Previous: “Martin Ingram” Document – Parts 1 - 17
(Martin Ingram Document – Parts 18-39)
Parts 18-25 – A synopsis of the Stakeknife book with notes and a Saville Inquiry extension on Frank Hegarty.
Part 26 – The Dirty War (book) on Frank Hegarty.
Part 27 – The SAS in
Part 28 – The Dirty War (again) on Frank Hegarty.
Part 29 –
Part 30 – Martin McGuinness (book) on Frank Hegarty.
Part 31 – Ingram’s Saville Inquiry evidence (Bloody Sunday document)
Part 32 – PA report on Ingram’s Saville Inquiry evidence.
Page 33 – Officer Y’s evidence to Saville Inquiry.
Parts 34-36 – Stakeknife (book) – Ingram’s CV, with notes.
Parts 37-38 – Ingram on British Spies in
Part 39 – The Sunday Tribune, 20.02.06 (by Suzanne Breen).
Stakeknife Book (Synopsis) & Saville Inquiry on Frank Hegarty
P8 – “My wife, who herself is a nationalist from a deeply republican family.”
P8 – “My wife was incandescent with rage at the audacity of the British; she could not believe the lengths that a government will go to.”
P9 – “The Irish government was informed of these developments through the good offices of Jane Winters, Director of British Irish Rights Watch and a trusted confidant.”
P9 – “The Irish government, who granted me Irish citizenship some years ago, were to their credit, willing to raise the matter immediately at an intergovernmental meeting.”
P12 – “I now
hope to see a free, democratic and united
P21 – Ingram joined the army at the age of 19 (possibly 20) years and spent ten weeks in the Parachute Regiment.
P22 – “Some weeks later [after tests] I joined 85 Squadron [for Intelligence Corps training].”
P23 – “My first posting was to
P23 – “I then moved to Headquarters
PP23-24 – In 1982 he would apply and become part of
FRU. “After completing my FRU training [in
P24 – “In late 1984 my father became seriously ill
with a heart condition and I was posted to a security section close to my
P24 – (Willie Carlin and Frank Hegarty were “exposed as FRU agents” and moved out of NI). “Because I had a working knowledge of both parties, I was seconded to L Branch of Repton Manor, in Templar Barracks, which was the Special Intelligence Wing (SIW) unit given responsibility for dealing with resettlement of agents.”
P24 – “After this I was posted to
P24 – “I returned to
P24 – “I was then posted to FRU West in Enniskillen. During my tour in FRU West I met a young
lady who was to become very important to me. She was a native of the republic,
working and living in
P24 – “About twelve months later, in late 1990, I applied for and secured a plum post in the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall in London [P25], where I left FRU.”
P25 – “On my posting to the MOD I informed the vetting authorities, as I was required to do, that I was living with this lady and that I intended to marry her. They carried out their own checks and found the same family links to republicans as I had twelve months earlier.
P25 – “….My
expertise was in
P25 – “I chose my girlfriend, who is now my wife. I applied for, and after some difficulty was granted, the right to buy my way out of the army, leaving for good in 1991 with an exemplary record…”
P25 – “The Force Research Unit (FRU)…was sponsored and funded by the Director of [P26] Special Forces (DSF). The FRU operated from 1980 up to the early 1990s when its name was changed to the Joint Services Group (JSG). The name change was necessary for political and symbolic reasons after the arrest of Brian Nelson by the Stevens Inquiry.”
(Emphasis, where used is mine.)
Book Comment and Analysis:
Page 8 - “My wife who herself is a nationalist from a deeply republican family has been a pillar of strength and support.” The language is overcooked. Other reports say she is a nurse from Donegal. With just that information, if true, it would be no big deal for the IRA to locate the wife, identify her husband, and publish name and photograph, which the wedding would most likely have supplied. An observation that could apply to both sides of the Irish border. For whatever reason it did not happen.
And their marriage records would be accessible,
whether in the
As for his wife’s “deeply republican family” (whatever that means) – were they defrocked by the local Sinn Fein cumann?
Page 8 – “My wife was incandescent with rage at the audacity of the British.” Dramatic language again. An over emphasis to make a false point? The probability is that his wife – whoever she be or wherever she be from, played no part in framing her husband’s concocted stories.
As for the “incandescent with rage” quote. That was first used by another FRU handler in Ten-Thirty-Three - a book mainly about Brian Nelson. On that occasion it was attributed to the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher (P. 57). FRU running a military and literary cooperative?
Page 9 – “The Irish government was informed of these developments through the good offices of Jane Winters, Director of British Irish Rights Watch and a trusted confidant.” Was she – really? Adding: “The Irish government, who granted me Irish citizenship some years ago, were to their credit, willing to raise the matter immediately at [a British-Irish] intergovernmental meeting.” Could it be, departments of state obliging an ex-British army twister, part of the democratic process face unseen?
Ingram says the grant of Irish citizenship was “some years ago”. Years preceding 2003-4, that is.
The bleeding heart sergeant doing a nine-bob-job the reality of which is the inverse of that presented – the “whistleblower” dressed up as a whistleblower.
That one came out of an MI5 Christmas cracker.
(A series of “digressions” numbered 1-20 intervene before returning to the Book Comment and Analysis sequence)
1) “Sham official or semi-official actions….”
Sham official or semi-official actions - tilting at windmills - are not confined to courts of law. Elsewhere the system is a perfect facilitator for shadow boxers to sport their skills, within lacquered corridors and without. The deadliest exponents of this dark art are those who never had to fight hard for a crust in their lives, insulated state cowards of that ilk who can be pressed on to brutalise with fountain pen and paper and are unconcerned with who or what they destroy with words or deeds.
Insiders who can get their half truths and lies up and running, fielded under incidental headings in written articles, documentary disclosure and through interviews.
And by book publishing.
Having a former position of power is an advantage. Thus the “news” is dressed up as personal insight from one in the know and not representing another interest.
Even on pension they are still on call to disinform to the people on behalf of the people.
[Believed external intrusion of computer noted in the
immediate above sentences, inserted on
Were this information given while in state employment it would be considered an offence for which the perpetrator would be classed a “whistleblower” by the press and subject to a procedural gamesmanship by the system, involving a legal process that tumbles on to nowhere.
A judgement as applicable to organisations as individuals, where the messenger is part of the lie, even when acting otherwise.
Another inversion of reality is when the “investigative” journalist is subjected to a contrived imposition of law for putting leaked security information into the public domain.
An at-a-remove way to create the perfect storm within the “democratic process”, entailing walk-on parts for “rights” groups, supportive politicians, on-the-make lawyers and a suborned media.
Even the most cynical cognoscente would be hard pushed not to laugh as the “whistleblower” is paraded on page, screen and in offices of state like a trophy convert at an evangelical meeting.
Too often the patsy’s of the piece are the police who haplessly inject themselves into proceedings on behalf of our secret state masters.
For all that the biggest stooge is the taxpayers who, without a by-your leave, is obliged to fork out for the ongoing unscripted displays of theatre.
(I surmise legal costs concerned with bogus secret state pothers over the extent of the Troubles amounted to not less than hundreds of millions €/£. One may need to factor in personal awards and extraneous costs on top of that.
Big business by any definition.)
Perhaps the best tongue-in-cheek lie within a generated controversy is when the lead actor declares his or her actions a response to an attack on press freedom.
A tried and trusted secret-state reliable made possible in the final analysis by judicial incuriosity on the abuse of courts of law.
Do I reflect kindly?
2) “Did you hear the one about the media outlet…”
Did you hear the one about the media outlet, of liberal hue and politically correct by reputation, which ran from an issue of public importance, it having a state security sensitivity, but adopted a compensatory tribunal leak in the “public interest”?
Thereby a false persona of whistleblower is created in the latter instance and an issue of substance is suppressed in the former.
A psychological tactic to downplay one by the adoption of the other and preserve the image of the media source.
Subtly dismissal is realised by understated ridicule. A variant of a classic deception from the toolbox of shadow state.
A game plan that makes a non-party of the invisible third party who is by implication dismissed without formal address.
3) “Counterparts of the above are the…”
Counterparts of the above are the security writers who concentrate on the bleeding heart portrayal of a story, the concerned leftie formula, always there to report and promote at every opportunity, even naming names from a safe redoubt, though this may be a misdirection.
The same scribes, come a questioning of them, are protectively endowed with freebies. At a remove leaks from the national security warehouse, a repository of incidental or non-quota catches, chatter, often times with a human angle bound up in a political scandal.
A generated controversy to elevate and fill pages though it may suffer the sacrifice of another asset or assets.
A leg-up for a hidden friend or friends of secret state, scribblers of false sentiment who for pressing reasons cannot be undermined, involving at times the expedient shafting of a lesser friend or friends – done down by a privileged entity who equate self interest with national interest.
An at a remove “float” or “sink” job to promote and protect themselves and their ways against attack or challenge.
The exposed – the players in the lie – unable to defend by owning up, must fall on their sword.
A real scoop would be an exposition on the how and the why of the above: the off record. But you won’t get it.
What you will get is an example of the non-existence of intelligence agencies in our midst.
4) “Carrying on…”
An exposé of the names of secret-state chameleons, politicians who overtly champion set-up whistleblowers while covertly working to sink the real, would be a civic duty. But one needing a special insight as only part of the story is public property.
However know well the octopus has many tentacles, lop off one and another will take root in its place.
To abstract further, note the loose cannon similes in generated controversies, which like the tail of the scorpion have been known to sting the head.
While analogous terms like friendly fire and collateral damage may define incidental human consequences, they are never used to challenge the instigators because of an omerta sacrosanct above the standing of even the most elevated victim.
Defending party ‘A’ by exposing corporate entity ‘B’ would breach the most binding protocol and open the sluice gates.
Better that truth be subsumed into a lived out code of non-existence, one made possible by big brother acting out a game of operating at a remove.
An intelligence agency staple to effect plausible denial, the lying disconnect, which like legal tender is honoured by all relevant offices of state.
A self protecting caveat.
Self protecting caveats pertaining to physical force operations where real blood is spilt and lives forfeited is the same as that related to generated controversies where the most injurious potential, aside from dissembling to the people, is the denting of reputations.
To both codes of secret state puppeteers a privileged anonymity and exculpation reaches out from the shadows.
A cop-out for shysters beholden to a dubious allegiance and nigh an insurmountable obstacle for those in pursuit of truth.
It is so because the system cooperates in active fraternity to make it so. And none other than an aggrieved nobody daring to mount a challenge.
A non-swimmer entering deep water alone: metaphor and reality.
5) “Artificially introduced public spats…”
Artificially introduced public spats, generated controversies, are intrinsic to the intelligence game. False representations of democratic freedoms apart, they are another tool in the cheater’s charter to aid control and direction – to disinform and abuse.
And to elevate.
I’m saying, not all heated public debate is the product of a healthy democratic process, some of it is injected for hidden ends.
If the motivation for these engendered polemics is not obvious to sight, it lurks somewhere.
A freebie is not pulled out of a hat – it is a leak and has an ultimate source.
By recognising the style and knowing the who and their appendages, one can sometimes pick up on the purpose.
Be cynical and alert to the fact that not all crusader onslaughts are for the edification of the people.
As likely a trip on the magic roundabout.
6) “In the divide between police and…”
In the divide between police and intelligence there is a duality of purpose in which operating principles differ.
In this conflict of aims, the raison d’étre, lies a conflict of priorities. A conflict between systems and at times within systems.
Core values of the prevailing philosophy are: control, direction, ownership. All pursued through an at a remove deniability.
Knowing to whom that primacy is due and knowing its near all-embracing manipulative proclivities are not solely directed at perceived enemies of state but also at citizens of state, one asks if this formula is a priori efficacious in the peoples’ interest?
Is it in any way a protective etiquette?
It offers source (informers/agents/assets) protection, this without implying a universality of application. It is most of all for self protection.
As a protocol does it conform to the rule and the spirit of the law and is it amenable to redress and correction?
Is it conducive to the infliction of avoidable deaths, wounding and destruction?
Incompatible remits and conflicting priorities, like paramilitary operations given a free hand, are prone to uncertain outcomes.
If one part of the security nexus is functionally accountable, the other is not.
Therein resides a fatal dichotomy: an uncontested within replete with power and ownership brooks no challenge.
All powerful, all pervasive, unseen, it is untouchable. Free from meaningful oversight, it goes its own way.
To the intelligence handler the promise of continued returns from informers can carry a higher premium than interdiction or arrest in compromised operations.
Baldly put, the dog of duty is wagged by a transcending doctrine in the modus operandi tail.
A near cult-like ritual prevails over moral and intellectual reason.
In the Troubles this primacy and its concomitant management system prolonged the agony and greatly increased the body count.
And financial cost.
A monster created by our protectors took over and became master. As always, it’s the people who pay the price. In this instance, unknowingly.
It is so because the media and the system only engage passively to its influences, if they engage at all. They log, report and maybe comment on a recorded public consequence but are not disposed to pursue and unearth or speak the unspeakable.
Unasked and unanswered are the questions of how and why? In reality the fourth estate and the system collude and lend effective succour to secret state to the point of being a veritable adjunct thereof. A carapace to protect and disinform – to lie.
To my ken, no direct provision exists in law or through precedent that obliges national intelligence agencies to belong to the real world most of the rest of us inhabit.
Custom and practice will determine no questions are asked following from bloody outcomes of their actions or inactions; endowed with privileged anonymity and exculpation already iterated, that which does not exist cannot be held to account.
And neither by convention or record judged complicit.
If social media makes it possible to rail against this wrongdoing, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one’s voice is heard.
Criminals of state do not easily break ranks. Your blood and the blood of others feeds their families.
(Yes, I am more aware than most they are not all criminals. However, those who are not tend to be time servers or the shy, silent type.)
As for the writers and politicians who most invest in the “rule of law” as a slogan but will not say to whom it does not apply, national intelligence agencies, I give a rule of thumb score sheet on the cost of lives lost in the Troubles when the modus operandi of secret state and reality collide: Secret State xxx+ Innocents o.
Not, I believe, an exaggeration.
7) “Talking a bout incompatibility…”
Talking about incompatibility as related in the short section above, I now reflect briefly on another form of incompatibility.
Over the years I found that groups and individuals with strong religious dedication were employed ad-hoc by intelligence agencies in respect of my person; while not confined to the evangelical Christian persuasion this particular was the most tasked of the many faiths.
