Announcement of talks between the US and the Taliban welcomed by British as foreign troops begin to return home

As Afghan forces officially took over control of security across their country from Nato troops, senior British military officials described an unprecedented operation leading to a virtually invisible "UK footprint" there.

Equipment ranging from heavily-armoured trucks to the brass casing of spent bullets - the market for brass is "extraordinarily good" now, observed a British brigadier - will be returned to the UK by air, road, and rail, at a cost unofficially estimated at between £600m and £2bn.

Brigadier Duncan Capps has been in charge of the project, spending the last six months in

British bases in Lashkar Gar and Camp Bastion in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. "As a logistician", he said, he found "Afghanistan a most difficult place to operate, hot and high, and without a port".

Between now and December next year when all foreign troops will have ended their combat role, British forces will have sent back to the UK 2,700 vehicles by air and other kit by road through Pakistan to the port of Karachi, or north through central Asia by road and rail to Riga, the capital of Latvia on the Baltic, for onward shipment to Southampton.

4,500 containers or TEUs, as the Ministry of Defence calls them (the acronym stands for Twenty Foot Equivalent Units), will be packed with small arms, ammo, quad bikes, and other less valuable kit, and put on trucks.

More than 1,000 TEUs have already been despatched to the UK as have 625 vehicles. The equipment has to be "bio washed" before it enters the UK to meet Department for Environment standards. No "warlike" goods will be sent via the potentially dangerous Pakistani route, Capps said.

The number of patrol bases occupied by British troops has already fallen from 137 at the height of the conflict two years ago, to 13. The number will fall further to just four by end of the year.

The main task for British - and US - troops after 2014 will be to continue mentoring and training Afghan forces. Britain has contributed to an officer training college in Kabul, dubbed a "Sandhurst in the sand". Britain could also maintain a discreet presence of special forces there, as the US is expected to.

Very little will be "gifted" to Afghan forces, Capps said. What will includes beds, night sites, and mine detecting equipment. Capps suggested that expensive kit, including armoured vehicles paid for by British taxpayers will be sent home in what conditions he described as "theatre-exit standard", ready for storage and for use in any new emergency.

The number of British troops in Helmand, currently about 9,000, is due to fall to 5,200 by the end of this year.

Tuesday's announcement of talks between the US and the Taliban will be welcomed by British troops. General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the army, said last year referring to the prospect then of such talks: "The real fixes are at the political level...progress in this domain is vital if we are to achieve a soft landing by 2014".

1. Afghan forces take over security from Nato
2. Syria: EU and Nato express concern over chemical weapons – video
3. ‘Taliban is ready to talk peace’ with Afghan state: Afghan official

NHS watchdog suppressed internal review into unit where police are also investigating deaths

The NHS watchdog engaged in a "cover-up" by suppressing an internal review into a maternity unit where police are also investigating the deaths of at least eight mothers and babies, an independent report has found.

Managers at the Care Quality Commission (CQC) moved to protect its reputation by deleting the review, which highlighted key failures in its inspections at the unit, according to early leaks of the report, due to be published this week.

"We think that the information contained in the report was sufficiently important that the deliberate failure to provide it could properly be characterised as a 'cover-up'," consultants from Grant Thornton have concluded.

The CQC, which commissioned Grant Thornton, apologised and said the findings reveal just how poor its oversight of University Hospitals Morecambe Bay (UHMB) was in 2010, but insisted that there is no evidence of a "systematic cover-up".

The consultants had been commissioned to look into the CQC's activities in relation to University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust , which faces more than 30 compensation claims over deaths of, or injuries to, mothers and babies.

Parents of children who died at the maternity unit in Furness general hospital have been given advance copies of the report, which reportedly describes a CQC official as saying that he was ordered by a senior manager in March last year to destroy his review because it would expose the regulator to public criticism.

Officials who discussed how to handle the findings of the review included one senior manager who stated: "Are you kidding me? This can never be in a public domain nor subject to FOI [a Freedom of Information request]. Read my lips."

The consultants from Grant Thornton were informed by the official who wrote the internal CQC report that he had been told his work must be deleted because it was damaging to the watchdog.

The official said he felt he was "being put in a very difficult position" and asked to do something that he felt was "clearly wrong", according to the Daily Telegraph, which saw copies of the report.

