|
Previous:
“Martin Ingram” Document – Parts 1 - 17 |
(www.stakeknife.eu)
Twitter: @seankellyis
(7)
*
(Martin Ingram
Document – Parts 18-39)
CONTENTS:
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).
*****
(PARTS 18-25)
Stakeknife Book
(Synopsis) & Saville Inquiry on Frank Hegarty
Stakeknife –
Pages:
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
hometown in
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.
Silence.
*
4) “Carrying on…”
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?
No.
Is it in any way a protective etiquette?
Yes.
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?
No.
Is it conducive to the infliction of avoidable
deaths, wounding and destruction?
Yes.
How?
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.
Yep!
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.)
End (1)
*
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.
Incomplete list.)
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.
Theirs.
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?
Where?
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”.
Where?
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.
Strewth!
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.
Afghanistan?
[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.”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PART 26)
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…”
*****
(PART 27)
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 [1984], 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.”
*****
(PART 28)
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…”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PART 29)
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.”
*****
(PART 30)
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.”
*
Note:
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!
*****
(PART 31)
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.”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PART 32)
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…”
*****
(PART 33)
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.”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PARTS 34-36)
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.”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PARTS 37-38)
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.”
*
Note:
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.
*****
(PART 39)
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 |