Was it because an amateur psychologist in the pay of state considered I would be susceptible to their message?
That and more.
One to give a new direction and priority in life, away from the pursuit of truth and justice and in their control?
Much like those who remember family victims of terrorist actions by setting up “peace” and “human rights” charities, thereby attaching to the same system that as likely as not made possible the loss of their loved ones and withholds on truth for fear of implication.
Slay the dragon – but how?
Perhaps the most constructive way to thwart secret state wrongdoing is by unearthing and exposing their wrongdoing.
But the citizen has no recourse in this regard, private or institutional. Our media, our political representatives, our offices of state, and other bodies, including “rights” groups, are functionally there to misdirect and cover-up.
All that we have, all there is, is suborned by the transcendent force in the wrongdoing.
It is so because of the extraordinary power intelligence agencies can exert via a manifest range of connections, by established protocol and through the already iterated custom and practice, by manipulation, and by corrupt influence.
There is no high higher and no low lower that is out of bounds to them. Were they in charge of the Olympic Games, we would all be prospective medal winners.
I’m saying they could fix it.
Shine a light on them: spell-out the potential consequences of their actions and inactions. Admit to their terrorist successes carried out in another’s name (yes, countless examples exist: think big and use an abacus). Deny them the evasion of acting at a remove, the bolt hole of plausible denial. Start up with a charter of obligations and responsibilities. Put the bastards in their place. Leave them in no doubt as to whom the first duty is due – the people and their welfare and not a monkey puzzle tree of escape clauses.
A modus operandi enforced within these parameters will protect whereas that which obtains, bereft of defined obligations and responsibilities, has utterly failed to hold them to account over the extent of the Troubles.
If asked to speculate in clear numerical terms the price of that failure over those years, I would say hundreds of lives.
I am not alone in thinking this. It is so because no template exists beyond which intelligence agencies cannot trespass – an excess above which they can be held to account by a genuine system of oversight and regulation.
A bench of handpicked judges or a parliamentary committee of trusties is ill-suited to undertake the task.
Conversely, play their game and they will through facilitation and induced grant entrench your misdirection.
A captive respectability further endorsed by exploitative politicians and “human rights” lawyers with a like disinclination to excavate what shadow state would prefer was kept buried.
At high cost or no apparent cost you will be shunted into a siding – yes, after a another few years of life has been whittled away.
As for the trip to nowhere. You can at least read about it in the following day’s newspaper.
Just remember, incompatibility isn’t necessarily incompatible.
8) “Whatever for magic roundabout sidebars…”
Whatever for magic roundabout side bars, isn’t uttering the words “Praise the Lord” and doing so while accommodating murderers, child murderers to boot, self evidently incompatible?
Not so, it seems, for many beholden to active religious belief.
Okay, when approached by lousy state and asked to undertake a mission they will not be informed of the reality behind the request. And not being security cognoscenti they will not know the true harmful potential of the people making the request.
Like many before they will be given a sanitised and productive to ends explanation. An appeal to their goodness.
Yet when the story from the other side of the coin is made known to them, they do not back off or make admission.
A sense of duty gifted without question to security state has no counterpart for the simple soul bereft of support.
A real opportunity to speak up for God is met with silence. A tangible way to “Praise the Lord” is ducked.
The preference is to hold fast to the imposed ritual at the cost of truth – the lie of the shining eyes and the smiley mouth.
A projection often set within an adherence to American style Christianity.
Superficially it may appear incongruous that evangelical Christians would be so disposed and used.
But no, in my experience they are most receptive to this pitch.
In at least one instance that I can easily remember, offensively so.
Variations of this religious-themed approach were played in New Zealand, in England and in Ireland.
Suggesting it is a standby tool from the box of tricks.
How anyone can see virtue in obliging secret state in the name of God is beyond me.
It is profane.
I say to those whom I love and wish to know, you have the right to seek me out in your own name but not as an instrument of state. One initiative will work, the other will not.
A direction I make equally to those with a religious predilection and those with none.
Have the moral courage to reject state approaches, attachments and formulas – be your self.
Where my address is known, I plead that you would pursue a direct initiative. Write to me or call in person. I will with alacrity of mind and heart respond.
Please do not come forward at the behest of national security interests. I am in not in need of a minder or a local overseer.
Besides, by special providence I am unseeing in the immediacy of any such manipulation. I do nothing to negate them. The answer lies elsewhere.
As words in a poem put it: “They who give me special sight, make me special blind…”
It goes on to reject the ways of man, the ways of national security agencies that is, and the conga of lies party to that direction.
In another context I ask if there is any chance of a Christian (evangelical or other) who on reading these words will consider making their mission the pursuit of truth on behalf of others?
A search that unfolds grievous wrongdoing by intelligence agencies and delivers on justice. Work I have been doing unaided for nearly forty years.
Done in His name it will more than surpass all the devout words and preaching you ever did.
It will set you free.
9) “As I am not of the system…”
As I am not of the system and not bound by the ways of the system, or disposed to lie for it, I carry on. Philosophically speaking, of course.
In yet another classic of insidious dissembling a lousy left name is uplifted by an ostensibly independent political press source. A contrived non-story translates into something it isn’t by being carried and discussed by other media outlets.
By a slick piece of news manipulation a generated article assumes the mantle of a genuine article, a state asset transforms into a concerned protector of the people.
That is just one niche in the bureaucratic division of the spoils. For the ordained and the destined maybe another trick?
Earmarked and adventurous high echelon political office aspirants sometimes effect dramatic parachute drops onto de rigueur photo-shoots.
The gesture grand with select words blend and clash with camera flash, images and captions for promo books in the making.
(Ah, yes, the book, don’t forget the book, the book. And remember the signed copy for your friends who will, after a respectable passage of time pass it on to a charity shop with other discards or toss it into a green bin for recycling.
A fitting end for a politically motivated abuse of trees.)
Repeat the trick often enough and the principal in waiting is soon mentioned in peace and human rights terms, a defender of the forsaken, from which devolves an entrée to mingle with the right people on the global long neck circuit.
The back room cabal of elites, arbiters of imposition and influencers of destinies at home and abroad - if you are on side and proved to be so.
The movers and shapers who make things happen on behalf of those who own the shop.
(And don’t you know it – meet-ups done without a dip in the purse or pocket of the attendees.)
Building blocks for making a CV. With enough credits after their name the anointed are in the bag for a handy way to make a living – an elevated position of importance somewhere.
Keep the bib clean, hide unpalatable truth, stick to the petal path, and all it needs is time.
It is as easy and cynical as that. As a repository the lousy left is a safe house to more nine-bob-notes per hectare than any other societal grouping.
Indeed they are the imperative of choice in the game of intelligence control and deception, if only because of the promoted perception they are best disposed to give ear and public ventilation to whistleblower claims.
One also notes the other ear is invariably given to the wails of the politically correct cohort – the feather duster army.
Where and when it really counts, on issues of grievous wrongdoing by intelligence agencies, this shower fire only blanks if they fire at all.
Like iron filings to a magnet a captive audience surrenders. A more apt juxtaposition for a tacky lot – secret state flypaper?
Another imperative is to have much of the best fruit hang from the highest branches, so that the unseen without can better project the suborned within, those with the most power to control and influence, to an indeterminate people endorsed goal.
An added formula with a history not confined to the Troubles, is where a state asset and a big name counsel lock in mutual legal embrace – lending gravitas to a lie to which both are party and which a duped public will pay for one way or the other – and handsomely.
Hidden manipulators of generated controversies are not liable for the incurred costs or chance outcomes of their actions.
A protected specie who rarely figure in court cases, commissions of inquiry and other dissecting factories; defined bodies confined to questioning the by-product of the creation, but not the why of the creators who hide behind a smokescreen of privilege to which many lawyers are overly deferential if not closet friends of.
The latter thinking reflects in the main on the safe pairs of hands to whom security sensitive briefs are awarded in the knowledge the boundaries within will be respected.
A legal attitude disposed as much by heritage as reward to work a formulation predicated to a desired end by dealing with what happened and not why it happened – or the who, who through their actions or inactions made it happen.
Notwithstanding a succession of costly and time consuming court room side shows, there is no calling to account the real perpetrators. The mire of official circumlocution and those party to it will see to that.
However, in contrast to, and in the protection of that covert entity, the considerations of victims typically bounce along a rocky road to erehwon.
Meanderings made possible by a briefcase toting band of entrepreneurs ever on standby to play their part, one in which the witholding of unpalatable disclosure unerringly trumps the grant of justice.
A result of this confliction of lawyers and legal processes is to cruelly inflict a slow torture on one side and a corresponding enrichment on the other by an ongoing chase of the mirage of justice on behalf of those murdered and maimed through the modus operandi of intelligence agencies.
The meat in the sandwich is lost sight of in the contest of law: an esoteric cerebral game, like chess, but nowhere near as definitive or benign.
No “why?”: no truth. No truth: no justice. No justice for the people who are ill-served and bled, metaphorically and sometimes literally, by a system they pay for.
A system unduly influenced and susceptible to the values of those who watch over us with a self ordained remit.
A primacy of the ways of shadow state above the welfare of the people.
One manifestation of this is in the financing of a state defence against a peoples’ challenge.
While the former is nigh guaranteed by a dip into the taxpayers’ pocket, the latter is subject to state protective political whim.
If responsible governance demands that this be so in some part, justice in cases of egregious abuse by state upon the citizen does not.
Another manifestation of state ways is to long-string the pursuit of justice to the point of the decease of victim(s) and their loved ones.
Notwithstanding the surrender of battered and broken spirits to the Lord.
The perpetual crawl in the dark for security sensitive disclosure lives on.
Commercial life is unending.
Where lawyers grow rich going nowhere, and judges pass time parsing law to pension, truth lies unrequited in a graveyard.
An example of the inexorable march of time claiming that which could not be bought or silenced by other means.
As we are mocked by those who make the denial of truth and justice possible, so we can pay them back by creating a parlour quiz out of their lying ways and gaming of the system.
Have fun by reflecting on what I have said and attempt to work out how many names past and present reside in the above combinations.
A good rule of thumb is to think big at every level and use the nine out of ten template. A helpful guide in this context is to count the cumulative pension entitlements of certain high echelon state friendly (and invariably media friendly) names.
Pension pots made possible by a burdened and deceived multitude.
In that I direct, in the main, to politicians, heads of agencies and institutions, national and international.
A long list of high moral ground liberals – lawyers, teachers, academics and representative others propelled up the tree of state and supra-state.
A process whereby those chosen by divine providence enter upon a natural progression from a lesser to a greater.
A privileged non-productive class who know how to spend our money better than we do, and thereafter live grandly off it.
Not missing the journalistic exclusives publicly trailed under the investigative label, leaked files of intelligence or confidential ephemera showered on us by set-up whistleblowers with a near mandatory national security connection.
The disgruntled operative formula, people with high security clearances who come to see the error of former ways and are given a pulpit to broadcast to the world their Road to Damascus conversion.
The giving hand and receiving hand are links in a common chain.
Also, be prepared for twists and turns and journeys to nowhere, for that is where the magic roundabout can take you.
10) “April 2016 Update...”
April 2016 Update: I add a splash of colour to the above. Once in Dublin town I read a notice advertising a public meeting to protest against payment of a utility charge.
Three speakers from the lousy left were listed. All had been independently used over time by a state agency in respect of my person.
Each manipulation to which they were party incorporated plausible denial.
The intention of the exercise, were I naive enough to make an approach, was to facilitate a “sink” job being done on me on behalf of national security interests.
That I didn’t engage in the staged encounters is not important, the intention was that I should. After that it was sayonara to truth and the search for justice.
I allude to the placing of a lie on the record. That or an attempt at dismissal by other means.
On seeing the names on the notice, I smiled and thought: a photograph of that would look good in a scrap album.
Reader, are you surprised? Having lived in this environment for most part of forty years, I’m not. It is par for the course.
A reality to which the wider public is not apprised.
In matters of national intelligence we are mocked by the unseen, the unreported, the fraudulent.
Black is white. Fake is real.
11) “I reflect narrowly on the multifarious…”
I reflect narrowly on the multifarious science of surveillance. Fixed surveillance of an observational nature but including where possible electronic intrusion, usually takes place from a property near to or within the targets residence.
An experienced operator will have no difficulty deciding on the best choice of properties for the job. Locations effectively pick themselves.
Next stage is to find amenable owners or tenants within those choices; or to facilitate the placing of amenable owners or tenants within those choices.
Surveillance by in-house residents and/or by entry of others on a rota basis. Note that side door and/or rear door access is also an option for the latter.
As to who will oblige, at times the least obvious are in fact the most likely. Judge not as you would but as our master’s do.
(I once knew informally an elderly republican from a former era. A touch of the fossil in him – but very genuine. However, he could be easily taken in. How? All the other side had to do was to speak his language, precisely or in near terms, and you were family.)
My experience of being on the receiving end of surveillance extends from County Cork to Dublin; Coventry, Kenilworth & elsewhere in the UK; New Zealand where I spent three months in 1983; Australia where I spent three days in October 1983.
(I was in a hurry.)
Who facilitates surveillance? The full spectrum of humanity is there. Once the force behind the throne was a Quaker – an extraordinary piece of hypocrisy. A member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Amnesty International and other counterpart groups.
A pacifist who will have feasted well on what MI5 paid her for my few years as a next door neighbour.
Selectively I surreptitiously observed my surveillers, day time and night time, seeing and defining the presence of hidden occupants within chosen properties.
I include the Quaker’s residence.
The Quaker looked the personification of the upright middle class liberal intransigent. Mature of age. Tall. Slim. Ascetic.
Long flowing blue-rinse hair. A psychedelic loose fitting dress extending near to ankle level, as haughtily she strode, a leader of her kind.
I visualise her taking a small, elderly Japanese man on a journey of homage and reconciliation to a British war memorial.
I am in no doubt she suckered many a genuine activist of protest politics by informing on them. An irony is, she likely informed on other informers as they did on her.
What she had in abundance was a hard neck. I would come to consider her to hold a perverse morality which she appeared very much at home with.
One that did not shy from involvement in acts of evil.
Maybe MI5 hold to having her and her like on-side as “clever”? They might even consider it clever to be able to murder their own (and other) citizens and not be held to account in courts of law or parliamentary chambers?