The Grant Thornton report says the same manager "said that he felt very uncomfortable about the apparent weight that was being given in the meeting to the potential media impact and reputation damage his report findings might cause CQC. His view was that the focus instead should have been on patient safety and the protection of service users."

In a statement , the CQC said it had promised to publish the report once it had been considered by a meeting of its board and expressed disappointment that it had been leaked.

The watchdog said: "The report shows how CQC provided false assurances to the public and to [healthcare regulator] Monitor in 2010. We were slow to identify failings at the trust and then slow to take action. We should not have registered UHMB without conditions. We let people down, and we apologise for that."

But it added: "There is no evidence of a systematic cover up or of any collusion between CQC and the Public Health Service Ombudsman, but the example of how an internal report was dealt with is evidence of a failure of leadership within CQC and a dysfunctional relationship between the executive and the board. There is evidence of a defensive, reactive and insular culture that resulted in behaviour that should never have happened."

The CQC also said out that there has been a complete change of its executive team since the events detailed in the report, and that there had been substantial changes to its board.

The police investigation into infant deaths at the maternity unit followed the 2011 inquest into the death of Joshua Titcombe, nine days after his birth at the hospital in October 2008.

The inquest ruled in June 2011 that Joshua died of natural causes but midwives had repeatedly missed opportunities to spot and treat a serious infection.

David Prior, the CQC's chairman, said that the publication of the report "draws a line in the sand for us".

He added: "What happened in the past was wholly unacceptable. The report confirms our view that at a senior level the organisation was dysfunctional. The board and the senior executive team have been radically changed."

The chief executive of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Tony Halsall, resigned last year, saying that "considerable progress" had been made in addressing issues faced by the trust. Its interim chairman at the time said that Halsall had often "found himself in the position of taking responsibility for issues when others should have been alongside him."

1. Jeremy Hunt suspends children’s heart surgery unit closures
2. Alcohol-related liver disease patients deserve better care, says report
3. Letters: Train report meeting

Plan supported by Office for Fair Access aims to encourage talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds

Universities are being urged by the government to sponsor new free schools specialising in mathematics, in a plan supported by the Office for Fair Access (Offa) to encourage talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to study maths at degree level.

As an incentive to open the new schools, universities will be allowed to fund them using budgets otherwise reserved for improving access to higher education for under-represented and disadvantaged groups.

According to letters from education minister Elizabeth Truss to the heads of higher education maths departments in England, universities will be able to sponsor the new free schools through a fast-track, simplified procedure, and without the competitive application process normally required of those bidding to open free schools.

"This country has some brilliant university maths departments and world famous mathematicians," Truss wrote.

"But there is no denying there is a big jump between studying maths in schools and colleges – even for those students taking A-level further maths – and what those young people go on to study at university."

If the scheme takes off, it could create a network of selective free schools teaching 16-19-year-olds under the aegis of their local universities, providing academic support and strong links between higher education and local populations.

Les Ebdon, director of Offa, said: "I'd be happy to see more university-led maths free schools because of the role they can play in helping able students from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education.

"It is for individual universities and colleges to decide whether or not this is something they want to do, but Offa is supportive of anything that is targeted at under-represented groups and helps them to fulfil their potential."

A Whitehall source said if it proves to be a success the model could be extended to other subject areas, especially science.

Two universities – Exeter and King's College, London – have been given provisional approval to establish maths schools to open in 2014, while some universities already sponsor or partner with academies.

The move to promote free schools comes a day after Labour pledged to curtail the programme established under Conservative education secretary Michael Gove.

Stephen Twigg, Labour's shadow education secretary, argued that free schools were often built without regard to local need, although plans for specialist maths sixth form colleges may escape Labour's axe.

According to Truss's letter, Ebdon confirmed it would be "perfectly legitimate to allocate funding ringfenced for improving access for under-represented groups towards the establishment of such schools," counting the spending as "widening access".

Entry to the new schools would be selective, rather than by catchment area, in an effort to open admissions to all prospective pupils within an area.

