6 ms·

I can speak as someone who was in the same situation as the teens. This is about the time that the kids begin to cotton on to the fact that things aren't quite

I can speak as someone who was in the same situation as the teens. This is about the time that the kids begin to cotton on to the fact that things aren't quite right. Really, this is the point at which the parent has to start lying (as opposed to saying something like "oh I work for the government") or trust to their children's discretion. The kids' entire raising up to this point has normalized strong patriotism and a parents' inconsistent presence as a result of that patriotism. This likely came as no real shock to them. This is a different world and I didn't realize how different until I went away to college.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Other commenters hwre seem to think that everyone else in the family is an idiot and will never catch on, despite living together for decades. This will lead to family suspecting their mother of cheating or crime.n
- etrevino 4y ago
  Right. Lot of judgments made without considering how this might work long term in the real world.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  When I was a kid, there was a guy at our church who had spent some years at a South American embassy and was vaguely in the defense industry. There were little bits of his story that all had us suspecting he likely did cloak and dagger stuff for the CIA in reality, but no point in really asking him for the truth.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "This will lead to family suspecting their mother of cheating or crime." Generally not with the proper cover story. Stuff like working as a civilian purchasing agent for the military or other government agency provides an element of truth and can be strongly consistent with the realities of the true job. Travel for purchasing deals vs espionage, etc look the same for the family. Even better is if they actually are involved with the purchasing deals since it makes for a more solid cover.
morrbo 4y ago
with all due respect, youve now just basically told an entire anonymous message board that someone in your family is/was related to the security services. This is basically the example why you dont tell people this stuff. The entire article reeks of bs...everyone who has even remotely been involved in any of this knows exactly what youre meant to say if anyone asks you...and its sure as shit not "ok tell everyone x, except if theyre from the financial times, then just be honest" lol
- etrevino 4y ago
  That's old and "expired" data from over thirty years ago and the family member I'm discussing is open about it, now. What needs to stay quiet (in this instance) is operational details, not that this person did the work. So your point doesn't really stand. I felt it was useful information and it was information that was safe for me to share, so I did. The Financial Times article is, of course, intended to promote the service to women and it really doesn't hide that fact. You can bet that MI6 reviewed the article before it went to publication and everything in there was vetted a thousand times. It wouldn't shock me if small, fake biographical details were added into the article to obscure who these people really are. We don't know. The fact is, though, that since this piece is probably meant to advertise the service and-- given where it was printed-- it's probably directed at Oxbridge women. That is, women who have more job mobility than most. MI6 wants women to know that they won't be viewed as honey pots and that they can have a family. So the article is probably going to be an accurate representation at some level: since these particular women can leave if they want to, you don't want to misrepresent what they're getting into if you intend to keep them.
  - jll29 4y ago
    In the UK, the government has a firm grip on the media, and that is enshrined by law; that's why The Guardian broke the Snowden story from their U.S. office, where freedom of speech is (more) protected. The author is a former security correspondent, and was perhaps chosen as someone known and trusted. The article is a recruiting piece targeting well-educated females; but the same (Oxbridge) females can earn six digits in finance and stay safe, instead of earning 22k and getting shot in Kandahar or stabbed in Najaf. One wonders if that combination of compensation and dangerous job spec attracts reckless or idealists personalities. Anyone interested in the history of the British SIS can be referred to K. Jefferey's (2010) "MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949" (London: Bloomsbury), which is detailed but of course suffers from selection bias due to the nature of the topic and the fact that the book was commissioned (if I recall correctly) by the organization it describes.
permo-w 4y ago
how hard is it to say that you work in the foreign office? also surely there is training for this

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

Other commenters hwre seem to think that everyone else in the family is an idiot and will never catch on, despite living together for decades. This will lead to family suspecting their mother of cheating or crime.n

etrevino 4y ago
Right. Lot of judgments made without considering how this might work long term in the real world.
poulsbohemian 4y ago
When I was a kid, there was a guy at our church who had spent some years at a South American embassy and was vaguely in the defense industry. There were little bits of his story that all had us suspecting he likely did cloak and dagger stuff for the CIA in reality, but no point in really asking him for the truth.
giantg2 4y ago
"This will lead to family suspecting their mother of cheating or crime." Generally not with the proper cover story. Stuff like working as a civilian purchasing agent for the military or other government agency provides an element of truth and can be strongly consistent with the realities of the true job. Travel for purchasing deals vs espionage, etc look the same for the family. Even better is if they actually are involved with the purchasing deals since it makes for a more solid cover.

morrbo 4y ago

with all due respect, youve now just basically told an entire anonymous message board that someone in your family is/was related to the security services. This is basically the example why you dont tell people this stuff. The entire article reeks of bs...everyone who has even remotely been involved in any of this knows exactly what youre meant to say if anyone asks you...and its sure as shit not "ok tell everyone x, except if theyre from the financial times, then just be honest" lol

etrevino 4y ago
That's old and "expired" data from over thirty years ago and the family member I'm discussing is open about it, now. What needs to stay quiet (in this instance) is operational details, not that this person did the work. So your point doesn't really stand. I felt it was useful information and it was information that was safe for me to share, so I did. The Financial Times article is, of course, intended to promote the service to women and it really doesn't hide that fact. You can bet that MI6 reviewed the article before it went to publication and everything in there was vetted a thousand times. It wouldn't shock me if small, fake biographical details were added into the article to obscure who these people really are. We don't know. The fact is, though, that since this piece is probably meant to advertise the service and-- given where it was printed-- it's probably directed at Oxbridge women. That is, women who have more job mobility than most. MI6 wants women to know that they won't be viewed as honey pots and that they can have a family. So the article is probably going to be an accurate representation at some level: since these particular women can leave if they want to, you don't want to misrepresent what they're getting into if you intend to keep them.
- jll29 4y ago
  In the UK, the government has a firm grip on the media, and that is enshrined by law; that's why The Guardian broke the Snowden story from their U.S. office, where freedom of speech is (more) protected. The author is a former security correspondent, and was perhaps chosen as someone known and trusted. The article is a recruiting piece targeting well-educated females; but the same (Oxbridge) females can earn six digits in finance and stay safe, instead of earning 22k and getting shot in Kandahar or stabbed in Najaf. One wonders if that combination of compensation and dangerous job spec attracts reckless or idealists personalities. Anyone interested in the history of the British SIS can be referred to K. Jefferey's (2010) "MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949" (London: Bloomsbury), which is detailed but of course suffers from selection bias due to the nature of the topic and the fact that the book was commissioned (if I recall correctly) by the organization it describes.

permo-w 4y ago

how hard is it to say that you work in the foreign office? also surely there is training for this