A step too clever by far?
Only the middle-class and the respectable involved in or attached to secret state double dealing and surveillance? No.
Greenham Common, Faslane, Shannon Peace Camp, pro-Palestine groups; all (and more) were/are loaded with input acting on behalf of national security interests.
Indeed, certain names in that spectrum were not above pro-actively creating a cause célébre on behalf of those interests, to which the faithful flocked in fraternity to what appeared a spontaneous eruption of protest.
Other calculated demonstrations leading at times to arrest, court appearances and even nominal incarceration, are a sales pitch to the politically innocent.
Veritably the face looking into the mirror attacks the face in the mirror.
One such entity I came to know as Big Bird Inc. A short bright star in the sky they were, in which a named particular would in time receive an unscheduled but thoroughly deserved come uppance.
(I am happy with my input into that. But you don’t know about it – do you?)
Re the Big Bird Inc mention above. There is another smile-inducing name given to them, but it is less ambiguous so I will not use it.
(Indeed, it is humorously offensive!)
Come election time when those with representative aspirations knock at your door looking for a vote, proclaiming in word perfect terms their skirmishes with the law on behalf of and in solidarity with “working class” issues. Ask: “A 9-Bob-Note?”
You will almost certainly be correct.
Likewise when the “whistleblower” of today is before the court, who is in the queue to offer back-up? – none other than the “whistleblower” of yesterday.
A Class 1 state asset speaks up for a Class 2 state asset. Do you remember the analogy of the dog chasing its tail? His nose came out of the mouth!
Put another way – a national security “whistleblower” is a national security “whistleblower”.
12) “As republican informers…”
As republican informers lived out their part in IRA operations (by shooting and bombing: murdering, that is), so too do those who insert themselves into the protest movement on behalf of the same interests.
Not only do they act out their persona, which can at times include breaking the law to garner publicity, they are often what they portray, living out the lie naturally.
A contradiction more apparent than real. And if taken to court for an abuse of law – military or social trespass, for example, judges and the media dispose to pronounce benignly on the overt appearance of the event, as if the reality is lost on them.
But then, for some, maybe it is?
Intelligence agencies have an obsession to defeat on one hand and control and direct, to own, on the other. A habitat of choice covers a spectrum of humanity from its loftiest tiers to the sewers of life, which can at times be one and the same.
A good description of them, found elsewhere in this compilation, is “cruel and without morality”.
A dominant force craving subservience – part of that ownership – and inordinately protective of favoured public names who serve their cause.
Doing things that didn’t need to be done by allowing things to happen that should have been stopped.
Public toilet-creeps and criminals are levers in that control. Drug dealing and other serious crime is tolerated as part of the framework. All and more are used by intelligence agencies and compensated from the public purse for services rendered.
Difficulties with the law can in some respects be ameliorated or negated. A charmed existence is one possible hallmark.
Staged theatre to high-profile – publicise and disinform – is another calling card. As it was for onside republicans, so too for their enterprising criminal friends.
Family needs, housing and other – and family members, looked after here and there through a judicious pulling of strings.
No-work jobs with plenty of side money is a common feature.
A quid pro-quo at the expense of others.
Intelligence agencies are master manipulators and facilitators. There is nowhere they cannot go. Cost seems no object.
But then, they do not pick up the tab – you do!
As you make possible their existence through the payment of taxes, you can also deny them by witholding.
Make them accountable.
A taste of the double-talkers of which there are larger lists elsewhere. I relate to veiled threats. The cowards who creatively use passing world or local news events with double meanings. Allusion to death by radiation poison. Separately allusion to death by polonium. The bog hole in the Dublin mountains. Etc.
Another theme extrapolated from news events is where the life of a prominent person ends suddenly in questioned if not questionable circumstances. My interlocutors would (and did) say – “He/she was killed because he/she knew too much.”
One morally dead exponent in a not overlong conversation not less than four times said he would “light a candle and say prayers” for me. I made a return.
Was the prayer and candle lighting offering analogous to an event that concluded in Gibraltar in March 1988, on which I had close to the time done a read through on my non-Internet connected computer?
xiii.viii.mmxviii, lá an francach camra uimhir a ceithre. A piece of ugly theatre acted out just for me!
(And Saturday-Sunday 15-16 September 2018, another fine mess... A triple whammy, if truth be known.)
They will understand what is being said – they only need to go back to the date and see what was on the menu.
13) “I am eighty two plus years old…”
[Digression 13 as referred to in some communications is now renumbered Digression 14.]
I am eighty two plus years old (2022). There are people in my life to do with a peripatetic and complex past whom I love and wish to know, and for many years tried to get to know.
Indeed, from tenuous indications, it may be fair to say there is a desire on the other side to want to know me – one, alas, subordinate to state influence.
Every overt effort to pursue this natural aspiration was intruded upon and taken over by national security interests.
The information I seek is known to the respective intelligence agencies but is denied to me.
Anomalous as it may seem, the said agencies can lay claim to having much of that understanding before me.
Apart from saying they can access that which I cannot, they will have through surveillance from the late 1960s to mid 1970s observed my interests, contacts and relationships while resident in England, an interest that seamlessly took on an extra-territorial dimension on my transfer to a new way of life in west Cork, Ireland.
In their possession this appreciation is potentially an instrument of control, one that can only come to me by their gift, that is through the medium of manipulation.
Done, I acknowledge, in cooperation with the parties concerned. If without any right to object in the circumstances, I still find this loyalty deflating.
More so where an understanding exists to make contact outside the direction and control of a national security interest.
What I’m saying is that where my address is known it does not imply the rationale of a direct approach: an online communication, Twitter, to give an instance, a letter, a knock on the door…
No, the only route open remains by secret-state facilitation.
I allude to attempts by state to achieve link-ups between myself and blood connections. Manipulations repeated on and off for decades without a positive outcome.
Designs put into effect, in the main, by UK-Ireland intelligence agencies acting in concert. A suggestion that if I play the game a favour will be put across my path.
By its nature a one-sided journey to nowhere.
A conclusion arrogantly assumed without preamble or exchange in which I contribute. And, worse still, performed through the medium of manipulation.
While I have never consciously sought to defeat any such approach or evaded the person within these across my path encounters, for reasons I alone seem able to comprehend, the concept does not work with me.
I am always blind to it in its immediacy. And they who know everything don’t know why.
Notwithstanding a 100% failure rate, the state side seems doctrinally incapable of ceasing its use.
Likewise, I will not relent on the pursuit of natural aspiration by the way of God.
For me there is no other way.
Within that, however, I am curtailed by a need to be prudent in my UK travel intentions. For safety and other reasons I feel obliged at times to remain in Dublin.
On this and more a stalemate continues.
It says much for the persuasive talent of the involved agencies that they can induce others to take part in manipulations the consent to which is an abuse of self.
It also suggests a Jekyll and Hyde approach in dealings with the respective sides and a reminder that power can impose on others to accept their ways and lies, contrary to natural disposition.
If the used in the regime thought beyond a manipulation gone wrong, they would likely know their own use is only one link in a chain of events with an ulterior motive hidden from view.
The state has reason to keep its conscripts in the dark.
If you are blind to the jigsaw picture beyond the standpoint of self, do not slot into it.
My advice for the approached is be wary and don’t be inveigled into doing something you would consider capricious and not ordinarily approve of.
There is no flattery in subsuming oneself to national security entreaty.
Oblige once and you are on file for possible future use. Some secret state handlers will ask other mothers’ children to undertake assignments they would not ask of their own.
In the convoluted world of national security activity nothing walks a straight line. Nothing is as they say it is.
The DNA of state and those who seek in these matters on their behalf is not inclusive. If the solicited is blind to the dangers and damage their actions may cause, the other side is not.
In only one respect is there a collective sharing: each side has the comfort of knowing the truth of their participation will remain under lock and key.
Does that say something?
Every overt action by intelligence agencies is inextricably linked to plausible denial, the lived out notion of non-existence, hence a modus operandi always acted out through the medium of manipulation.
Were the manipulation to succeed, typically an across my path encounter, to the target reacting to it, it would come across as a coincidental happening or even an “act of God”.
Not seen, it didn’t happen.
If you have the temerity to question otherwise the “mad defence” (an extension of plausible denial or dismissal by insult) may come into play.
The political mouthpieces for the invisible army will declare in words or in writing that it never happened, if possibly using more circumspect language.
Without tangible evidence to the contrary, the aggrieved party is left high and dry by the lie of a cold and brutal protocol.
In respect of my person, it’s their way or no way. By their way the twain will not meet, and the reason why, notwithstanding an unending saga of failed manipulations, is outside their experience and know-how.
This despite them having filched data providing explanation on what is an esoteric understanding.
One which is incompatible with the doctrinally rigid operational mores of secret state. In confrontations between the two, the forces of love have won out over the ways of man every time.
No matter how perfectly timed an “across my path” (manipulated) encounter might appear from the standpoint of the other side, it makes no difference.
By the way of man nothing will go right. By the way of God nothing will go wrong. A philosophy that holds to no exclusion in these matters.
The way of man has never prevailed. By their way I do not see-know at the time of doing and possibly thereafter. I speak literally and not metaphorically.
I relate to attempts to achieve a close down through thematic variations of affairs of the heart.
If one initiative fails, the secret state will go on to another. In time, after running out of initiatives, in rough terms, the cycle begins again. The outcome is as before.
Party in initiative ‘a’ knows not of party in initiative ‘b’; party in initiative ’b’ knows not of party in initiative ‘a’; party in initiative ‘b’ knows not of party in initiative ‘c’.
All parties are abused and demeaned by being conscripted to this artifice.
Never within this context is truth allowed to intrude or be considered. Again I speak from the standpoint of the other side.
I have oft times tried to outwit the grasping control of state, efforts typically entailing I leave my house on a bicycle laden with backpack and provisions to tide me over trips extending to days. The intention being to undertake research and possibly make contact.
Exits made in darkness and in daylight. Heralded by telephone or letter, or unheralded, it made no difference.
Each time done I am almost always picked up from the off by surveillance from a close neighbouring property.
(I use the singular. However, ongoing fixed surveillance is rarely down to one constant.)
Dear pals, for your own dignity and for the sake of justice to others please reject the ways of state and be your own person.
Come by the way of God.
I love you.
14) “On Monday 2 March 2020…”
On Monday 2 March 2020 I was asked if I would be going to England soon, having indicated weeks earlier it was being considered. The respective secret states, London and Dublin, probably wanted me to go then. Why? An enterprising pursuit by me of a situation that was alive in 1986, the year of the motorcar and more, was in its new incarnation violated and ultimately terminated by state incursion that day.
The concerned authors of the crashed initiative indubitably wished to install a post-haste compensatory package. One to mitigate the bitter tears of disappointment at what god hath just taken away?
How? By another manipulation.
Well that’s the benign interpretation. In saying thus, I reflect cynically on the potential aftermath of a replacement manipulation that would almost certainly end in failure.
All others did.
In the days following failure, days before my return to Dublin, I would be a hostage in no man’s land, a predicament open to a possible repeat of Warwickshire 1986. I allude to the hidden meaning in “the year of the motorcar and more” reference five paragraphs above.
The year 1986 and the present time, March 2020, have certain parallels. In some respects history come close to repeating itself.
Inside the past year I did, in one instance, indicate, and in a second instance, identify, a former senior national security agent in the republican movement.
Disclosure was made in a specific context. A personal and family name was given. And too a codename – Infliction.
The respective state agencies showed concern that I should express what I have for years known. Indeed, express what they most likely believed was for years known to me but not explicitly or overtly stated.
Months back [in 2019] I imparted reserved understanding on this to a third party, a close to authority source with whom I was familiar. It was conveyed after receiving an assurance it would be subject to a protective confidentiality.
My giving in a social setting was done without motive. It would seem the promised confidence was protectively shared.
The resulting outcome was an over the top reaction by state involving a manipulation to which I was in its immediacy blind.
Given the history of these things, the outcome was no more than the involved security agencies should have expected.
They further appear blind to knowing my blindness in these matters is impartial and not moved by perceived notions of vicarious elevation.
It is so because of a spiritual dimension that is unyielding to the ways of man – no matter the heart’s desire or how great the want.
I also suspect state parties acted out their game as if dealing with a coequal: one who would see, understand and embrace the presumptive quid pro quo on offer.
They were wrong. I did not know what was afoot – I allude to an ill judged invitation to reciprocity – and when I did it angered me.
I have no affinity with the ways of national security agencies. To me they are alien and repulsive. As well as seriously sick.
Notwithstanding, is it possible for me to absorb their designs in real time? Yes – they only need come by the way of God.
In the manner of man, as that coming was – and has always been, I did not know.
Not least in its immediacy.
Given that which divides us, and the why of it, perhaps this should come as no surprise.
All that breathes and abounds is not for shadow state to own. That within this soul is out of reach and not amenable to their pursuit or control.
Unshakably loyal to the primacy of own ways, security agencies neither see or care that my aspirations are shaped from within and cannot be suborned by imposed inducement from without.
My wish is as much for others as myself, a goal of justice for the living and the dead – that is my prayer.
After years of dwelling in a shadow world an unspoken bond was struck between survivor and the lost. Both sides victims of state terrorism.
Ours is a cry for truth that time cannot defeat or death silence.
It is infinite.
The dichotomy I find myself in lies betwixt a conflict of rebounds from national security agencies and aspirations to do with the search for justice.
In the former I allude to understanding that has come to me in incidental giving consequent of actions by secret state.
I refer to returns from across my path encounters involving adult children and myself that traipsed by unrequited.
State constructed encounters that always failed in their intention. An in passage opaque seeing was my ineluctable return.
I strive for correction in these matters in the UK and beyond.
Past experience tells me this is unlikely to be volunteered. A predicament compounded by state agencies beholden to operating at a remove – by manipulation.
The antics of which are concerned more with silly games of opt out (plausible denial) than with resolution.
On this the little red rule book of secret state is rigid and parties to it are counter-productively entranced.
The black soul of Joseph Stalin would be proud of the Security Service and its Irish counterpart; and those other national agencies with whom they entwine.
In common modus operandi they operate and cooperate in fraternal union.
Whatever for the fraternal cohesion, I was always blind at the outset of their attempted enactments to link hearts and minds by massaging events.
And rejecting the implied suggestion of exclusion of others when not. The giving with the left hand was unbalanced by witholding with the right hand.
