This was 20 years ago and a lot of people were paid by check. So the only way to reclaim the money from them was to underpay folks. They probably just handled it that way for everyone.
Even now, at my Federal government job when someone is overpaid we issue them a "debt letter" and then reduce their pay until the account is balanced. I assume it's because of the same reg/statute that fixes the clawback to 16.7%.
I, uhhhh.....I would like to know what TFA is meant to stand for, because I assume it is not "the ſucking article", but that was my first thought. Maybe "featured"? Google is only giving me "Teach For America" or "Trade Facilitation Agreement".
I feel that the presence of this term here means that HN is the successor to the venerable Slashdot. Kind of comforting that there’s a straight line from the site that I spent so much time on 20 years ago, to this one.
I don't just want something bundled with Python, I want that thing to be the undeniably best choice. I want "batteries included" to mean that I wouldn't bother to look for anything but what came with the language.
The Wiki article is something I wish I had time to edit. Yes, there was an attempt to ensure that the right sort of thing be printed, but it was also about making sure that no one else could print certain documents. You'd license a bible text to be able to regulate that it's the correct type of bible being printed, yes. You'd then see who else was printing bibles and shut them down. Okay, that's all correct, but there's more to its foundation than that. For example, in the UK, one individual had the sole right to profit off the last testaments of people to be hanged in Newgate Prison. In the 17th C, Parliament gave this power was to a preacher who in turn designated a specific printer. That power is what allowed the preacher (and the printer) to profit: no one could (legally) copy it. Regulating printers was the only way to ensure profit for an author and it was an attempt to guarantee conformity.
I think that just depends on your definition of spy. If you're thinking, say, Americans being undercover or sneaking onto bases (instead of using local assets to do it) then it would probably fall under the Special Activities Center, which is a subset of the CIA.
While you're right that these folks aren't undercover in the sense that their identities are known, that those identities are linked to an intelligence gathering agency is not known. A lot does happen out in the open and it always has. Being a member of the diplomatic service gives them protection when they're operating in a foreign country. You operate out of an embassy and if you're arrested they usually trade you back to your home country, because diplomatic immunity.
> Lol. It's supposed that one of them (i.e the mother) should behave like and adult and own it. Of course nobody forced her to choose serving her country but I believe in this case she failed both her duty to family & country.
> It's just proof that not all the people are up for this job.
It's understood that family members will know to some extent. If nothing else, this is so that they know to be wary of security threats many people would otherwise ignore. She's almost certainly not sharing details of operations, she's instead sharing with her daughters why things are the way they are in their household.
I've said in other comments, this is another world and the concerns here are different. It's not like it is in the movies.
Again, that family members will know to some extent is understood, which is why she felt comfortable admitting it in the interview, otherwise she would have lost her job and the article would have been kiboshed by the security services.
I replied to the parent comment above, but it's worth replying to this. The kids might not know what mom did before this, but the way the mother operates was long ago normalized for them. The mother probably never lied-- they usually don't-- she probably just never shared. What the mother does is a job that isn't necessarily in conflict with her love for her children. People have to balance the effort they put into their job (as opposed to the effort they put into their children) all the time. She still gets to make that choice, at least in the US and the UK (as is the case here). That choice may cost her her job, but that's true of any job.
This is all to say, it's highly doubtful that this had the impact to their relationship that you're imagining here.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
I always found that the pay scale for the security services is the same as the rest of the civil service really hard to justify. Why would I go work at GCHQ if I could make many multiples more, as a starting salary, in the private sector?
Youthful idealism, access to cutting edge ideas and kit, stepping stone to a highly paid GCHQ contracting jobs … ?
Other possibilities: Perhaps the headline pay is low but there’s a ton of special allowances and other benefits that make the whole package competitive. Perhaps, like academics, there’s some gifted people who are a much better personality fit for the civil service rather than FANG culture?
Sure but if you take a student loan in the U.K. starting pay in the civil service wouldn’t even put you above the repayment threshold. I get that there are levels, but unless you have support or a partner the starting pay really isn’t enough especially if you’re in London. Cheltenham or Manchester - maybe.
Even now, at my Federal government job when someone is overpaid we issue them a "debt letter" and then reduce their pay until the account is balanced. I assume it's because of the same reg/statute that fixes the clawback to 16.7%.