deeds 6 years ago. Why are we only hearing about it now and why all the hullabaloo over something that is past and which clearly didn't do any actual harm to the country?

Anyone who understands how government backed bureaucracies work knows why the Feds were under such pressure to announce a 'win'.

Yes indeed mhaze. Why are we hearing about it just now?

Read the full transcript:

http://thesaturdaypaper.com.au/podcast/asio-worried-youre-helping-foreign-spies

Enjoy!

"Read the full transcript"

I wouldn't bother. Its just more of the same.

More unsupported assertions from the bureaucrats that we need to give them more money to protect us from things they say are there but can't tell us about.

Some people grow up realising there are no monsters hiding in the closet. Others grow up falling for whatever BS the authorities tell them to believe.

Yeh! Nah! I still subscribe to my Mike (Burgess) talking spies in Parliament is a distraction from Mike (and the gendarmes) using a legally dubious Entrap A Kid strategy.

See "ASIO BOSS DEFENDS UNDERCOVER POLICE OPERATION TARGETING BOY WITH AUTISM" of March 4 2024 at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/04/asio-boss-defends-undercover-police-operation-targeting-boy-with-autism

When I said MI5 think Entrapment is illegal I've done a bit of further research:

See http://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/entrapment#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20defence%20of,prosecute%20him%20for%20doing%20so.

"There is no defence of entrapment in English law
but it is considered to be an abuse of the process of the court for state agents to lure a person into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute him for doing so.

The House of Lords said that, although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where an accused can show entrapment, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of its process or exclude evidence.

Where the actions of the state threaten the rule of law, it would be unfair to try the defendant. As a matter of policy, when a defendant has been treated so unfairly, the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on him not being tried at all. State-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience."

In short, tall Mike is a very naughty boy!

I don't disagree with the possibility that the traitorous pollie story was released to offset the embarrassment over the autistic terrorist kid story. I'm just agnostic on it. Maybe true - maybe not.

I just don't think the Feds were all that bummed out about the terrorist kid revelations. Sure, in a moral world, heads would have rolled. But they doubled-down and the authorities let it slide. We know that in the US the various intelligence agencies are in bed with the legacy media and vis-a-versa. I'd be flabbergasted if that wasn't the case here also - we just don't know about it (yet).

So while they might have felt the need to change the narrative by telling the six year old pollie story, I don't see them under any real pressure. I think it was more a case of trying to prove relevance to a perpetually and increasingly fearful public.