For me an unacceptable conflict, a lacuna between a mix of personal aspirations and a duty to a higher cohort, those gone to God.
For the state side it seems an understanding they are incapable of surmounting.
Their denial of natural humanity plumbs extraordinary depths – both cruel and criminal – which no one in political authority dares challenge.
(Note: For a small sample mention of names of “those gone to God”, please read sections 15 to 17 of this compilation.)
State agencies have long acted in the belief they know my wish list; thinking they know my aspirations, my priorities; and imagine they can meet them within the magic of their ways.
By that I mean doing everything through at a remove manipulations. The end purpose a cessation of bolshie demands for justice.
Silence and in their control, that is.
A protocol that has in its doctrinal rigidity prolonged a cruel odyssey and no doubt caused deep hurt to those on whom its constraining obligations are imposed.
Notwithstanding the long history of these tactics, they have always ended in failure when applied to me.
I nod to an odious concept in which well paid adults demand of others they act out childish games of pretend.
Manipulations done in the name of the holy cow of plausible denial – the lying disconnect. A hiding place for the cowards and murderers of secret state.
At eighty plus years of age I do not have another 40 years ahead of me to devote to this contest or be an involuntary component in their game playing.
There is a need for me to go to the UK and pursue matters of immense personal importance without intrusion, threat or denial from a national security agency.
I fear more the loss of my aspirations and failure to the number one priority than I do the malign potential of the Security Service and its fraternal counterparts.
This includes the Irish nexus, sometimes known to me with maybe a hint of exaggeration as An NKVD Nua (Eire Cumann). Whatever, they are as hidebound and rotten as the rest.
Collectively they have destroyed a big part of the living of my life and show no sign of leaving the feast. Like jackals they hide in the scrub while morsels of meat cling to my bones, opportunistically darting in and out to steal a mouthful – like they did on Monday 2nd March 2020.
Something that was unnecessary became necessary because their assumed mastery of a situation was being challenged.
Not, I add, in a corporate way. I dared to enter what they consider their territory and was booted off the field.
They took control.
My subsequent failure to be captured by their ways may have appeared a stubborn rejection of those involved or a gambit – it was neither; and thinking themselves ring fenced by plausible denial they dropped the guillotine.
Not the wisest call. A bit of a boo-boo in fact. A foolhardy dash into the breach by an ex-army officer galloping at the head?
A triumph of arrogance over human aspiration – a charge I attach solely to the manipulators and not the manipulated.
Secret state are indifferent to the harm their capricious philosophy inflicts on others. Their ways must prevail no matter what.
There is almost nothing they will not do to achieve control or defeat. Even work on the extra sensitive pursuit of filial tracing was taken over and denied by them.
They do what they do because they can get away with it. When all is in their ownership they only need lie to deny and no one will contradict.
Their dissembling is unchallenged over the full gamut of authority and in the media. In respect of myself, that position would have been no different in 1986, if tested.
MI5s “off-record” actions elsewhere in the1980s is symptomatic of the brutish criminality they are capable of. Nearer to a privileged mafia than an agency of a so-called “democratic” state.
Best illustrated when advancing agent handling protocols to the ultimate conclusion – death.
Yes, of others – civilian and security forces. Reflect on UK and Euro IRA actions, for example. Many compromised operations allowed to proceed in acceptance of the potential consequences.
Their self ordained and ambivalent on the ground intelligence functions allow in conflicting measure a duty of care and a freedom equal to a gross repudiation of calling.
I would like to be a contributory in establishing precedent for a more defined secret state accountability. One in which the welfare of people is paramount in its functioning.
The counter-wish seems to say this is untenable – as if they are the referees of what is permissible in the lives of others.
All part of an unspoken premise of entitlement.
Notwithstanding, the greatest failure comes from those who make possible this process – they who cower in obligated silence in political chambers.
A silence imposed by convention for which there exists no rationale or scope for correction. Veritably a negation of constitutional representation and the rule of law.
It all makes nonsense of the boast of Britain being ”the democracy so long the envy of the world.”
Were it not for a distorted mindset MI5 would surely accept the work I do is more rightly theirs. Through state grant they enjoy a perverse tangle of values in which the guilty are subject to inordinate protection, while the innocent and their loved ones who pay the price have no remedy in the search for truth.
When the state through its agencies and agents knowingly fails in its duty to protect life as it has done on countless occasions during the Troubles, it associates with the crime of murder if this was the consequence of its actions and inactions.
On countless occasions it was the consequence of its actions and inactions.
Murder is murder whatever the imprimatur; as deadly by prosecution as by omission – or through vicarious attachment.
That’s as I know it. If national security agencies are above judgement in these respects, please tell me in clear language why it is so.
Don’t tell me the human rights of national security agents or assets is above that of the innocent citizen.
Pressing on, is it possible to fashion a law to meet both sides of a statutory equation? Like embedding protective limits in intelligence protocols, including one that precludes managers and handlers from assuming the prerogatives of God in running agents and assets?
Enforcing a new thinking incorporating certain no-no’s?
Such as not asking others to accept potential red meat situations they would not accept for their own?
Nip prospective outcomes in the bud?
Do not show an unhealthy interest in a target’s health, on or off record, as was done with me in the UK and Ireland.
(Dare I say in respect of my person the interest was for an expedient to avail of should an imperative arise? This without a guarantee they would be “lucky” in the intent. For an “off record” and “more” day, try Thursday 2 January 1986. Another “off record” job, Friday 22.08.86.
Play the game like chess – not war?
Outwit not out-murder?
I am asking if there is a way for stealth work to be carried out without impeding an operational goal in which the preservation of life is put above the protection of a knowing?
I say yes, even if it should at times discommode or expose.
Is a balanced measure of overview an undue price to pay for saving life?
I say no.
My thoughts are on a system that stands outside the current “rights” groups and Investigatory Powers Tribunal process.
(Part of the UK model.)
I believe this ostensibly competing formulation is prescriptively unfit to deal with higher levels of national security wrongdoing.
Too many place people involved, to begin with – place people put there by place people. Sparring partners, really.
The difficulty in adjusting the global etiquette of convenience between governments and intelligence agencies is in breaking the mould.
Time for the boys and girls with blood on hands to face the bloodless revolution? If so, start with the politicians.
End – (2)
As mentioned in bold text section within digression 13 above, “Party in initiative ‘A’ knows not of party in initiative ‘B’, party in initiative ‘B’ knows not of party in initiative ‘A’...”
Yes I believe another manipulation was at least in the throes of being generated. As to who it might be I do not know, but I would like to.
But not to the priority of preceding or excluding elsewhere.
A knowing that comes by the way of God. A knowing that is direct and devoid of secret state control and manipulation. By such coming it will not fail.
National security manipulations touched on in this document are fashioned to entrap. Not in the usual sense of the word. More to create an at a remove ownership.
In respect of my person, the genre acted out in paragraph one (five lines above) was repeatedly voided by an ethereal vision with a short mind span.
(A memo to the slayers of truth who think I see as they think I do – I don’t. Nor do I see as they do.)
I am saying that in each instance the intention failed, if not always because the party involved on behalf of state was in the knowing unseen – or was seen but not in the knowing.
An esoteric understanding, to be sure, but very, very real.
After decades of this display of grace secret state still does not comprehend it. They do not know what comes to pass on my side of the manipulations and are apparently indifferent to the impact of failure on parties operating at their behest.
In repeating the subterfuge the executors are not only inviting another painful fiasco, they are saying there is only one road to the promised land.
A doctrinaire allegiance to a formula with an inherent contradiction – it has never worked. So persistence of use is down to dogma and not efficacy.
Its repetitive application is a victory of hope over experience: a hope that I’ll be hooked by it this time and all will be fine and dandy at the end of day.
An end of day with a “maybe sometime tomorrow” beginning. The Spanish word for it is manana.
No word in the Anglo-Irish intelligence vocabulary quite captures the same sense of urgency.
Having protocols set in stone for which there is no certification or outside critique ensures it.
But all this is a by the by on the ways of intelligence agencies. Much like sharing the same planet but living in a different world.
A confliction fraught with dire potential for some.
(To those unfamiliar with the modus operandi of intelligence agencies, the previous lines might read as gobbledegook - yes, but not to the cognoscenti. To be helpful in another regard, my words do fairly capture what came to pass in the manipulations. I acknowledge the subject matter, coupled to other nuances, can be difficult for outsiders to interpret.
However we are here talking about MI5 & Co. who are supposed to be up to meeting any challenge but can’t seem to overcome the in-built inevitability of their ways resulting in murder by default and failure in manipulation.
Correction is simple – come by the way of God.
I have made an impossible demand.)
Returning to the charades alluded to in line one above. That illustration represents a classic formula from the repertoire of secret state.
Literally put – across my path encounters staged to image chance events.
While incorporating the holy grail of plausible denial, a core tenet in their canon, they have in my experience, as I am bound to repeat, always come to naught.
Knowing the reason for that is not to know it will change. I can tell them, as in this document, why it is so but they will not deviate from their little red rule book.
Isn’t it a strange business when a failure to see is reposited at the door of the blind man and not the manipulators?
After almost four decades of being subject to variations in this perverse logic, I have no confidence in a voluntary shake-up coming about in their ways.
Not least if the inmates running the show are left to their own devices. They determine the rules but the lottery of consequences falls to others.
In those words reposes an elementary psychology lesson for MI5 and fraternals. All life is not yours to own or control in the protection of the criminality of self.
Chance pilots its own course. It is much at home with the hoped for as the unexpected; and is elsewhere beholden to that beyond the ken of ordinary folk.
Reposed in the latter context is the answer for my failure to respond to their manipulations – and the cause for the failure of their manipulations.
Even a flicker of light will not draw state crims from their hole of darkness. It seems the preference is for a repetition of failure unseen – the same old ritual.
Dogma holds sway.
A further truism is that the work of MI5 is not, per se, a national security secret. However in trying to hold them to account one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
The cover-up of secret state malfeasance is not an issue of national security – it is an act of self protection in the name of national security.
Whereas manipulations are a covert (and deniable) concept, national security instruments hug the threshold of overt when wheeled in to suppress disclosure and hide wrongdoing.
If initially instigated to protect meaningful state secrets, in the hands of “Box” they are weapons around which legal counsel and courts of law dance to preclude transparency and/or effect lockdown.
Veritably they are drawn on at times to install a bogus credibility on generated events. A use of power for power’s sake. If they deceive the home audience, or the guileless within, they do not deceive the enemy – the competing professionals in foreign intelligence agencies.
But that’s not the intention, they are primarily for domestic consumption in the confident expectation they will synch with all the cogs in the system somewhere along the line.
Lockdown labels manifest themselves variously through the Official Secrets Act, Public Interest Immunity certificates and the D-Notice. When used by intelligence agencies to underpin lies in the name of “state privilege” or “national security”, they are an abuse of process. There in particular to make fools of judges and lend an aura of “hush-hush” to “whistleblower” (or generated) proceedings.
(The Stakeknife story is a matchless example of secret state dissembling at a “whistleblower-investigative journalist” remove. A bogus UK-Ireland creation that attracted a near global audience.)
Event specific in intention, proscriptions are not broad brush absolutes. If it were so, what worth our supposed personal freedoms and where the policing of them?
Not through the media (the “free press”, etc.). Not through the political process. Not through lawyers or court rooms. Not through “rights” groups. Not through “whistleblowers”.
Will a reader come aboard and help find this fabled land and make known the deadly returns of a denial in accountability? Or do I seek a person and place unknown?
(In Ireland, yes. Especially in machines like Simon Coveney TD, Leo Varadkar TD, Mary McDonald TD – yes – etc.)
End – (3)
If the origin of the most recent concern, that brought to a close on Monday 2 March 2020, is believed to emanate from early 1986 to October 1986, when I left Warwickshire and returned to Dublin after an absence of nearly thirty years, an updating came to my attention recently.
While MI5 were the arbiters in 1986, an occasion to retrieve an opportunity lost to me then came about in 2019.
When tentatively pursued it was taken over by national security interests.
(Was it ever otherwise?)
Impotent and without representation, chance unfortunates caught in national security dragnets are at times pushed into responses they would not ordinarily entertain, like writing a document of this kind to unfold on a clique of cowards who hide a destructive propensity behind a thousand cloaks.
In our desperation for correction we throw many stones in the hope that one will strike a receptive audience. In all these years it has not materially happened.
While intelligence agencies are ministered by the full spectrum of society, including names that would raise eyebrows among the uninitiated; bereft of support the isolated citizen is left to stumble along the “lonely road” to nowhere – or give up the ghost.
All because on secret state wrongdoing democratic representation in all of its supposed manifestations falls off the cliff.
(To the long line of subordinate participants who have served national security interests over the years, some from close to home, your allegiance was never conducive to my wishes and could possibly have been harmful to my wellbeing and the interests of others. Never was there good within it. Never.
A direction particularly pertinent at this time [summer 2020 and beyond] to those acting at the instigation of Irish state players.
Working to implement state solutions is inconsistent with a search for truth. The intention of state is not to facilitate the grant of justice or unfold on truth but to terminate its irksome pursuit.
The always predilection of states’ – and those acting on their behalf – is to deny “national security” exposure.
The only exceptions to this rule were two American women who independently broke ranks in my favour in 1983 when I was being walked to my intended death.
[For further understanding read www.statemurder.eu ]
By moral deficit the multitude perpetuate state wrongdoing. That deficit is strong in Ireland at all levels. Including at the highest levels.
To those involved, I acknowledge you may not have known the potential consequences of what you were doing at the time – having read this far, you do now.
Will you too break ranks – step up to the plate, as Taoiseach Micheál Martin says – in the name of God? No, of course not. Your espousal of liberal ethics never travelled further than the name plate or the mouth.)
Play our game or lose out is the implied message of state. In colloquial usage, the neck lock. If I do nothing I lose. If I struggle I lose.
Because I am unable to play their game, I lose. Because they will not butt out and leave matters natural be, we all lose
I allude to aspirations of great personal importance thwarted by the intrusions of UK and Ireland state security.
Their blinkered reliance on pernicious protocols has robbed me of many years of precious knowing.
I point to an ownership that should not repose in the fiefdom of agencies of state: one where human leverage – nay, bondage – is tucked away until a moment of need arises.