1. Universities face more complaints since rise in tuition fees
2. All schools should have same freedoms as academies, say Labour
3. Comprehensive school pupils do better at university, two new studies confirm

Commission claims senior individuals at failed and unscrupulous banks escaped punishment via 'accountability firewall'

Lock up the banksters. Or, as the Banking Commission put it, create a new criminal offence of "reckless misconduct in the management of a bank". This is an excellent idea.

It flows from the key insight in today's report: that senior individuals at failed and unscrupulous banks have escaped punishment via an "accountability firewall". The top brass was able to plead that it couldn't be held responsible because, like Macavity, it wasn't there – responsibilities had been delegated and decisions made collectively. That must change, says the commission. About time, too. "Don't blame me, I was only the boss" has become the failed bankers' anthem.

It is true the banking crisis had multiple causes, not least central banks' bubble-blowing policies. But lack of accountability in boardrooms was clearly a major factor behind shabby behaviour, which was the commission's remit. Obliging senior bankers to show they acted responsibly is a sensible reform.

The threat of jail would apply only in extreme cases. For practical purposes, the commission's more important proposal is to abolish the feeble "approved persons regime" the Financial Services Authority operated ineffectually for a decade. This became little more than a box-ticking exercise and, once an individual was through the door, it was hard to be expelled.

In its place would come a "senior persons regime". The title is hardly snappy, but the principles are sound. It would apply to fewer people – just senior management – and individuals would have to assume specific responsibilities. So no more bleating that everybody everywhere was mis-selling payment protection insurance, for example. In future, if PPI was your responsibility at your bank, your pension may evaporate, the commission suggests. That would concentrate minds.

In lower ranks a licensing regime– broader than in the past – would operate and ought to be better equipped to deal with cases like Libor-rigging. The practice, we now know, was widespread but only a few alleged ringleaders will face prosecution.

The banks, inevitably, will hate licensing. They had proposed a professional body to uphold standards. The commission's response to their self-serving idea is suitably robust: have your professional body if you wish, but don't pretend it is a solution to anything.

Actually, the banks will hate large chunks of this report, which is fair indication that Andrew Tyrie's commission has understood how the industry ticks. Account portability --– which would enable customers to switch banks more easily – is too expensive, the industry argues. Really? Let's have a panel of expects take a look, says the commission, because portability might stir greater competition, which is half the battle in encouraging better behaviour.

On Royal Bank of Scotland, the commission could be said to have pulled its punches. It has not backed a good bank/bad bank split – just demanded to see the detail of the Treasury's study. But that's a reasonable stance as this is a technical question. There would clearly be a cost and hassle to restructuring RBS, but there could also be a gain from having a healthier "good" bank provide stiffer competition in lending. We need to see the Treasury's calculations.

Most of all, though, it's vital that the commission's proposals are implemented. The quickest way is to table amendments in the Lords to the current Banking Reform Bill. The chancellor should give his blessing.

1. Singapore is focus for latest rate-rigging scandal
2. Prime minister should appoint top civil servants, report recommends
3. Eight questions the Co-operative Bank needs to answer

1. The best news photographs of the day
2. Picture desk live: the best news photographs of the day
3. Picture desk live: the best news photographs of the day

