Previous: “Martin Ingram” Document – Parts 18-39
Per list of contents: “3) Document entitled ‘Andersonstown News and Martin Ingram’ refers to an article written by Martin Ingram and published on 1 March 2001 in the Andersonstown News, a Belfast bi-weekly newspaper, comprised of eleven pages broken into paragraphs and interspersed with comment and analysis.
Pagination refers to the original hardcopy compilation which I will now attempt to translate into a computer format.”
Emphasis, where used, is mine.
The Andersonstown News – Martin Ingram Article
Andersonstown News, 01.03.01 – “UNDERCOVER SOLDIER TELLS US: I HAVEN’T KILLED ANYONE. A British army whistleblower who worked for the shadowy organisation involved in the murder of Pat Finucane has told the Andersonstown News that he’s not a murderer or a traitor. Writing exclusively for us today, Martin Ingram (not his real name) says he has never been involved in either murder or conspiracy to murder.
[“Writing exclusively for us today...” 1) In what way was the article facilitated by a hidden hand? The why is obvious – to sell a pup to the republican movement.
2) “Ingram says he has never been involved in either murder or conspiracy to murder.” Yet he is being used to propagate lies and disinform on behalf of murderers under the pretext of being a whistleblower, a throwaway card from a swindler’s deck. I am saying Ingram is not against them, he is part of them. One asks what dirty work was he involved in when a member of FRU? To lie on behalf of and at the behest of those who will stoop to kill is in itself culpable. Do we upend the claims of a liar to get closer to the truth?]
“Outlining the reasons for today’s article, Mr. Ingram said that he wanted it to be read by republicans and he wanted them to know that to brand whistleblowers as murderers would be effectively to deter others involved in intelligence work for the British Army from coming forward. Mr. Ingram is now working closely with the Stevens Inquiry. He said that he was appalled that his name had been placed alongside those of UDA commander Billy Stobie – who’s been charged with the murder of human rights solicitor Pat Finucane – and British Army double agent Brian Nelson.”
[1) Ingram wants the republican movement and sceptical outsiders to accept that he is a genuine whistleblower who should be endorsed so others of like mind might be encouraged to step forward.
2) To gild his whistleblower claims, it is put out that Ingram is “working closely with the Stevens Inquiry.” Like much else from Ingram, that too would end up going nowhere. Indeed it was said elsewhere he had at that time ceased cooperating with the Stevens team.
3) In his use of the word “appalled” the soldier apes his betters. It is officer speak, not barrack room speak. Theatrical writing.]
“British intelligence whistleblower speaks out:
“Lifting the lid on the dirty war – On one thing the family of Pat Finucane and the British Intelligence Service are united: the former FRU soldier known as Martin Ingram has enough information to blow the lid on the dirty war. Indeed, so devastating is the information he possesses that the British Government has served gagging orders on the Sunday People and the Sunday Times to prevent them reporting on his disclosures.
[Bogus gagging orders lend persuasion if not credibility to lies; the aim is to give Ingram’s story a leg-up. Is the unquestioning acceptance of these instruments an act of gullibility on the part of the newspaper? Whatever, the paragraph is high level hyperbole.]
“In the closed shop of military intelligence, he is the weakest link; his erstwhile colleagues would like nothing more than to say goodbye to a former agent willing to spill the beans on a deadly and unlawful conspiracy. For the Finucane family and other victims of FRU agent Brian Nelson, Ingram is their trump card: an insider who saw his Army colleagues use loyalist paramilitaries to murder those deemed enemies of the state. Ingram’s detailed account of Army collusion with loyalist gun-gangs is truly shocking to anyone who believed the British were here to uphold the rules of law.
[Ingram’s “erstwhile colleagues would like nothing more than to say goodbye to a former agent…” FRU kill one of their own? In May 2003 other FRU members came out of the woodwork to lend support to Mr. Ingram’s Stakeknife lies.
To get nearer to the truth on the man, just about all of his claims should be stood on their head. The “trump card” belongs to MI5.]
“For his disturbing catalogue of allegations about the Army’s handling of UDA Intelligence Officer Brian Nelson show that FRU – set up in 1980 to gather intelligence on the IRA, was a law unto itself. As Pat Finucane’s son Michael observed: ‘one line after another was crossed and eventually the line between right and wrong disappeared completely’.
[The newspaper’s weaving of the Finucane name into the narrative is a game of elevation by concerned attachment.]
