Talk:Michael Bettaney
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Khamba Tendal in topic Middle aged
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Bettaney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
These days edit
What's he been up to since his release? 86.140.10.80 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
He's a member of the CPGB-PCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Spelling edit
His surname is spelt "Bettaney". See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p62LN9EhsKYC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Michael+J+Bettaney&source=bl&ots=my6b6CS6Xc&sig=asutJt21kxp0FfVRlRq23Ldwzzo&hl=en&ei=qYvlSYqIEoK1-Aaz9NWBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA103,M1 and http://www.namebase.org/main3/Michael-John-Bettaney.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/sep/16/biography.features William Avery (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1984/apr/26/security-commission-bettaney-inquiry and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4719962.html William Avery (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Date of birth edit
The BBC article of 1998 implies that he was born in 1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The vagueness about the date is odd. Normally, it would be given when he applied to a university and for a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Middle aged edit
I recall he was described by a contemporary at Oxford as "Middle aged ever since 18" 109.144.222.187 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Mike was... a bit of an odd one. And the article is not remotely factual. It's no good relying on Paul Foot. Footie was wrong about Hanratty, wrong about the Bridgewater Four -- just read what the Appeal Court judges actually said about them -- and wrong about pretty much everything else. It's no good relying on the Weekly Worker either.
- In the 1980s, 140 Gower Street was actually MI5 headquarters and not, as the article claims, just an 'outstation' for the counter-Soviet F Branch. The more famous building, Leconfield House in Curzon Street, Mayfair, was simply the Registry, where posh girls, known in those days as Sloane Rangers, looked after the files. At Gower Street, Mike had a rather camp 'act', which was that he was a mole, like in John Le Carre's novels, and he would put his head round the door of people in other departments and ask, 'Any titbits for my Moscow masters?' And, in the pub after work, when he felt like going home, he'd say, 'Must be off to meet my control.' It's absurd that he was allowed to carry on like that, but the higher-ups in those days were pretty useless. Plus his oddness was obvious, no one took him seriously and he was rightly felt to be a fantasist. The trouble with fantasists is that they sometimes act out their fantasies, as Mike eventually did, having failed to gain enough attention by his 'act'. He wasn't in fact caught due to information received from Gordievsky. He was caught due to covert CCTV surveillance on the address to which he delivered the documents -- surveillance he knew to be in place. He was acting up, he was making an exhibition of himself and he was deliberately trying to get caught. So he got caught. He was just a bit of an odd one, like David Shayler. I believe that these days the service is rather more discriminating about the people it hires. It better be. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)