A scrooge like hoarding of intelligence with a perceived bargaining power, which when brought into play is blind to the sight of target.
A curtailment made worse by the parties on either side of its ownership being unable to exercise self determination.
One by obligation. The other by exclusion.
(A party enlisted by national security interests is by corollary subject to state control and restrained from independent initiative – they are under obligation. A targeted party who seeks post event access by independent initiative is denied it – they are subject to exclusion.)
Just another counter-productive national security mannerism in which ideology trumps human dignity and common sense. It is so consequentially stupid it defies belief. I am here after all these years still making waves because of it. Activity hidden and denied a wider dissemination by the power of state. And if the state has its way, ‘twill be so to my death.
A denouement made possible by a silence of the righteous – the nine out of ten brigade – who variously posture and enrich themselves under the “human rights” umbrella.
(The collective surveillance and other costs racked up to my person in that time runs well into £/€ millions. A misdirection of money and energy that is only the tip of a far bigger secret state cost iceberg.
Remember, remember well, in any terms state interest in me has always been misplaced. I am not now or ever have been a threat to national security.
And I was never in membership or associated with people or organisations who were.
The only threat that existed was to my life and liberty, it coming selectively – and at times collectively – from four of the five primary national intelligence agencies historically involved.
I exclude the agencies of New Zealand – the tough guys in long sleeved black shirts with hearts of gold who did the job as it should be done.
A not so kind opinion reflects on their dumbstruck politicians.)
As those in secret state persist in the pursuit to control and silence, so do I in search of truth for myself and others.
Lest they think otherwise, I will continue with this fight for as long my aspirations remain unrequited. Aspirations that do not begin or end at the say so of MI5 & Co. I include that precious dimension scuttled by them on Monday 2 March 2020.
That I see as more a beginning than an end. Also, the final determination in these matters is not theirs to assume.
I will not be swayed or otherwise directed by their arrogance and narrow priorities. .
My aspirations have no connection to national security considerations. The denial of those aspirations is self evidently detrimental to national security interests, in that it has prolonged my fight and provoked the exploration work inherent in this document and elsewhere.
Only cloteens would allow themselves to become prisoner to a modus operandi that is in specifics neither efficacious or protective and was elsewhere destructive to the tune of billions £/€ in permitted major bombings and other terrorist offences.
To whom is owed the greater epithet of terrorism?
What secret state covertly does is in almost every fundamental repulsive to the laws of God and decent society, the truth of which is witheld from the people.
So it cannot be a surprise that the Troubles and its bloody aftermath lasted for as long as it did given the collective mindset in charge of one part of the divide and its controlling interest in much of the other.
Think of the mess they made and continue to make with this innocent party – somebody you had hitherto not heard of. Many in other contexts were not so lucky. Death claimed them in the name of “democracy”.
(One such name is mentioned at the end of this section.)
All of this is down to the elevation of a protocol in which the protection of a knowing is at times more important than the protection of life.
Think too of those who fruitlessly bequeathed the remainder of their lives in the pursuit of truth for loved ones consumed by the tentacled excesses of shadow state.
For myself, a pushed around old man pushing back, I desire natural aspiration and not a contrived attempt at deliverance by state agencies that is offensive in its terms and inevitably futile.
To that end, on Monday 27 April 2020 I posted a brief letter and compact disc of this website, less above deletions and since added text, to Mr Drew Harris, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána – chief of Irish police.
His attention was specifically drawn to this inclusion (digression 14).
Was the Intelligence and Security section of An Garda Síochána aware of the missive and apprised of its content before Commissioner Harris?
I am asking if the same people whose ill conceived policies contributed to the past are again in the driving seat, and, worse still, there with sanction to repeat their awful ways?
[They are. And I’m being punished and removed further from the pursuit of UK and United States, aspirations because of a propensity for direct speaking, an aversion to lick ass and an innate disposition not to be hauled in by their ways.
They will also object to my providing evidence of operational failures and pointing out grievous wrongdoing. I am anathema to the usual unquestioning fealty they get from others.
A deference which I believe is mightily misplaced.
If they would only think of the many privileged years they enjoyed while being salaried by the taxpayer. The same many years in which the freedom to live life naturally was denied to me by their actions and inactions. In all that while the costs of making contest and financing my everyday personal needs and obligations was met entirely from my own resources. I received no help or encouragement from any source. In truth the disposition of authority and those serving their interests was strongly otherwise. Notwithstanding, I was disposed to persevere. In one part to obtain that precious knowing by the way of God.
Yes, and more.
The pursuit of research-based justice for myself and others was fuelled by the actions and inactions of state agencies.
The forced re-direction of my life ultimately entailing the need for research and isolation is a consequence of the actions and inactions of state agencies.
I am where I am because of those agencies. The position is what it is because of those agencies.
It should also be said I was in all this time protected by a love not easily come by.]
For more understanding please consult the Security Service (London) and/or Intelligence and Security (Dublin). Two entities harmonious in cruel enterprise.
While there, put these questions to them. 1) “Who murdered Heidi Hazell?” (Shot near Dortmund, Germany, September 1989). 2) “Do you still think you can make ‘lampshades’ out of Seán Kelly?” (Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England, 1985).
For a qualified answer as to who murdered Heidi Hazell, read sections 15, 16 and 17 of this compilation.
For a hitherto unseen secret list of names supportive of my cause over the years, follow the dots…
(Please stay the course.)
End – (4)
PS. – “They only need lie to deny.” Words of mine used somewhere in the above. A quote applicable to a Saturday morning 20.06.20 “D-Job” in Dublin. I was not in the afterthought impressed or persuaded.
Nor with other repeats.
Again the priority is to disinform. In this instance to retro-install a lie. A way of saying what happened in the past didn’t.
(It did. And subsequent attempts to say it didn’t through the inimitable theatre of mime serves only to confirm it did.)
I allude to off-the shelf responses that have featured in UK-Ireland intelligence games over the years. Antics I dub “d-jobs” or an “undoing”.
Back pedalling by another name.
They are derived in some part from what I earlier described as across my path encounters: manipulations staged to image chance events which always went astray.
To dismiss a possible post event belief of what had taken place, a reprise is arranged elsewhere with a resembling other party substituting.
A way of saying this is what happened – not what you think happened, hence the term “undoing”.
At no time during an “undoing” did I commit the cardinal error of reacting and asking, “Hello, are you…?”, thereby inviting that I be disabused – the intention of the exercise.
Again, to play on the theatre analogy, you could say the stand-in was a veritable understudy in deception.
Walt Disney couldn’t think it up. But national security manipulators at high cost to the taxpayer do.
(Sorry if it is complicated. The script was not written by me. I have just tried to explain it.)
A few words to my tormentors. Were the “minder” (girlfriends) and, separately, pension themes of recent time (summer 2020 and on) bluff jobs following the failure of earlier tricks in which a negative outcome was ascribed to the blind man and not to their own absurd gamesmanship?
A softening up process to put manners on a recalcitrant target and make him more amenable?
As for the across my path encounters.
Is the cause for failure of these manipulations genuinely outside the comprehension of the collective states?
Or just too ideologically difficult to accept? Like the fact, in one broad regard, I only wish to know and not to own or be owned.
END – (5)
15) “From 1996, after the death of my mother…”
From 1996, after the death of my mother, to 2001, when living alone and requiring to go off for a few days, I would ask a brother, who lived in another part of the country, to come to Dublin and look after the family dog.
Contact was made by telephone. I was thereby signaling a travel intention to the national security agency.
In 2001, after years of owning me, my four-legged friend died. Nevertheless, the daily routine continued unaltered for about two or three weeks afterwards, including cycle rides into town.
On one trip, after locking the bicycle, I broke routine and got “lost”, visiting a location outside our jurisdiction to carry out research.
Work done, I returned to Dublin.
The following weekend when on an amble along a well-beaten track, I met a stranger walking a dog of the Spitz family.
An affectionate creature, it came over and befriended me. After a plausible reason was given for a need to re-house the dog, it was inferred it was mine for the asking.
I smiled within and carried on walking.
16) “What wrong have I done to…”
What wrong have I done to excite this extraordinary interest and denial? None. Where I am I did not seek but walked into.
I am a non-smoker and only an occasional light imbiber of alcohol. I have never taken drugs or had involvement in criminality or terrorism.
All wrongdoing has come from the other side – the collective of state agencies. I am holed-up by their wrongdoing.
It is that wrongdoing and the reason for it they wish to protect and whose propagation they seek to preclude.
In their understanding continued surveillance is necessary because I never gave up the fight for justice, and always evaded entering a controlled situation, one giving effective ownership of my life to state through a surrogate, a partner known in the trade as a “nanny”.
A “knickertrap” or patriotic form of prostitution to a certain anonymous other.
For the target, a soft prison regime without tariff. For the state, an anchor to hold fast at a remove.
A goldfish bowl.
Embracing virtual life as natural life is a deception I am incapable of.
Cynical and demeaning, it is fraught with difficult to accept possibilities. I reflect on a child or children born into such a relationship, children who are through their mother de-facto state assets, being left at the mercy of a repugnant form of attachment beyond my life span.
Even if it means that I go “hungry”, as I have for the above and other reasons, it is more acceptable than fathering a family with a mother in covert state service.
Irreconcilable priorities come to mind.
(In the above I allude to only one system of minder control. An aspect of which at times incorporated initiatives by mothers to facilitate the use of a daughter on behalf of national security interests. Mother’s who are younger than me.)
Writing on this subject is difficult. I represent simply and reluctantly on a sensitive topic. Though I give, I very much withold.
In a surrogate relationship the need for surveillance is largely negated and a measure of generosity may be disbursed.
A giving acknowledging no wrongdoing. You see, before doling out what is a begrudged beneficence the target must lick ass.
How? By pretending that which happened didn’t happen: this in all of its manifestations. I must sign up to the lie.
Were this psychological submission and conjunction to be realised, the state would likely deem me ripe for what I term tertiary-level gestures that invite “justice” to be created by fortuitous happenstance. “Acts of God” and all that.
A lie made possible by the involved players acting out a position contrary to reality.
By perverse inversion the wrongdoers are the arbiters of correction.
The criminals sit not in the dock but on the judge’s bench and there decide on an at a remove compensation package for the target. A form of official blotting paper to ensure the stench of truth and stain of blood does not see the light of day.
And given who and what they are, the way of God does not and cannot enter into the scheme of things.
All natural freedoms are reduced or taken away by a secret-state pursuit to impose these hidden constraints. In instinctive rejection, as in my case, the target is pushed into self-enforced isolation.
By good fortune I am endowed with a capacity to survive this otherwise singularly difficult existence.
Besides, the presumption of state agencies thinking they know the priorities inherent in my life, towards which I should be shunted to their satisfaction, is not shared by me.
My prayers are private. My ways are different to anything they innately understand or have historically experienced.
I have spent about half of an extended lifetime contesting this skulking cowardice in search of justice with ne’er the sight of a glimmer of light from any source.
If not a story of life wasted, it is a saga of an awful lot of living taken away. Surely one in contention for the longest dog’s dinner on record?
As earlier implied, we render homage to these oppressors through the payment of taxes and are thereby vicariously culpable for what they do.
In respect of intelligence agencies, none of the “human rights” business labels have a sense of sacrifice or the courage to breach the protocols that make possible the hiding of secret state wrongdoing.
Indeed, using the nine out of ten template, they knowingly sleep with the enemy to the point of being an indivisible part of them.
(Some of the enriched woke brigade are so unworldly they are capable of nominating secret state assets for the Nobel Peace Prize.)
True of politicians, true of the legal profession, true of “rights” groups, true of the media. True of the judiciary?
When the latter can’t find evidence of events having taken place, knowing it has been denied to them, they surrender to intellectual guile because they fear to pronounce adversely on the reputed guardians of state as they would on others.
Intelligence agencies who withold on truth, who will undertake “off record” operations, who misrepresent actual happenings, who destroy evidence, who dissemble to their advantage and disadvantage of others, are privileged above a final judgement, they are given the benefit of doubt.
Where low-life crooks and murderers could never succeed, national security agencies do.
All because of judicial discretion – if that alone is what it is.
17) “I pose a question…”
I pose a question. Does the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists believe in bi-location?
I’m obliged to confirm they do, they really do...
Welcome to the Free West.
18) “A woman who renounced Islam…”
A woman who renounced Islam could more easily find refugee status in Saudi Arabia than citizens of the West can find truth on egregious acts of intelligence agency wrongdoing in their own backyard.
Hard to believe? Emulate my experiences and you will find why I have spent decades in the solitary pursuit of justice in a sometimes dangerous wilderness of mirrors without a crack appearing in the glass ceiling.
There are no human rights with intelligence agencies and no “human rights” names or agencies to hold them to account.
Ask Mary Robinson, the Hon Julia Gillard, Michael D Higgins, David Andrews, Michael McDowell SC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty, Jacinda Ardern, Mary McDonald TD, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
Perhaps in matters exempt from national security sensitivities and approaches from “whistleblowers”, the prospects of a listening ear are tolerably good.
For the real thing, no chance. Not in Australia, United States, Britain, Ireland… nowhere in the so-called Western democracies.
And don’t even think of writing to justice ministers’, home secretaries or “human rights” committees: that lot are no more than high cost political window dressing.
A fig leaf.
Indeed, they are there to lie, deny or ignore on behalf of national security interests, not to unfold.
You are on your own in the search for truth. And where you have uncovered it, nobody will touch it.
That’s why the research work in my two websites, and more beyond, has no public endorsement or sponsorship.
If you can help, please do. It would be a nice to have a companion along the rocky road.
Please bring your own walking stick.
19) “I say to those state connections…”
I say to the state connections who read the above “updates”, I do not wish what I have written to be construed as an entreaty.
It is simply an add-on to the already extensive exposition on the modus operandi of secret state as a criminal enterprise.
An attempt to take the reader’s vision beyond the acts of wrongdoing to the next stage for those innocents who survived to tell the tale: namely, to indicate how the system can suppress every effort to place truth on official and public record.
To my ken no statute exists that allows this usurpation of authority. It is a complete denial of freedom and justice for those at the sharp end of intelligence agency malpractice.
Injured subjects bound to an unwritten derogation sanctioning the voiding of redress and a casting aside of accountability.
It is also an endorsement of shadow state as a parallel state in all but name.
An abdication of responsibility.
