In the first part of the interview he comes across as a novice conspiraloon where he namechecks people who seem to have scant regard for the scholarly method, this is done with the help of the interviewer who intrudes in the interview in order, at times, to push his own agenda. Ignoring this aspect of the interview Farrell does make some interesting points.
Starting at ca 39.40 he begins to talk about how his dismissal unfolded. He explained that he had to prepare his threat assessment for the 8th July 2010. In the run up to the big day, he had been considering the alternative hypotheses of inside jobs etc based upon various truther websites and documentaries he'd seen. Although his threat assessment was essentially complete he had a crisis of conscience with regard to what he was going to present to his superiors with regard to terrorism. This troubled him with regard to his loyalties within the hierarchy and so he dropped his superior a briefing note. He explainied that, although the terror threat assessment was only a small part of the overall matrix he was preparing, this aspect was causing him huge problems.
The next day (7th July 2010) Farrell's boss, the director of intelligence, asked Farrell whether or not he could still deliver his presentation. Farrell explained that everything was in place such that he could deliver on the due date.
When the due date came, 8th July 2010, Farrell said he presented a ludicrous report where he focused on the terror aspect of the matrix. He then went on to describe the process that was used to remove him from his position.
Throughout this description he explained that he was one of 43 principal intelligence analysts. The analysts used police information systems in order to prepare these assessments which he described as crude and flawed from a statistical point of view. He said that the threat assessment process was a gimmick to deflect from wider issues and a massive distraction from allowing analysts to do their jobs. (A comparison with R J Heuers' Psychology of Intelligence Analysis may be of interest, particularly for those who haven't read it.)
Beyond that, Farrell doesn't provide much more details as to what is a matrix threat assessment. However, searching the internet gave me a link to Project Sleipnir
"This paper describes an analytical technique
developed to rank order organized groups of
criminals in terms of their relative capabilities,
limitations and vulnerabilities. The rank ordered lists
of groups are components of strategic intelligence
assessments used to recommend intelligence and
enforcement priorities for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. Two versions exist: one for
organized crime which is publicly available, and one
for terrorism which is under development.
This technique uses rank ordered sets of
attributes for comprehensive, structured and reliable
measurement and comparison of qualitative
information about organized criminal groups. The
organized crime and terrorism versions use separate
attribute sets which reflect the similarities and
differences between the two classes of groups. Each
attribute is defined, weighted, and has a set of
defined values. The definitions minimize the degree
of subjectivity in interpreting and assessing
information for these assessments. The results are
presented as a matrix showing the attribute values for
each group. The definitions and weights for each
attribute set reflect consensus of opinions of
individuals from the RCMP and other agencies with
expertise in the topic areas. Consensus was achieved
by using the Delphi Method."
It isn't clear from this particular reference but I think that the technique stems from 2007.
As to his legal woes. He begins to discuss these details at 50.55.
He got the push on the 2nd September 2010 since his beliefs were incompatible with his position as a senior intelligence officer and further, it wasn't possible to re-deploy him anywhere else in the service.
His legal advisors told him that there where two issues with his dismissal
- beliefs protected under law
As to his beliefs being protected he was quite clear about the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Farrell went on to explain that he had an employment hearing date for three days beginning the 7th September 2011 but he already has had a preliminary hearing (a pre-hearing review) on 24th May 2011 which determined whether or not he had a claim with regard to his beliefs. The judgment appeared four weeks later (will try and get a copy) and found against him; Farrell explained that the judge found that his beliefs were not deemed to be protected under the 2003 Regulations due to a lack of cogency and/or coherence.
Farrell has taken legal advice which says that he has grounds to appeal since, in the opinion of his barrister, the judge misdirected himself because he applied the legal test against the validity of Farrell's belief rather than the genuineness of his belief. Farrell has until the 28th July 2011 to lodge an appeal against this decision.
Further thoughts ... it isn't clear whether or not Farrell is being jerked around by spooks pulling strings. It's difficult to get a handle on the real Farrell especially through the process of internet interviews etc but I can see the construction of a hyperreal Farrell: perhaps in this particular interview unwittingly, in other interviews/articles not so. The hyperreal construction of Farrell is that of an embattled conspiraloon who must be suppressed.
In this regard I feel a bit sorry for Farrell. Perhaps this will change as more details become known, perhaps not.