“According to Ingram, Nelson was ‘run’ by FRU Commander Col Gordon Kerr – now British military attaché to Beijing – and Captain Margaret Walshaw, now believed to be based at the British Embassy in Athens.
[While an incidental observation, because whoever Nelson’s handlers were was not of consequence, to say he was run by a colonel or a captain seems an undue distraction from management duties by commissioned officers.
My reading is that agent running is a function of, in particular, senior non commissioned officers.
In the overall scheme of things, it is probable that commissioned officers took control of the handling-management of Nelson. Captain Walshaw’s name, widely leaked in that context, was released for operational reasons.]
“Every newspaper in the North of Ireland and Britain, with the exception of the North Belfast News and the Andersonstown News, have refused to name Captain Walshaw at the request of British Intelligence.
[The request not to name Walshaw was a piece of MI5-MoD gamesmanship. Captain Walshaw’s name was known to the media and on the web from early February 2001; and a state institution, BBC’s Panorama, would name her. They who boast of little, have little to boast of.]
“Both [Kerr and Walshaw] have been interviewed during previous inquiries into RUC collusion with loyalist paramilitaries carried out by Sir John Stevens - the first inquiry resulted in the arrest of Nelson - but were not charged. But it is believed they could face charges as a result of the latest, and third, inquiry being carried out by Stevens into the murder of Pat Finucane. The case against the pair may rest on the evidence provided by Ingram.
[Ten years on and nothing done – or likely to be. The writer hypothesises to paint a dramatic picture. Thus an upside-downer named Ingram is given a soapbox.]
“Before Christmas [Ingram] stated that he was withdrawing his statements from the Stevens Inquiry because his life had been threatened. However, he is now working closely with the inquiry again. Ingram will reveal that while FRU was supposed to be using Brian Nelson to stymie the activities of the UDA they were in fact providing him with Special Branch and Military Intelligence files which made it possible for him to have loyalists assassinate republicans and nationalists. One of FRU’s first actions when Brian Nelson was infiltrated into the UDA in 1987 was to take away the organisation’s intelligence files and return them updated – courtesy of government intelligence.
[Ingram’s life was not threatened, it’s all part of the whistleblower charade. A play with a cast of actors. Also, Brian Nelson was based in Belfast, so his handlers would need a ready access to their client. From end year 1987 to 26 September 1990, Ingram was based at St Angelo in County Fermanagh as a junior handler.
Does that give us cause to question his claim of being privy to the handling secrets of Brian Nelson in Lisburn, County Antrim? For more on “threats” – see The Sunday Herald, 17.12.00. Online.]
“Ingram’s allegation that FRU encouraged the UDA to target Ballymurphy grandfather Francisco Notarantonio [sic: a name subject to two regular spellings. I have chosen to use the second spelling – correct or otherwise], murdered in his bed in October 1987, rather than an IRA informer codenamed Stake Knife has also sent shockwaves through the British Intelligence community. The determination of former FRU officer Martin Ingram to blow the whistle may yet expose the awful truth about Britain’s dirty war.”
[1) Francisco Notorantonio was murdered on 9th October 1987. Elsewhere we read that Ingram objectively placed himself with his FRU colleagues in Northern Ireland before and just after the Notorantonio killing. Short of bi-location this could not be so as he was at the time based overseas – a lie that will be more fully dealt with anon.
2) “The determination of former FRU officer Martin Ingram to blow the whistle may yet expose the awful truth about Britain’s dirty war.” The Andersonstown News once more makes a hero of Ingram. Had he personally penned those words, he could hardly have put them better.
His function was not to disclose but to preclude and contaminate exposure. To disinform on behalf of those interests he is perceived to be attacking. An elementary trick of the trade.]
“Opening Pandora’s Box – EXCLUSIVE – By Máirtín Ó Muilleoir
“The former Military Intelligence officer known as Martin Ingram has told the Andersonstown News he has just given the Stevens Inquiry a seven-hour interview on the ‘unlawful’ activities of the secret Force Research Unit (FRU) which ‘handled’ UDA commander Brian Nelson.
[Another leg-up for Martin. Not only did the Andersonstown News elevate the lies of Ingram, so too the Stevens Inquiry.
The latter, given their craft and experience in security-intelligence investigation, couldn’t but have known that Ingram was in the business on behalf of those interests they were investigating.
The Stevens team, up to St John himself, should have publicly rebuffed Ingram’s dissembling, but didn’t. Instead they lent credibility to his, MI5 at a remove, Stakeknife assertion by public endorsement.