It is said we are all equal before the law and all subject to the law and like precious within the Constitution. 1916 - you died to frame a lie.
To see what I mean one needs look no further than at the history of my struggle for justice for myself and others which has been ongoing for nearly forty years; yet, individuals apart, no one knows my case.
A censorship that is symptomatic of the inordinate power of secret state/shadow state, national and fraternal. It knows no bounds.
It is so because the collective of authorities conspire to make it so.
How many lost souls stumble aimlessly in this limbo? Who we are no one knows. Alive we are dead. Dead we have not lived.
[To this end I have refused to fill in census returns for my address when due.]
In expanding thus, I’m saying to those who have been the arbiters of life and death for many over the years, you murderers, cowards and perverts wouldn’t know the meaning or dignity of justice if it as a wet fish smacked you across the face.
There is a manifestation of love that will not bend to your ways and will ultimately defeat you with that which you fear most – truth.
20) “A final direction…”
A final direction. In Section 15 of this compilation you will find copies of letters to the Hon Julia Gillard, then prime minister of Australia.
If the thrust of my writing to Ms Gillard had a security dimension, also enclosed were believed photographs of Julia Gillard aged 4 years, taken on board a migrant ship ploughing a furrow to Australia.
Like Ms Gillard, I emigrated to Australia in 1966, sailing there, as did the Gillard family, on board TV Fairsky. I was aged 26.
En-route I took photographs of other passengers. It would seem young Julia was so captured. A number of photographs, including two of the believed child Gillard, were forwarded in 2010 to the prime minister in Australia.
The gesture was no more than common courtesy. The photographs surely had value to the recipient and her family.
Did I get an acknowledgement or a “thank you” in return? No.
It was because the two letters to the prime minister contained security-intelligence references, relating to myself on one part, and on the other, to Australian solicitors, Stephan Melrose and Nick Spanos – murdered by the IRA in Roermond, Holland on 27th May 1990.
With regard to the CIA interest in my person and ultimately to their attempts to kill me, there was an Australian dimension.
Lawyer, workers’ advocate, socialist, academic, Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister Gillard was not interested.
Neither then (or I suspect ever) was she in the business of rocking boats when it came to relationships with official America.
No Gough Whitlam her.
In 2011 Prime Minister Gillard addressed the Congress of the United States in Washington. Reading her speech, at least the early part of it, she comes across like a general giving a pep-talk to troops before the prospect of battle.
History lessons and lots of lick ass.
A delivery devoid of a single lousy left inclusion.
Was it three years on she was awarded a silver medal by President Obama of the United States of America? What the medal was for, I can’t now remember.
However I am confident she earned it; and too the tribute of addressing Congress.
I say that with no disrespect to the people of the United States. At risk to themselves, two American women displayed a lot of bravery when I was approaching danger in New Zealand in October 1983, this in concerned instinct for my welfare.
I said many a prayer for them since. I will always love them.
As for my own people, the Irish, apropos of my position with our national intelligence agency, not one person has displayed an iota of conviction and bucked the trend in the name of God.
Evidence of lots of low life, threats and treachery – oh, yes.
“You can’t beat the Irish!”
On cue sub-level whistleblowers by the wheelbarrow load…
Wondrous people snapped up for adoption and promotion by the media, politicians, lawyers and “rights” groups.
The same unholy combination whose unspoken raison d’étre is to forestall the grant of justice in matters of secret state wrongdoing by use of fine words that are an inversion of what they proclaim.
Omerta trotting behind a parade of lies.
Using the nine out of ten template, screened for the job. Their duty in respect of my person was to effect a “sink” job.
I am not “float” job material.
Now that is much closer to the real world.
To be continued.
PS 1 On writing part of the above, my computer was subject to external intrusion, shown in this instance by use of alien software.
My oft response is to write abusive text, as I did moments ago. Within seconds the software returned to normal. It could, of course, be a coincidence.
PS 2 Many have received refugee status for far less than I have been subjected to with support from the highly paid nine bob notes in the “rights” industry.
The same people who ran from any approach I made to them.
Indeed I once gave momentary consideration to making an offshore application for refugee status in the United States of America. However, the thought that the CIA might lobby for acceptance caused me to reconsider.
[Be kind to my digressions. In frustration I resort to throwing rhetorical stones. I fight on pages and live in hope that truth will one day out.
After all these years I still believe in God. Indeed, that love and understanding has grown stronger. A companion on this long journey.
Let’s again return to Mr. Ingram. Heaven only knows where I would be without him.]
Page 12 – “I now hope to see a free, democratic and united Ireland in my lifetime. [But] I would not be prepared to fight for one because as an Englishman it’s not my war to wage.” Who but the unhinged would lend credence to such words.
Also, it once again it slipped Martin’s mind that he was now, allegedly by voluntary legal recourse, a “Paddy”.
Page 24 – “In late 1984 my father became seriously ill with a heart condition and I was posted to a security location close to my hometown in England to be near him…around that time, Willie Carlin, a former Sinn Fein treasurer and Frank Hegarty, a former quartermaster of the Provisional IRA, were exposed as FRU agents. Because I had a working knowledge of both parties, I was seconded to L Branch at Repton Manor…[a unit responsible] for dealing with resettlement of agents.”
Willie Carlin, Agent 3007, was flown out of Northern Ireland with wife and children on 3 March 1985. A few months after Ingram’s posting to England.
Frank Hegarty, Agent 3018, was flown out of Northern Ireland on 26 January 1986. On 14th April 1986 British based United States F-111 aircraft bombed targets in Libya. Sunday 27 April 1986, Frank Hegarty arrived back in Derry from England on receipt of assurances, it is said, from Martin McGuinness that he would be safe.
His body was found on 25 May 1986, murdered by the IRA.
The US plan to bomb Libya almost certainly endured a lengthy gestation process. Among reasons cited for the attack was Libya’s support for international terrorism, terrorism as defined by the United States and Britain.
Instances which included uncovering of three Libyan supplied weapons dumps in the republic of Ireland on 26 January 1986 – the same day Hegarty embarked on reluctant flight from Derry at the insistence of British intelligence.
The intention was to attach Hegarty to this forfeiture, making him the fall guy. The arms, known about long before coming within the control of the IRA’s Northern Command, were exposed to meet an Anglo-US security agenda.
Hegarty’s exit on the day of their disclosure was undoubtedly in the protection of other agents. His timed departure caused the finger of suspicion to be pointed at him.
Ingram’s reflections on Frank Hegarty should be treated with caution. The end use of his disclosures before Monday 12 May 2003, Saville Inquiry evidence, and end use of post Saville disclosures, appear to reflect different directions within the same general priorities.
Mug the truth and cloud the reasons.
Frank Hegarty was sacrificed for operational intelligence reasons. He was the unwitting tool of British and US intelligence. A culpability shared by Irish agencies who directed actions in the republic.
The uncovering (exposure) of the Libyan weaponry was a joint cross-border operation.
In penned and oral statements on Frank Hegarty and other matters, Martin Ingram put forward a personal slant, claiming inside knowledge on Bloody Sunday through supposed research and through connection to Frank Hegarty.
In support of his having produced a document on Bloody Sunday events, Ingram sought to convince that it was or then maybe wasn’t known to, that it was or then maybe wasn’t requested by one of two former army major’s.
Trouble is he didn’t know which one, the living or the dead.
He would quote the deceased Frank Hegarty to support another position.
Like his original claims on the Infliction document, on his alleged Bloody Sunday research and what Frank Hegarty was supposed to have said, Ingram’s submissions were of benefit to Martin McGuinness.
None would stand the test of time.
Saville Inquiry reference and notes on Frank Hegarty:
Ingram’s Saville Inquiry testimony on Bloody Sunday did not find peer support or stand up to analysis from the Tribunal.
We now look at his answers to questions on Frank Hegarty, beginning on page 111 of the Saville Inquiry transcript. Counsel for the Tribunal, Mr Roxburgh, questioning Martin Ingram, Monday 12 May 2003.
“Q. May we go back to your first statement at K12.8. As we have seen, matters have moved on a little since you made the comments that you made in this statement about Infliction. But one thing you did say here in paragraph 17, is that you were involved in the debriefing of agents 3007 [Willie Carlin] and 3018 [Frank Hegarty] and you say: ’I was involved in both debriefs which included questions on any information on Bloody Sunday of which they were aware.’ I understand that I am at liberty to say that agent 3018 was Frank Heggarty [sic], but not to refer to the [P112] identity of agent 3007; do you follow?” “A. I do, yes.”
“Q. Dealing first with 3007 [Willie Carlin], whose name we will not use, please, do you recall whether that agent was able to give any information about Bloody Sunday in the course of the debriefing that you were involved in?” “A. I do not think he gave anything very meaningful.” “Q. So far as Mr. Heggarty [sic], agent 3018, is concerned, what do you recall about what he had to say about the events of Bloody Sunday?” “A. No, I mean Frank Heggarty [sic] and my discussions with him were over a number of years as such not specifically just to that. I do not think I was actually present when he was debriefed to the fullest extent on his resettlement. But he is not only debriefed by the Army, he is also debriefed by all three services independently.”
“Q. In this statement you say that you were involved in this debriefing; in a later statement you say you overheard part of his debrief?” “A. That is what I am saying. I was not actually the debriefer.” “Q. Do you in fact know whether, in the course of his debriefing, he provided any information about Bloody Sunday?” [P113] “A. No. What I – I do not. I actually do not know whether he did or he did not, but what I have made reference to in my statement is the information which is contained in his contact forms.”
“Q. Let us look at what you say about that, K12.40, please, paragraph 5. The first part of this paragraph deals with the debrief, but then you say, just where my blue arrow is: ‘The reference to no IRA activity on Bloody Sunday came from a MISR document.’” “A. Yes.”
“Q. Are you still talking about Frank Heggarty [sic] there?” “A. I am, I am saying there was a MISR document generated from evidence that he produced.” “Q. You go on to say: ‘He was emphatic when he told me that there was no action planned by the Stickies [OIRA – above says IRA] on Bloody Sunday.’ Is that the information that went into the MISR or is that something different?” “A. I do not, I do not recollect. I do not recollect that was exact, you know, the terminology, but I think that is what it contained, roughly: that there was no activity planned by the Stickies.” “Q. Was he making a distinction between what had been planned by the Stickies and what actually happened, can [P114] you remember?” “A. I do not – I am just trying to remember the context of it, to be fair. I do not – the way he delivered it to me was that they had not planned any military – “ “Q. Did he use the word ‘planned’, can you remember?”
“A. I, I could not tell you. That is my language as such that I…” “Q. Can we go, please, to page K12.15 on the left and K12.17 on the right. Do you recognise these two documents, Mr. Ingram?” “A. The ones on the left-hand side are questions which were posed to me by Counsel for Clarke, McCartney, I think. The ones on the right were notes which were taken off a tape that somebody typed up, a member of – a journalist staff typed up, I believe. But I have to see the original on that one.” “Q. Do you recall receiving a series of questions?” “A. I do, yes, yes.” “Q. And what happened; did you dictate an answer to them?” “A. Yes, I did. I received that list of questions via a journalist, Mr. Clarke, and he forwarded them to me and as you can see it is quite a big list and I did not have my PC working at the time, so I put them on an audio tape and then it was transcribed by one of the secretaries.”
[P115] “Q. One of Mr Clarke’s secretaries?” “A. Or somebody who works for The Sunday Times.” “Q. Do you know where the tape is now?” “A. I do not, no.” “Q. As far as you know, is Mr. Clarke the last person to have had the tape?” “A. Either that or Greg McCartney, I do not know.” “Q. Thank you.”
1) It is evident from the above that the questioning of Ingram was not adversarial. He was on the ropes and Counsel walked away from him. However, doing so only after having swatted away a few flies from his story telling.
2) Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland, By Martin Ingram and Greg Harkin (2004). “[P121] Ingram, who was at this stage back in England at the end of a tour of duty, spent some time during that period with Frank Hegarty. ‘I looked after him for five days, alongside another girl on temporary relief…”
3) Martin Ingram on British Spies in Northern Ireland, 31.12. 2005. (Online, P3 of 5) – “During this compassionate posting I was asked to become involved in the resettlement of two informers who had become exposed and because I had first hand knowledge of both of them I accepted with the blessing of my father who was very ill. Over a period of time L Branch was looking after both Frank Hegarty and Willie Carlin. During this period I met with both Frank and Willie on almost a daily basis…
“…I also had contact with Frank Hegarty and he too informed me that he also had contact with McGuinness. Frank too had been offered a safe return by McGuinness. It is true that Frank was depressed and missed his family very much and his hometown of Derry. I was upset at the state of this man. He was depressed, but as far as I know, he had not been to see a doctor. I had been assigned to Carlin on a 24 hour basis and only occasionally did I have contact with Frank. I think I met Frank two or three times over a few weeks. Frank told me that McGuinness had made it clear - come home and the mess can be sorted out. I told Frank to forget it; it was not going to happen.
“The two people who had been assigned to baby-sit Frank were the easygoing sort and one of them was not a badged FRU member. At the time I did not really think much about this decision. [P4] Although it was a strange one. I was aware that [Colonel] Kerr thought Frank to be a security concern and his depression was a potential problem for the FRU. I did not for one moment think that they would allow Frank to return to Derry and if he did they would make it impossible – or at least very difficult – for the IRA to operate against him. Freddie Scappaticci, as the PIRA internal security man, gave the inside story of where, when and how Frank was to be got. What did the FRU do? Fuck All!!....
“I know Frank was murdered by a British Agent (Freddy Scappaticci) accompanied or at least directed by McGuinness and others. It was not just bad luck that killed Frank he was a victim of collusion. Last year I had the privilege of speaking with his son, he is a victim and he deserves the truth, not the Sinn Fein/Brits version of it…”
(The written sentiment directed to the son of Frank Hegarty is about as sickening as that directed to the Notorantonio family on the death of their father. What price the rest of Ingram’s jumbled presentation on Frank Hegarty?)
4) Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland – By Martin Ingram and Greg Harkin (2004). Page 121: “On Friday, 24 [sic – I make it 25] April 1986, Frank Hegarty went into a bookie’s shop in Brighton and gave his handlers the slip. There is no doubt that he was lured by a feeling of false security. He arrived at his mother’s house at Osborne Street in the Rosemount area of Derry, in the early hours of the Sunday and spent five days hiding there…”
In the above, Mr. Ingram depicts Hegarty’s flight from protective British custody as one decided on and executed by the man himself. The previous (online) document tells us he was not under the protection of armed police subordinate to MI5 but was overseen by babysitters who “were the easygoing sort and one of them was not a badged FRU member.” In this laissez-faire environment, Mr. Hegarty is said to have done a bunk after going into a bookies shop.