We are concerned at the threatened closure of the northern "national" science museums: Manchester Museum of Science and Industry, the National Railway Museum, York, and the National Media Museum, Bradford (Report, 5 June). These are of enormous value to both scholarly and popular understanding of our industrial and scientific heritage, and represent one of the few areas where there has been a concerted attempt to develop national museums outside London. The news of the threatened closure of institutions which preserve our industrial and cultural heritage is particularly ironic, given that it follows shortly on the heels of the prime minister announcing his strong backing for the creation of a London-based Margaret Thatcher Museum and Library, at a cost of £15m.
Peter Scott Professor of international business history, Henley Business School at the University of Reading
Etsuo ABE Meiji University in Tokyo
Alison Bancroft Queen Mary, University of London
Bernardo Batiz-Lazo Professor of business history and bank management, Bangor University
Mark Billings University of Exeter
Regina Lee Blaszczyk Professor of business history, University of Leeds
Alan Booth Professor of history, University of Exeter
David Boughey Associate professor & associate dean, University of Exeter Business School
Martin Campbell-Kelly University of Warwick
John Chartres Emeritus professor of social & economic history, University of Leeds
Martin Chick University of Edinburgh
D'Maris Coffman Director, Centre for Financial History, University of Cambridge
Bill Cooke Professor of management and society, Lancaster University Management School
Richard Coopey University of Aberystwyth
Stephanie Decker Aston Business School
Neil Forbes Professor of international history, Coventry University
Dave Goodwin
David J Jeremy Emeritus professor of business history, Manchester Metropolitan University
John Killick University of Leeds
Katey Logan Business Archives Council
Peter Lyth Nottingham University Business School
Niall MacKenzie University of Strathclyde
Mairi Maclean Professor of International Management and Organisation Studies, University of Exeter Business School
Christine MacLeod
Ian Martin Senior Lecturer in Business Information Technology, Leeds Metropolitan University
Rory Miller University of Liverpool Management School
Robert Millward Professor emeritus of economic history, University of Manchester
Peter Miskell Henley Business School at the University of Reading
Simon Mollan University of Liverpool Management School
Stephen L Morgan Professor of Chinese Economic History, University of Nottingham
Simon Mowatt Associate professor of management, AUT University, New Zealand
Lucy Newton Henley Business School at the University of Reading
Richard Noakes Senior lecturer in history, University of Exeter
Derek J Oddy Emeritus professor of economic and social history, University of Westminster
Brian O' Sullivan
David Paulson University of Cambridge
Andrew Perchard University of Strathclyde Business School
Andrew Popp University of Liverpool Management School
Michael Pritchard De Montfort University
Michael Rowlinson Professor of organization studies, Queen Mary, University of London
Philip Scranton Professor, hstory of technology and science, Rutgers University, USA
Kevin D Tennent University of York
Steven Tolliday (University of Leeds), past president, Business History Conference
Steven Toms Professor of accounting, joint editor, Business History, University of Leeds
David Walker Scottish Oral History Centre, University of Strathclyde
James Walker Professor, Henley Business School at the University of Reading
Maggie Walsh Emeritus professor of American economic & social history, University of Nottingham
Peter Wardley Head of history, University of the West of England
Deborah Woodman University of Salford & Huddersfield
Judith Wright
Chris Wrigley Emeritus professor of modern British history, Nottingham University

1. Letters: Railways on track
2. Letters: Train report meeting
3. Council leaders say these cuts simply cannot go on | letters

New approval procedures for using spies will be required under legislation announced by minister for policing

Ministers have announced proposals to tighten up the regulation of undercover police following a succession of scandals over the infiltration of protest groups.

Damian Green, the minister for policing, told MPs on Tuesday that under the plans to be brought before parliament the police spies would be deployed only following approval from an outside body.

In a second reform, the use of the spies would only be authorised by chief constables. Previously, officers as junior as a superintendent had the power to deploy spies. The officers infiltrated political groups over many years.

The announcement of the new legislation follows a long-running Guardian investigation that revealed abuses by the spies in an undercover operation monitoring political campaigns since 1968.

The investigation showed that the undercover police routinely formed long-lasting, intimate, relationships with the activists they were sent to spy on. At least two police officers had children with activists while they worked undercover.

Police have also conceded that it was common practice for the agents to adopt the identities of dead children to develop their fake personas.

The controversy began two and a half years ago when the Guardian revealed details of the seven-year deployment of the police spy Mark Kennedy, who lived among climate change campaigners and who had several relationships with women upon whom he spied, one of which lasted six years.

Three senior judges later found that Kennedy might have acted as an agent provocateur.

Called before the home affairs select committee, Green said that any covert deployment lasting more than a year would need to be authorised by the office of surveillance commissioners, which monitors covert operations by state agencies.

The watchdog, led by the retired judge Sir Christopher Rose, has been criticised for failing to rigorously invigilate the use of many kinds of surveillance by government bodies, ranging from the police to local councils. Under the plans, the office would have to be notified before any operation was begun.

Green said: "Undercover police operations are vital in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. However, covert powers must be used proportionately and only when necessary."

He said the new measures would "provide enhanced judicial oversight of all undercover police deployments".

The proposed legislation brings into force proposals by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary last year, in a report into Kennedy, who infiltrated environmentalists for seven years.

Sir Denis O'Connor, then chief inspector of constabulary, said the level of authority needed to deploy an undercover police officer for several years in a protest group was less than was required to plant a listening device in the car of a drug dealer.