Also, Nelson is a “UDA commander”. He would surely have appreciated the irony in that.
And, to repeat, it was elsewhere reported that Ingram had ceased to cooperate with the Stevens Inquiry at that time.]
“Set up in 1982 [should be 1980] to combat the IRA, FRU has already been rocked by Ingram’s allegations that it colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane and others seen as a threat to the state. But now the former soldier who served two terms in the North says his taped interview and accompanying 26-page statement [to the Stevens Inquiry] on the FRU blows the lid on the secret assassination campaign carried out by British intelligence. And in a special article (below) written for the Andersonstown News, Martin Ingram takes to task republicans who have branded him a murderer. ‘I want the Andersonstown News to publish this article because I want it to be read by republican activists,’ he said this week. ‘I’m not a murderer and was not involved in murder. To say otherwise will only act as a deterrent to others in the Security Forces who may be prepared to come forward… one other person was on the verge of adding to the stories but vitriolic attacks are a disincentive.’
[Again the Andersonstown News sells the incredible Ingram to its readership. A good man who should be encouraged and not pilloried is the theme.
“One other person was on the verge of adding to the stories but vitriolic attacks are a disincentive.”
Ingram saying he is not alone in FRU in trying to usher in peace and justice to Northern Ireland by “whistleblower” testimony. Accept my credentials and more will follow.
Knowing Ingram’s lies elsewhere, what worth should we attach to his word that he is not a murderer and was never involved in murder? By lies he supports MI5/FRU who are responsible for murder and by this support he attaches himself to that culpability. Is the Andersonstown News so blind that it cannot see this Martin Ingram?]
“While he says there were ‘no rules’ governing the operations of FRU, Ingram says ’99 percent’ of its activities were within the law. But in the case of Nelson and others laws were broken. ‘People need answers and the nationalist community needs to be told the truth.’
[Ingram’s disclosures amount to a massive litany of wrongdoing; yet, in contradiction, in the above he asks us to believe that murder and mayhem comprised only one percent of FRU activities. By corollary FRU is Nobel Peace prize potential. Given that some laureate’s had more than a splash of blood on their hands, FRU is in there with a chance.
Yes truth needs to out. But that truth will not come from the republican leadership, the Martin Ingram’s of this world, or a facilitating media.]
“The Intelligence whistleblower says the three ‘primary handlers’ of Nelson (Kerr, Walshaw and one other) were once his good friends. And while all three may now face charges arising from the Stevens Inquiry, Ingram says the full truth will only come out in the type of public and independent inquiry demanded by the Finucane family or from a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
[“The intelligence whistleblower.” A nice name for a nine bob note. Ingram pretends affinity with those in search of truth and justice, like the Finucane family. He knows how this can come about, offering solutions as improbable as himself.]
“While unable to reveal full details of his statement to the Stevens Inquiry for fear of putting lives at risk, Ingram says he has information about unlawful activities which are ‘far more damaging’ than the Brian Nelson case. The ‘handling’ of Steak Knife, allegedly the highest-placed British Intelligence mole within the IRA, will reveal lawbreaking ten times worse than the Nelson case, he says.
[In a moment of tongue-in-cheek honesty Sir John Stevens called “Steak Knife” a “legend”. The Oxford dictionary defines a legend so: “A traditional story, a myth; a fictitious person, thing, or idea”.
Ingram’s submissions to the Stevens Inquiry in that respect can only be lies. A non existent agent Stakeknife-Scappaticci cannot be “the highest placed British Intelligence mole in the IRA.”
Even if truth were otherwise on the existence of agent Stakeknife, still higher echelon spies clutter the republican movement, not all of whom transposed into Sinn Fein politicians.
So, why (or for whom) the misdirection?]
“A question still remains over the very existence of Steaknife, though the Stevens Inquiry day-to-day operational head, Commander Hugh Orde, has told the Notarantonio family he believes Steaknife does exist. ‘Steak Knife is a destabilizing factor’, says Ingram, ‘and he should be removed from the theatre in a responsible way.’
[The Andersonstown News: “A question remains over the very existence of Steaknife.” It then goes on to give two effective confirmations, albeit bogus, of his existence from police chief Hugh Orde and Martin Ingram.
According to Ingram, Steak Knife “should be removed from the theatre in a responsible way.” In short, FRU/MI5s supposed best spy in the IRA, alleged to be paid up to St£80,000 a year, should be publicly drummed out of service and chased off to a retirement home in the sun.]