Ingram strives hard to tell us something. Should we upend what he says to get nearer to the truth? Did a reputed free man need to escape? Even if so, the authorities could have intercepted his passage to Derry, if they wished to. They didn’t.
Was his going by arrangement?
The online paper, British Spies in Northern Ireland, written two years after the Stakeknife book, says it was FRU, not MI5, who allowed Hegarty to return to Derry.
It hints strongly that his judgement was impaired through depressive illness.
One also notes that Mr. Ingram offers an ever changing landscape on his claimed dealings with Frank Hegarty. As often with him, the left hand and the right hand are at odds with each other.
If I said Martin Ingram was a liar and he was inconsistent in his lies, I would have to ask if they were always the one and same Ingram. Was the Martin Ingram who cooperated with Liam Clarke, Greg Harkin, Neil Mackay, Ed Moloney, Suzanne Breen, etc; who co-wrote the Stakeknife book and who gave a radio interview on it, always the same person who gave subsequent radio interviews? One thing is sure, contradictions aside, there is purpose to this mendacious exercise.
Further, Ingram transplants a Stakeknife dimension (“British agent Freddy Scappaticci”) into the story. Lending credibility to one lie by associating it with another?
Lies on Frank Hegarty supported by the lie of agent Stakeknife?
There is undoubtedly more to Frank Hegarty’s return home than is given to us by higher authority through Ingram. Why the effort to rewrite history? I suspect the answer to that and much else is buried in Derry and elsewhere.
The Dirty War – Ref to Frank Hegarty
The Dirty War (1990) – By Martin Dillon
P380 – “In 1980 Special Branch informed MI5 that a former member of the Provisionals, thirty-nine-year-old Frank Hegarty bore all the signs of being the type of person who might be vulnerable to an approach by Special Branch….
“According to the IRA, Hegarty [said] that Special Branch approached him with an offer of £400 in cash as an initial payment to be followed by a retainer of £25 a week if he provided them with tit-bits of information.
“The weekly retainer was paid by two handlers, whom he met at pre-arranged spots in Limavady or the Waterside area of Derry; one belonged to Special Branch, the other was a member of MI5…
“Before long, however, Hegarty was encouraged to rejoin the IRA. Special Branch files indicated that his previous role was in the quartermaster’s department, and that is where they required him to work now…”
The SAS in Ireland – Ref to Frank Hegarty
The SAS in Ireland (1990) – By Raymond Murray
P375 – [IRA statement] “’About seven years ago, while out walking greyhounds on the back road behind Glenowen in Derry city, Mr Hegarty was approached on several occasions by men with English accents. He was asked to work for British military intelligence and was persuaded to meet other Englishmen in a room at the White Horse Inn at Camsie. Although at this time a supporter of the republican movement, the men informed Mr. Hegarty that they knew when he was a member of the Workers’ Party, some years previously, he was responsible for planting a bomb in a car which exploded in Ebrington Barracks killing two civilians. After some questioning he admitted this and was assured that in return for becoming an agent he would be granted immunity from prosecution. He was given a payment of £400 and received weekly payments of £25 plus expenses incurred in meeting with his handlers in the Limavady or Waterside areas. On one occasion he was taken into Ebrington Barracks by one of five handlers to whom he reported or phoned over the years. During this period he was in no great position to pass on really valuable information and so, about two years ago , he was instructed to slowly ingratiate himself with the IRA and his offer of services was eventually accepted in the form of a helper. Over a period of time he picked up pieces of information but in January of this year he became aware of a major movement of arms in the Free State. He contacted one of his handlers, Brian, giving him the details and confirming the location on an Ordnance Survey map. He was assured by Brian that, in order to protect him, the weapons would be monitored but would not be seized until they were broken down into smaller dumps and picked off at will. However, for the British and Irish the temptation of demonstrating to the loyalists the security value of the Hillsborough agreement was too great and so they decided to act on January 26. Within hours of the [intended] seizure armed English agents, apparently without normal British Army or RUC cover, or without their knowledge, met Mr. Hegarty as he came out of his home in Shantallow at 8.45am. He took his car to the New Foyle Bridge where he transferred to an enclosed van. He was taken by private plane from Aldergrove to England… In this semi-detached house he was debriefed by his handlers. They also occupied the semi next door. He said that he was extremely angry that, contrary to assurances, his cover had been blown.’
“The statement went on to say that Frank Hegarty maintained that he returned to Derry hoping that he could convince the IRA that he had not turned informer but he… had been kidnapped and compromised to look like the scapegoat for somebody else.”
The Dirty War (again) – Ref to Frank Hegarty
The Dirty War (1990) – By Martin Dillon
PP 380-383 “In 1985 it was apparent to the intelligence agencies that the IRA had acquired a massive arms shipment from the Middle East on a scale which shocked even security chiefs, who were already aware that a large quantity of weapons was likely to find its way into IRA hands. Hegarty and other high placed informers, men like Joe Fenton, were suggesting that the ‘big one’ had arrived from Libya, [and had] been brought in by ship… Staff from the quartermaster departments of the Belfast and Derry brigades were involved in the movement of parts of the shipment. Guns and explosives were being moved by its quartermaster staff to parts of the border close to the lines of supply used by the Derry Brigade’s active service units…
“While the IRA reeled from the discovery of the largest arms dump ever found in the Irish republic, Frank Hegarty was in England, in a house in Sittingbourne in Kent, under guard from Special Branch acting on orders from MI5…
“He lived alone, but at least six heavily armed minders were positioned in an adjoining property.
“It has been said that he became homesick and decided to return to Derry in the belief that he could convince the IRA that he was not responsible for the arms finds. However, the IRA reckoned that he ‘had bolted’ before the arms discovery…
“A promise of immunity might well explain why MI5 allowed [Hegarty] to return [to Derry].
“’[IRA man relating: Hegarty] was picked up by MI5 agents on the M2 motorway on the day of the arms find and flown by private plane to Kent, where he was debriefed by MI5…They sacrificed him because it was important to keep the Anglo-Irish Agreement alive at a time when it was falling apart…. Hegarty came home because he was homesick. Maybe his handlers wanted him home. Maybe there was another mole and they wanted us to believe he was the only one.’
“There is little doubt that Hegarty was held in a house in Sittingbourne. In November 1985 two houses in the village were taken over by members of Special Branch under the control of members of MI5. I believe this was done because they did not know the moment when they would be required to act on Hegarty’s information…”
It was not Frank Hegarty’s information they were acting on – he was the patsy. The intelligence agencies, with other plans waiting in the wings, only needed the pieces of the jigsaw to fall in place before bundling the reluctant Mr. Hegarty onto an aircraft for England.
Provos – Ref. to Frank Hegarty
PROVOS (1997) – By Peter Taylor
PP 287-288 – “The evening before the arms were seized, Hegarty took his partner, Dorothy Robb, out for a drink. ‘You know I’m going away tomorrow,’ he said. ‘If I don’t make it tomorrow, you may not see me for a long time.’ Puzzled, Dorothy asked him what he was doing. He said he couldn’t tell her…In Sittingbourne, Kent, from where he was allowed to telephone Dorothy and offer her a visit. She was flown to Gatwick where she met Frank and his minders at the nearby Copthorne Hotel. He and Dorothy were allowed to spend some time alone. ‘When he closed the door, I asked him who the men were. He said they were MI5 – Maggie Thatcher’s men,’ she said. Dorothy told me she was offered £100,000 to include a house, a car and a trust fund for the children if she would ‘vanish’ with her partner. She refused and returned to Derry.”
Martin McGuinness (Book) – Ref. to Frank Hegarty
Martin McGuinness – From Guns to Government (2001 & 2003) – By Liam Clarke & Kathryn Johnson
PP180-181 (2003 ed.): “The Libyan weapons were McGuinness’s ace in the hole and he entrusted Frank Hegarty, the FRU agent, with the task of establishing transit dumps along the border with which to supply Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry and other areas in the west of the province. McGuinness himself took Hegarty on a tour of supporters in the Sligo/Leitrim area who would help to establish hiding places. In doing so, he ignored warnings from other republicans about the agent. An Official IRA leader said, ‘I personally told McGuinness that [Hegarty] was an informer as far back as 1975. We had caught him meeting his handler and beat him up…’
“The night before the Gardai raid [on the arms dumps], Hegarty was with his widowed mother Rose when he received a call and left in a hurry. Rose assumed it was something to do with his greyhounds, but instead, it was his handlers who picked him up a short distance away and took him to their debriefing suite at Ebrington Barracks. From the start he expressed a deep sense of betrayal that the weapons were to be lifted and resisted the idea of leaving Derry, his mother and his familiar surroundings. He had little choice, however, and that evening Hegarty told Dorothy Robb, his partner, that he would have to leave Derry for a while. He slipped out quietly at first light so as not to wake her. After a pick-up on the Foyle bridge, he left from Aldergrove military airport aboard the Secretary of State’s jet to England where he stayed initially at naval accomodation in Chatham and later at a house in Sittingbourne in Kent.”
The push to insert Frank Hegarty into Northern Command’s quartermaster’s department at the time, suggests the state had knowledge of the intended importation of Libyan arms and their eventual transfer to various commands throughout Ireland, allowing them opportunity to observe the logistical effort from landing to dispersal, including identification of quartermaster personnel, likely in good part already known.
Inviting a question: was Hegarty even at that early stage being set up as the fall guy for future United States and British intentions?
Another interesting contrast is arrived at from a reading of the Bloody Sunday Report. The coming quote, while concerning itself with the historic time surrounding the Bloody Sunday shootings in January 1972, may also have a wider and ongoing relevance.
“Bloody Sunday Report: The Provisional IRA – Chapter 147 – Volume V111.
“147.16 – The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that most members of the Provisional IRA would ‘apparently’ have shared the low regard for the Official IRA held by Fr. Denis Bradley. Fr. Bradley described the Official IRA as a ‘different and disparate’ group compared with the Provisional IRA. ‘It was an old Catholic thing. They were seen as Marxist left wing and were not particular about who joined them. They were inclined to be considered “gangsterish”. There were some very irresponsible people in their organization.’
“147.17 – These representatives did not identify the evidence on which they relied in support of their proposition. It is clear that at the time of Bloody Sunday there was hostility between the two groups in the city [of Derry]. However, the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers went on to rely on the unchallenged evidence of PIRA 24 that about one-third of those who were members of the Official IRA defected and joined the Provisional IRA in the wake of the abduction and release by the former of Private INQ 2245 in mid-January 1972 to which we have already referred. We see force in our Counsel’s comments that it seems unlikely, as a matter of common sense, that the Provisional IRA would have accepted as members individuals whom they despised as roundly as the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers suggested.
“147.18 – These representatives also referred to the evidence of PIRA 24 to the effect that the Official IRA was undisciplined and submitted that it ‘may be of some concern’ that such undisciplined men joined the Provisional IRA, observing that there was no time for them to undergo re-training by the Provisional IRA before 30th January 1972 [day of Bloody Sunday shootings]. It seems unlikely that members of the Official IRA who joined the Provisional IRA remained undisciplined. As Fr. Bradley himself said, ‘The Provisionals were much more careful [than the Official IRA] about who was allowed in and were more disciplined’. We consider it unlikely that the Provisional IRA would have accepted individuals who presented a risk to the discipline [ipso facto security] of their organization…” Emphasis, where used, is mine.
If common sense has time and place, it is as much a mixed bag in paramilitary organisations as in life, in particular groups of people of disparate abilities and at times highly charged personalities; not omitting those beholden to different priorities and conflicting allegiances. Notwithstanding abstract notions to the contrary the common sense premise does not survive close inspection. The Derry-Northern Command IRA didn’t enjoy the “unrivalled reputation for ruthless efficiency” credited to it by one source who made more spins on the magic roundabout than did Zebedee.
Among other observations, might questionable and porous fit the bill?
An elementary piece of philosophy suggests that which you do not know about something is likely to be of greater worth than that which you do know, a saying never more true than in intelligence matters, where what you do know has a habit of coming from liars and is filtered into the public domain through what can at times seem to be the most unlikely conduits.
One has to factor in the Derry/north west area IRA was a targeted entity made vulnerable by unquantifiable infiltration from state agencies, agencies reticent about making known their achievements to tribunals of inquiry and law courts.
Going on from that, I pose a query that could be put equally to other IRA commands: how many of their successes do we put down to the aberrations of those agencies in the protection and promotion of informers?
Was the convoluted republican network designed with the intention of making it susceptible to external compromise?
I am saying the IRA and Sinn Fein were heavily infiltrated: informers inserted by state security agencies and added to from within by the suborned, the inveigled, the compromised. The Troubles became a veritable animal farm of Orwellian themed experiments by security agencies. Political and media elevation on one side contrasted with a military emasculation on the other. Manipulations from within and without to translate a growling reluctance to constitutional acquiescence from which could be fashioned celebrities and rituals to hold fast the body of the faithful.
One component in the making of something I like to characterize as a spancelled democratic process.
History offers other examples. Our political masters of yore saw economic and social fruits in the Great Famine, which like Highland Clearances in Scotland, they could accept so long as they and theirs did not have to sup from the poisoned cup.
More recent historic examples have to do with what I call political restructuring.
I am thinking of Sinn Fein The Workers’ Party. Look at what they started out as. See how they evolved. Look where they are now.
Some would see that as a tortuous but entirely natural evolution of history. While not viewing it in absolute terms, I see it as the result of a hidden engineering from within and without. Returns from a general direction rather than a perfect mapping.
Could the present Sinn Fein party be a parallel situation? Yes. The same unseen and unacknowledged process at work. Look at what they started out as. See how they evolved. Look where they are now.
A quick-fire repeat accident of history? No. That’s “democracy” folks!
Saville Inquiry Evidence – (Bloody Sunday Transcript)
SAVILLE INQUIRY, Monday 12 May 2003, Transcript page 115.