Under present rules, a warrant from the home secretary is required for a wire tap, but police can take on new identities, living in the homes of their targets, with nothing more than a signature from a superintendent.

O'Connor described the discrepancy as surprising, and said "serious consideration" should be given to legislation that would make undercover policing as accountable as other forms of intrusive surveillance.

1. Mark Carney’s in-tray: challenges facing Bank of England’s new governor
2. Pain Spreads as Credit Vise Grows Tighter
3. Singapore is focus for latest rate-rigging scandal

1. G8 summit: Politics live blog
2. Nick Clegg faces questions over Rennard report: Politics live blog
3. Cameron and Miliband at PMQs: Politics live blog

Chief executive António Horta-Osório tells MPs that Lloyds shared its doubts over the bank's financial position with the City regulator and began to look into a 'Plan B'

Lloyds Bank discovered an alarming shortfall in Co-operative Bank's capital position – which made it unlikely the Co-op would ever be able to complete the purchase of 632 Lloyds branches – in December 2012, a full five months before the shock Moody's report that downgraded the mutual's bonds and the £1.5bn rescue package unveiled earlier this week.

In evidence to the Treasury select committee, Lloyds chief executive António Horta-Osório revealed that in December 2012 Co-op Bank privately handed Lloyds a revised projection of its future with the business it was planning to buy from Lloyds, and it became apparent that it did not have sufficient capital.

"We had doubts about Co-op's capability in December 2012 when we were given the revised plan for the Co-operative Group. From the combined plan for Co-op and TSB, our analysis was clear that there was a shortfall of capital. And that was when we had our first concerns about their ability to close the deal."

On Monday Co-op Bank unveiled a £1.5bn rescue deal to plug a hole in its capital and stave off a taxpayer-funded bailout, which will see the bank's bondholders suffer deep losses. The recapitalisation came after Co-op Bank said in April that it was pulling out of the deal to buy 632 Lloyds branches, which was swiftly followed by a six-notch downgrade of Co-op's bonds by ratings agency Moody's. Moody's downgraded Co-op again on Tuesday, warning that "further burden sharing" may be required if the restructuring of the bank proves unsuccesful, and said bondholders may get as little as 35% of their initial investment back.

It has also emerged that NBNK, the failed rival bidder for the 632 branches of Lloyds, warned the board of Lloyds in a letter in January 2012 that Co-op would not be able to finance a deal and that the 'overstretch' would put Co-op's financial security and mutuality in jeopardy.

Horta-Osório told MPs that Lloyds shared its concern about Co-op Bank with the regulator, then the Financial Services Authority, and demanded assurances from the mutual that it was still in a position to go ahead. "We were told that Co-op Bank had several options that were meaningful, such as selling its asset management business. But we were concerned and we had doubts. We were reassured that they had options, but we were not totally reassured."

From December Lloyds began to focus on 'Plan B' – the separate flotation of TSB as an independent bank – but the bank did not go public with its doubts about Co-op or pull out of the deal at that stage.

Horta-Osório said Lloyds, as it was mandated by the EU to break up the bank, had in any case to press ahead with establishing a separate TSB entity, so gave Co-op the benefit of the doubt. "We were surprised to see that there was suddenly a shortfall in capital [at Co-op]. But we had to go ahead and build a [separate] bank in any case."

Lloyds insists that at no time did it face political pressure to forge a deal with Co-op to boost the mutual sector. But Horta-Osório and Lloyds' chairman Sir Win Bischoff were repeatedly pressed by MPs why it turned down the NBNK bid, which was worth £630m upfront compared with the £450m that Co-op was prepared to pay, plus a further £250m over time. Bischoff said: "The Co-op Bank was an established bank, it had a relationship with the FSA, staff, and ratings from two agencies. NBNK had none of these ... we gave them five opportunities to bid, we couldn't have done any more. Overall, the NBNK bid was slightly lower in capital terms."

The letter that NBNK sent to Lloyds board in January 2012 warned that Co-op could "overgear itself and leave it financially vulnerable," if it tried to buy the TSB business from Lloyds. It detailed concerns that IT systems in Co-op were "in disarray", that there were "continued delays" integrating Britannia building society and that the bank had a "weak capital structure." Bischoff confirmed that Lloyds received the letter but still felt at the time that Co-op represented the better bid.