“Last year Ingram’s house was burgled. A manuscript of a book he was writing went missing… only to turn up later in court in the hands of prosecution lawyers who obtained an injunction preventing him from publishing his memoir. He has also received threatening emails from a former colleague in FRU. Nevertheless he remains adamant that the truth will out. ‘I should have opened my mouth at the time.’ he says in regard to the ‘running’ of Nelson, ‘but you view things in a different perspective when you are part of the intelligence community. Now as long as I have a breath in my body, I will take up the cudgels for the truth.’”
[The claimed burglary took place in the Republic of Ireland. And he had “threatening emails”.
Notwithstanding such considerations, Martin will fight for truth to out. “’I should have opened my mouth at the time,’ he says in regard to the ‘running’ of Nelson, ‘but you view things in a different perspective when you are part of the intelligence community. Now as long as I have a breath in my body, I will take up the cudgels for the truth.’”
Is that so?
Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland (2004) – By Martin Ingram and Greg Harkin. (Pages 222-223): “Ingram saw the files on the Notorantonio killing when working for the FRU. They were in the Stakeknife files. Ingram says: ‘I read the files which showed the loyalists were targeting Stakeknife and I discussed it with Stakeknife’s handler. He confirmed loyalists had picked Scappaticci, among others. I also discussed it with Nelson’s handler, who said basically that it had been taken care of. [Nelson’s handler] had told me: ‘A substitute has been put in place. It caused an almighty flap, but everything is back on track’. This conversation was before the Notorantonio murder, and I had no idea how things were put ‘back on track’. I learned after the killing that Notorantonio had been the substitute. My superiors and the handlers involved knew I was appalled by what had happened, a pensioner had been killed. I was told to ‘shut up’ and things got heated. I remember one of my senior officers said something like, ‘Didn’t Gerry Adams carry the coffin? It couldn’t have gone better for us’. Another said,’ We want to take the war to the enemy. The end justifies the means’. I thought it was wrong then and I still believe it is wrong. It is State-sponsored murder and the family of Mr. Notorantonio deserves to know the truth.
“Senior officers would routinely write end-of-year reports for each FRU handler. At the end of 1990, Ingram’s superior wrote in his confidential report: ‘XXXXXX [Martin Ingram] must temper his comments when briefing senior Army officers.’ The report was a recommendation for promotion, but the comment was clearly a reference to Ingram’s numerous conversations with senior officers when he had questioned the FRU’s role in a number of incidents. Ingram later recounted these heated exchanges to a senior investigating officer with the Stevens Inquiry, recalling in particular the murder of Notorantonio. That conversation was taped.”
Ingram tells us he was a silent party to events in the management of Brian Nelson. “I should have opened my mouth at the time” and all that.
Ó Muilleoir fails to tell us if Ingram was met in face to face meetings for some of the pre-article details above; or if they came from written answers to posed questions; by telephonic exchange, or from a longer submission, the Ingram article (below) forming part.
Some fleshing-out content was evidently obtained from other publications. I am curious to know about the arrangements to make all of this possible.
The articles above and below do not explain.
Ingram’s claims on Nelson are as much a fabrication as is his Stakeknife story on Notorantonio. In the Andersonstown News above he’s a quiescent onlooker to wrongdoing “in the ‘running’ of Nelson” because he was “part of the intelligence community”.
At the same time, in the Stakeknife book he’s portrayed as an antagonistic if distant voice against wrongdoing while also being part of the intelligence community.
Incompatibility of story telling apart, short of bi-location Ingram’s Nelson-Stakeknife-Notorantonio assertion must be lies as he was based abroad for years before and for most part of two months after Notorantonio’s murder.
The events he adverts to could not have taken place.
Furthermore, Belfast based FRU agents were handled from Thiepval barracks in Lisburn, County Antrim.
In the early months of his initial three year tour of duty in Northern Ireland (1981-82) Ingram was based at Thiepval Barracks as a JNCO collator before his 1982 posting to Ebrington barracks in Derry.
He was not based at Thiepval Barracks on his second tour, end November 1987 to 26 September 1990, as a junior handler.
It would be a major breach of protocol to impart intelligence of the utmost sensitivity to another party outside a strict “need to know” basis.
Yet here is Ingram claiming he was not only aware of the identity of Stakeknife, the “jewel in the crown of British intelligence in Northern Ireland”, but had read his files and had “heated exchanges” with senior officers on “FRU’s role in a number of incidents” at a time when serving in another country.
