etrevino

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%.

lol, that's pretty good, I agree with you.

What was it? I arrived too late.

You're right

Maybe I misunderstand you, but there is Tkinter if you want a GUI included with Python.

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.

Can you explain why it's bad?

That's fair, but this is why the "targeted at Oxbridge kids" thing is so important. Sure, some are paying with loans, but most don't need them.

Really, this isn't about targeting a specific level of education, it's about targeting a specific class.

Not everyone is motivated by money. And if these are Oxbridge kids they may not need the cash anyway.

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.

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.

Right. Lot of judgments made without considering how this might work long term in the real world.

> 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.