But the failure of the Co-op deal may actually benefit the taxpayer-owners of Lloyds, said Horta-Osório. The separate flotation of TSB will cost Lloyds £1.6bn, he said, but the improvement in equity markets since the deal was first struck with Co-op means the prospect for the flotation is now much better. "The taxpayer might come out ahead."

1. Eight questions the Co-operative Bank needs to answer
2. Care firm under investigation over treatment of 83-year-old
3. Birmingham mosque stabbings: police question 32-year-old man

The archbishop of York's anti-gay marriage speech articulates the view of a church that drowned out liberal voices 20 years ago

The archbishop of York's speech against equal marriage in the House of Lords on Monday represents another step in the Church of England's stumbling retreat on the issue, and does a lot to illuminate the reasons that it was defeated. I wrote "equal marriage" because the church has now accepted that gay marriage is coming, and that lasting gay relationships can be godly. It just wants to call them something other than marriages, and still feels this matters.

The archbishop, John Sentamu, asked: "What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them? However, that is a big question, to which we are going to come. I am afraid that now is not the moment."

No. It isn't. That moment passed years ago, when civil partnerships were first brought in, and the archbishop's was one of the loudest voices demanding that the Church of England have nothing to do with them. The bishops still don't realise what damage they did then.

Even the supposedly liberal Rowan Williams said the other week, while lecturing on the fifth anniversary of his sharia speech, that "I am not wholly clear to what problem same-sex marriage is the answer" – at which my neighbour whispered: "He's an idiot if he doesn't know the problem is not listening to gay people."

So Williams is an idiot on this subject. And so is his colleague in York, and both for the same reason, very damning to Christians: they failed to listen to the weak because they thought the noisy bullies mattered more.

When civil partnerships came in, the two archbishops fought hard, along with the rest of the Church of England, to ensure that they had no religious or spiritual content at all. This was a monumentally stupid position for an established church to take, and the nation duly went ahead and injected its own spiritual contents, leaving the church looking like a whitewashed tomb.

Of course, it looks like frightful bad taste to say this now, flogging a dead horse and all of that. Yet I have a particular reason for doing so, and this is that the Cambridge college dean who married me and my wife, 25 years ago, was also the first Christian I knew to point out that the church should be marrying gay people as well as divorced ones, like me. "What we have to ask," he said, "is whether a gay couple can be a means of grace to one another."

In the late 80s this was still a startling question. The only out gay media person I then knew was Peter Ackroyd at the Spectator, and one of our colleagues there was a Sloaney woman who trilled "Have you heard about the miracle of Aids? It turns fruits into vegetables!" The Independent's sports desk had a bonding ritual involving elaborate homophobic abuse: "Sausage jockey? He's the Lester Piggott of the chipolata circuit," one man used to say who later became a celebrated liberal commentator.

Yet here was the dean of Trinity College, a figure at the heart of the established church and one of the very few Christian intellectuals I have known who kept his acts and his beliefs in harmony, telling me that equality was a Christian imperative. That was how the dons who then ran the church thought, and quietly acted.

But they never understood that power was passing from the dons, within the church as well as outside it. When the great evangelical backlash against gay people came in the 90s – culminating in 1998, when opposition to gay rights became one of the tests of orthodoxy within the Anglican communion and the main cause of its subsequent schism – the dons were all swept away. Williams, than whom no one could be more donnish, was also completely powerless in these matters, partly as a result of his own disastrous choices.

Retreating from the actual condition of the Church of England full of gay and tolerant people into a fantasy of an Anglican communion that had neither but would be "a global significant player" as George Carey once told the United Nations, the evangelical party made a church which could neither lead the nation morally nor even move with it and made instead a virtue of being out of touch. Looking at their church now, I remember Kipling's brutal epigram on a soldier shot for cowardice: "I could not face my death. This being known, / men led me to him, blindfold and alone."

1. Who are these ‘little Englanders’ David Cameron is playing to? | John Crace
2. The G8 could act radically to stop tax avoidance. Don’t bet on it | Andrew Rawnsley
3. Prism surveillance: spies thrive in the internet’s legal free-for-all | John Kampfner