As they say: “Tell it to the Marines.”
Ongoing reports tentatively infer the Stakeknife story was not too well reasoned, more a rolling stone that accrued organically, Francisco Notorantonio and other parts tacked on along the way.
Ingram’s claimed quiescent onlooker aspect to Nelson’s wrongdoing was put into the public arena on 1 March 2001 by the Andersonstown News.
The Notorantonio-Stakeknife component, that I am aware, first became public in August 2000 – viz the Sunday People.
Incongruous story telling aside, it seems Ingram’s left hand had a habit of forgetting what his right hand had done over the years.]
[Believe my computer is once again subject to external intrusion; yesterday and today, Friday 19.08.11, and possibly Wednesday 17th.]
“Who guards the guards?
“By Martin Ingram. To be labeled traitor by those in the Army and a murderer by An Phoblacht/Republican News is not a pleasant experience, especially when there is no truth in either position. I am neither a traitor nor have I been personally involved in the act [or] conspiracy to murder or indeed any murder. I am a person who dislikes injustice or an abstract of the truth being fed to an innocent public as the genuine article. It is time for both the Army and the republicans to take a reality check.
[Mr Ingram’s An Phoblacht dig is rhetorical. He and the string pullers behind him will well know it is an organ of questionable provenance. Fraternal intelligence agencies not only set out to direct and promote republican agents and policy shapers but infiltrated instruments of influence like newspapers via staff insertion and contributors. As a conduit of intelligence and a repository of opinion formers aimed at a targeted audience, Republican News was of special interest to those who consider it part of their remit to suborn in the maintenance of a spancelled democratic process.
Also, I do not know of any Anna Politkovskaya’s in the Western news media. Bogus whistleblowers and investigative journalists, yes.
Purveyors of false representations of democratic freedoms.]
“When I committed myself to signing the Official Secrets Act upon joining the Army, it was as a young soldier wet behind the ears and barely out of his teenage years. In truth, as a young man I did not sign that document ever believing that I would at some juncture in the future, let alone nearly a decade after I left the forces be arrested for alleged offences under the Official Secrets Act.
The facilitated “whistleblower” who comes to see the error of former ways. That’s a hardy perennial from the thimble rigger’s drawer. A road well travelled by US/UK intelligence.
Known also to Irish and antipodean affiliates and wherever else the magic roundabout holds sway.
The Dead Dog Sings
I extrapolate from the words of the last paragraph by noting that local matters can have national and international linkage, especially when intelligence issues are entailed. In saying that I am alluding to precursor events to do with myself, experiences direct and tangential, further extended by research over many years which has helped shape the understanding in this document. Given that background, I will now attempt in a few paragraphs to formulate an overview on the tactical use of “whistleblowers” by state agencies, this apart from Mr Ingram’s dissembling in the Andersonstown News and elsewhere. Mine is only a tickle on the underbelly of an intelligence deception that demands much deeper scrutiny.
National representations of this genre have to my memory minded to a historic bias for disclosure through liberal-left flagship newspapers and periodicals, and their colleagues in the visual media, they who can “tut-tut” like they mean it, and whose censorious comments can be sold on as the real thing.
Excepting those honestly blind to the fact they were being manipulated, accomodating editors, even if not privy to the purpose of the leaks, must indubitably have known they were disinforming on behalf of national security interests. Did they believe that selling high-minded political tosh to their readers at the behest of those interests was for a greater good?
Did they care? The cognoscenti evidently did not. With that cohort in mind, I go on.
Whenever a shared (US/UK) intelligence agenda is de rigueur and more bang for the buck is needed, a manipulated two country press unfolding may be the order of the day. An exposé with one foot on each side of the big pond, a transatlantic fraternity to lend persuasion.
An Irish Sea comparison was the coordinated launch by The Sunday Herald (Glasgow) and The Sunday Tribune (Dublin) of the Stakeknife story on 4, 11 and 18 May 2003, which pushed the ball downhill.
While both newspapers sported “exclusive” labels on their 11 May issue, the day on which Freddie Scappaticci was named Stakeknife, other newspapers, from red top to broadsheet, were also in on the action if not all naming Scappaticci.
A timed impetus to effect dramatic disclosure and advance the design of a cover-up and diversion from elsewhere.
Flagship titles enhance credibility. Top writer names give authority. Contrived words and saturated coverage promote deception. A one-way outpouring and paucity of challenge create a dubious authenticity.