“Q. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Ingram, my name is MacDonald, I represent some of the families, if I could ask you just a few questions, please. Could I first of all direct you to K12.2, paragraph 5 of your first statement. You refer there to the fact that one of the projects that you undertook was in relation to Bloody Sunday, and you have answered some questions in relation to that. It has been pointed out to you that Y, officer Y, implies that there was no such report written by you, queries are raised about where it could be filed. What is the situation actually? Are you in any doubt that you did write a report or undertake a project in relation to Bloody Sunday, as a result of which there is a written document? A. I am in no doubt and if you read his – he actually does admit that we did undertake this type of project. Just because he does not actually recollect – he would not have been involved in the booking in and I certainly did not need to go to him to ask permission to undertake the project and it was not something which was out of the way to do so. So I do not take issue with his testimony.”
The questioning went on in that vein. Tedious throwing of punches that travel short and only brush off the target. Inherent in the questioning was a skepticism of Mr. Ingram’s claim to have written a Bloody Sunday report.
PA Report on Ingram’s Saville Inquiry Evidence
Online PA report on the evidence to the Saville Tribunal by Officer Y, dated Wednesday 14.05.2003
“McGuinness role in Bloody Sunday under spotlight – Claims that the British Army knew all along that Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness did not open fire on Bloody Sunday were questioned today at the Saville Inquiry in London. By Press Association.
“A former Army intelligence officer, known as Martin Ingram, said he saw surveillance reports which showed Mr. McGuinness was being closely watched on Bloody Sunday and was not seen firing a weapon. * “The ex-soldier contradicted allegations by an IRA informant, codenamed Infliction, who claimed the Mid-Ulster MP told him he fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday. Ingram said he found the information in the early 1980s while undertaking a project examining the events of Bloody Sunday when 13 civil rights marchers were shot dead in Londonderry. A 14th man died later. * “Ingram’s superior officer at the time Officer Y, told the Inquiry today he did not recall any such project taking place.
“’During my tenure as the Republican Desk Sergeant I do not recall anyone within 121 Intelligence Section working on and completing a project on Bloody Sunday,’ he said. ‘As the incident took place many years before, I do not see how such an official study could have had any relevance to the intelligence requirement of 1981. * “’Moreover, it is unlikely that the files held at 121 Int Sect would have contained material going back that far. * “’This was because information older than five years was considered dated in current intelligence terms and the limited storage capacity meant that there was constant pressure to weed out and destroy out of date intelligence reports.’
“Officer Y added: ‘If Mr. Ingram had completed a project on the events of Bloody Sunday on the instruction of one of the intelligence Branch Officers I would have expected some feedback from the Desk Officer concerned.’ * “Ingram also told the Inquiry he came to the conclusion that soldiers overreacted on Bloody Sunday after seeing a large amount of intelligence about that day. * “Officer Y told Alan Roxburgh, counsel to the inquiry, that he never came across any specific items of intelligence that shed light on what happened on Bloody Sunday…”
Officer Y’s Evidence to the Saville Inquiry
Excerpt of evidence of Officer Y to the Saville Inquiry, Wednesday 14 May 2003. Mr. Roxburgh, Counsel for the Tribunal, questioning – Inquiry pages 22-23.
“Q. You have told us Officer Y, that you do not recall yourself seeing any files relating as such to Bloody Sunday, either in 121 intelligence section or in the G2 Registry. Presumably from time to time you would have come across individual documents on other files that contained some references to Bloody Sunday, would that be right?” “A. Yes, there would have been reference to it.” “Q. Leaving aside mere passing references, do you remember ever coming across specific items of intelligence that shed light on what had actually happened on Bloody Sunday?” “A. No.” “Q. Do you remember ever seeing any intelligence about the plans made by either the Official IRA or the Provisional IRA before Bloody Sunday?” “A. No.” “Q. Do you remember ever seeing any intelligence about the circumstances in which shots were fired on Bloody Sunday, either by the Army or by the paramilitaries?” “A. No” “Q. Do you remember ever seeing any intelligence about the treatment of casualties on Bloody Sunday, either in the City of Derry or across the border?” “A. No, I do not.” “Q. Do you remember ever seeing any intelligence about the movements of individuals of interest on Bloody Sunday?” “A. No.” ”Mr. ROXBURGH: Thank you very much.”
Mr Roxburgh’s questions to Officer Y had to do with claims by Martin Ingram. The statement of Officer Z, a FRU intelligence officer, which near imaged that of Officer Y, was also intended to be converted into evidence on the same day. I can find no online transcript of his evidence, if given.
Stakeknife – Ingram’s CV & Notes
Returning to the book: Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland (2004)
Page 24 – “I was then posted to FRU West in Enniskillen [end November 1987]. During my tour in FRU West, I met a young lady who was to become very important to me. She was a native of the republic, working and living in Northern Ireland. We formed a relationship and she became well known to the other members of the local FRU.”
Page 24 – “About twelve months later, in late 1990, I applied for, and secured a plum post in the Ministry Of Defence in Whitehall in London, [page 25] where I left FRU.”
Page 25 – “On my posting to the MOD I informed the vetting authorities, as I was required to do, that I was living with this lady and that I intended to marry her. They carried out their own checks and found the same family links to republicans as I had twelve months earlier.”
Page 25 – “...My expertise was in Northern Ireland; I enjoyed the work and the people, and it was where I felt I could best advance my career. So I had to make a choice – give up my girlfriend or give up the Intelligence Corps.”
1) Ingram Witness Statement to the Saville Inquiry, 26.07 2002, Page K12.6, Paragraph 12: “…I sought and received a posting to MOD in London, working for Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) primarily on the Israel and Syrian desks. This posting was an EPV (Enhanced Positive Vetting) position, with regular and constant access to Top Secret material. EPV is the highest clearance. In accordance with my obligations, I notified the Vetting authorities regarding my intention to marry. My proposed marriage presented difficulties over vetting. The choice of permanent postings I was given would have limited my career options and the only alternative was for me to marry my wife [sic]. As a result of this, I applied for and received a Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR) which cost me £600. I left the Army [in 1991] with an Exemplary record.”
No direct mention of his wife coming from a republican family in the republic of Ireland to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.
The notion that an army gurrier like Ingram was concerned with “career options” rises a smile on my face. I suspect artifice in what he says.
In the above Saville Inquiry Statement there is an important omission: where was Ingram based and what did he do in the eight years from 1991, after his army discharge, and August 1999 – when he gave birth to “Steak Knife”?
2) Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland (2004) – Page 25: “On my posting to the MOD I informed the Vetting authorities, as I was required to do, that I was living with this lady and that I intended to marry her. They carried out their own checks and found the same family links to republicans as I had some twelve months earlier. My vetting was due for a five-year review, and it was made clear that while my vetting outside Northern Ireland would not be affected, any future posting back to Northern Ireland would not be in a sensitive role. That posed big problems for me; the MOD job would be a two-year stint, after which I would be put back in the ‘mixer’ with everyone else, and could be posted to an unrewarding job in Germany or elsewhere. My expertise was in Northern Ireland; I enjoyed the work and the people, and it was where I felt I could best advance my career. So I had to make a choice – give up my girlfriend or give up the Intelligence Corps.”
Ingram says his expertise was in Northern Ireland and he enjoyed the work and the people there: they were soft and loveable. To quote his online document, British Spies in Northern Ireland, Cryptome, dated 31 December 2005, page 3 of 5, paragraph 3: “My father suddenly became ill before the recovery of the arms and Frankos [Frank Hegarty’s] exposure. I requested and was offered a position with a security department close to my hometown and a rise in rank for good service was also appreciated… Within two weeks I had left Derry and although I returned subsequently to the FRU after my father died it was never the same again.”
“I chose my girlfriend, who is now my wife, I applied for, and after some difficulty was granted, the right to buy my way out of the Army, leaving for good in 1991 with an exemplary record. The Army and myself parted on good terms. It had been a good employer. But, in the light of what follows, I would issue one caution to any soldier of the Intelligence Corps: evil only requires decent people to turn a blind eye for a moment to flourish.”
(I couldn’t resist including the last paragraph because of its final sentence. How could he write such rubbish and maintain a straight face? The hard necked smart ass trying on the concerned leftie formula. Doing it with the adroitness of a cart horse racing home last at the trots.)
Ingram declared: “…We formed a relationship and she became well known to other members of the local FRU.” He pushes on: “My proposed marriage presented difficulties over vetting…”
As within the Stakeknife book – “My wife, who herself is a nationalist from a deeply republican family.” In the 22 February 2006 Sunday Tribune interview Suzanne Breen said Ingram’s wife was a nurse from County Donegal. His wife’s nationalist beliefs and family connections it is implied would create a conflict and disqualify him from serving in a sensitive position in Northern Ireland, but not preclude his going there. Does Northern Ireland have non-sensitive intelligence postings?
Would his intelligence work in Northern Ireland equal the sensitivity of that at the Ministry of Defence, where an Enhanced Positive Vetting – the highest level of security clearance, was required?
And he didn’t want to go elsewhere, we were also told.
3) He says the “Donegal nurse“ relationship was on for not less than a year before he “notified the vetting authorities regarding my intention to marry”. a) I’m surprised the vetting authorities appeared hitherto to turn a blind eye to his live-in relationship but not the intended marriage. b) His “Donegal nurse” relationship was on when serving at FRU West at St Angelo, near Enniskillen, but no restriction was placed on his work. c) His girlfriend’s Irish nationalism and her family’s “deeply republican” predilections were known to his intelligence colleagues. d) And the relationship was on when he applied for and acquired a “plum post in the Ministry of Defence” which carried an EPV vetting, “the highest security clearance in the land”. His relationship with the woman didn’t inhibit him from making the application and neither was it considered a reason to debar him from selection. e) One further notes that something else didn’t intrude on his getting the MoD EPV job: his supposed conflicts with “senior FRU officers” over the claimed use of UDA intelligence officer and FRU agent Brian Nelson in the murder of Francisco Notorantonio as a substitute for alleged FRU agent Stakeknife. If true, this would have been on Ingram’s army records held by MoD. Yet, MoD and the vetting authorities didn’t seem to notice, or pay attention if they did.
(Vetting is a prelude to the granting of a sensitive security position.)
The above contradictions may have a simple explanation. Another possibility is that Ingram’s presentation is a cover to cloud his real status. Military personnel have been known to secure discharge by purchase and other means for covert reasons.
Which brings me back to an earlier question: where was Ingram based and was he involved in clandestine operations in the years after his army discharge in 1991 to August 1998, when he gave birth to agent “Steak Knife”?
Which ever way you go, you go nowhere.
Ingram on British Spies in Northern Ireland (Cryptome)
Martin Ingram on British Spies in Northern Ireland (Online, 5pp) – Reference Frank Hegarty
(P3) “During my first tour of NI I worked for the Force Research Unit in Derry. We had a very, very nice man on our books that worked for us as an agent, he was called Frank Hegarty. The intelligence knew through a vast army of PIRA informers that the IRA was being supplied with modern weaponry from Libya. This information had been gathered for many months prior to the shipments.
“I was in my mid-twenties during this period. Although I had been in NI for a couple of years at this time. I had been asked a few months prior to become involved with Frankie code name 3018 on a co-handler basis. At this time Frankie was not a prolific informer, he had old links back to the IRA of today but not a lot else. He had I was told by my boss some friendship or past association with Martin McGuinness and the agent should be encouraged to become closer to McGuinness. I met this man and quickly developed [a] warmth for him. He was a genuine working class man who like myself enjoyed the dogs, horses and women. I liked him. That said he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I admit I never thought twice about asking Frankie to get alongside McGuinness. Frankie complied with our request and became involved with McGuinness. McGuinness vouched for this man against the advice of other senior Republicans. Astoundingly within months [Hegarty] was allocated a massive cache of arms and munitions. Now that was lucky was it not? Sometime later this cache of arms was recovered and Frank was recovered to a place of safety. It was at the time the largest ever [arms] find in the island of Ireland.
“My father suddenly became ill [c. 14 months] before the recovery of arms and Frankos exposure. I requested and was offered a position within a security department close to my hometown and a rise in rank for good service was also appreciated. This was a compassionate posting. Within two weeks I had left Derry and although I returned subsequently to the FRU after my father died it was never quite the same again.
“During this compassionate posting I was asked to become involved in the resettlement of two informers who had become exposed and because I had first hand knowledge of both of them I accepted with the blessing of my father who was very ill. Over a period of time L Branch was looking after both Frank Hegarty and Willie Carlin. During this period I met with both Frank and Willie on almost a daily basis.
“During this period Willie Carlin received a telephone call directly from Martin McGuinness. This phone call was taped and reports made to record this event. McGuinness reassured Willie Carlin that all would be well and he should return to Derry his hometown to be with his family and he (McGuinness) would personally vouch for Frank’s [sic] safety. Once the phone call had finished Carlin told me that he (McGuinness) must think I am a fucking idiot. I had to agree and we both shared a smile.”
There is more to the article, dated 31 December 2005, in which Mr. Ingram offers opaque insights on big name republicans as well as a broad undulating tableau on the IRA and Sinn Fein. Maybe not all mad, even if it reads that way.
The Sunday Tribune, 20.02.06 – By Suzanne Breen
The Sunday Tribune, 20.02.06 – By Suzanne Breen (online pagination)
P1 – “[Martin Ingram] has an Irish passport. He is giving The Sunday Tribune his first media interview in three [sic] years since co-writing the best selling book, Stakeknife, on IRA internal security head, Freddie Scappaticci.”
P1 – “Ingram (43) served in the controversial Force Research Unit (FRU) for eight [sic] years. He left the army after marrying a Co. Donegal nurse. Her family’s republican connections meant he could no longer work in a sensitive position in the North.
“He has two daughters…’One speaks fluent Irish, I’ve just left her playing the tin whistle’. He is self employed: ‘Neither a multi-millionaire, nor poor.’ He has passed Gerry Adams on Co. Donegal streets, and greeted [page2] Martin McGuinness in Irish during a radio phone-in programme.”
P2 – “…’Solicitors for Danny Morrison and the Finucanes asked me for meetings. The Andersonstown News published an article by me…’”
P2 – “Ingram, a working class Leeds United supporter was in the army during the 1981 hunger strike…”
P4 – “’Slán anois!’ he says as he heads into the night.”
END OF “MARTIN INGRAM” DOCUMENT (39 Parts). Emphasis used is mine.
Previous: “Martin Ingram” Document – Parts 1 - 17