In the hands of secret state manipulators real news can be faked and faked news can be made real.
It is not so much what the news is about but what it is intended for – the raison d’étre.
Thus are national security aims pursued through the medium of bogus whistleblowers in unacknowledged collaboration with the media.
By such inversions the big lie is validated, of which Stakeknife is one example in a continuum currently enjoying a hiatus while it awaits our self appointed guardians to protectively sally forth with the next plastic hero in an ongoing saga.
Anglo-Saxon intelligence has an unmatched global outreach that uses a cast of super-privileged well educated dissemblers to float their lies.
Perverse that our reputedly open system should be party to such cynical manipulations and that media institutions revered by many should be amenable, not always blindly, to traducing its own readers and the sovereign people with unspoken national security attachments.
A combined term for a collective of these lousers is lyocrite. All are above sweeping the roads for a living. Many are established sound bite warriors, old reliables on standby, who, knowing the truth, go along with the lie.
Bumph is a word one has used for the utterances of others.
Within variations, their big bang disclosures follow patterns and have failings. Is there anything seriously secret or new in them? No. Is there anything seriously revealing in them? No.
Was a targeted media release involved? Yes. Why the manufactured fuss? (That is the question.)
It is a question the involved titles and their in-house names in “investigative” journalism have no intention of pursuing. One reason has to do with an unwritten protocol so solid it might well be cast in stone which demands obedience and recognition of place.
Business is on terms.
To do otherwise would be to bite the hand that feeds and result in the loss of favoured status and the prospect of future scoops. The ostensibly incompatible are really a Punch and Judy show for the masses – theatre of the absurd for the proletariat.
Besides, what editor, journalist or publication would admit to being party to a counterfeit national security disclosure, one in conflict with core readership values? Some truths can be very bad for business.
And so the magic roundabout spins on.
At the end of the jolly all the players go home smiling; especially those who do not figure in the credits.
The “free press” is only free when it toes the line. Their collective editorial management appear inhibited from joining in a fight to opt out of a servitude to the world’s most controlling vested interest.
Do they fear the influence of the loose cannon that fires silently, the power behind the throne, more than the gagging order or injunction that is perforce ushered into proceedings for effect?
Also you may have picked-up that the whistleblower phenomenon is a strategem largely confined to the Anglo-Saxon world. Were you or I to write to The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Irish Times, The Sunday Times, The Australian, The New Statesman, The Age, to quote a number of well known truth in the news publications, with evidence of egregious wrongdoing by national intelligence agencies, would we be listened to and given space?
Not on your Nellie Kelly.
Pushing on using the nine out of ten template – were you or I to contact those names tagged with human rights labels, lawyers, writers, politicians, academics, ex-security force-intelligence agency “whistleblowers” and former bureaucratic insiders beholden to the same command structure with a real case against an intelligence agency, do you think we would be given the time of day by these designer lightning rods for shadow state?
Not on your Nellie Kelly.
Why is the 9-Bob-Note picked up and the 10-Bob-Note ignored? The answer in one word: facilitation. One is. One isn’t. Make up your own mind as to why. And when the train pulls out of the station just about every reporter and editor wants to be onboard – no questions asked.
But then the latter are only there for the scut (a jump-on for a short ride), the contract this time going to another safe pair of hands.
Cast a mental eye over the list of names linked to facilitated US/UK political/intelligence/military disclosure over say the last forty or so years.
Near to a person they were a shower of polished performers: actórs with good security clearances and an easy access to the media, if not of it.
Out of the soup they write books, give talks, are lionized, become beacons of light to an effete middle class, people dull enough to survive a lifetime without growing wise to the world about them, and who unwittingly elevate others for being champions of that they most despise.
The measure of some lies may be gauged by whether a small screen or a big screen opus follows. If the latter, not even all the lousy elite of Hollywood will make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
A lie is a lie whatever the imprimatur.
That said, who can gainsay the best alchemists work for the Hollywood chemical company? They who can transform ether into real and convert real into true – all by esoteric process.
Only Langley & Co. know how they do it.
Another remarkable feature is that none of the heads above the parapet have had “accidents”, though they may promote a fear of them for themselves or family connections who are at times pressed into the mix to convey a vicarious loyalty in the fight against authoritarian state.
The “little man” appeal as expressed in story telling and by lugubrious photographic portrayal.
Note too the spontaneous adoption of “whistleblowers” by assumed human rights names in the political, legal and media worlds.
(A positive endorsement of the negative by the negative?)
Grievous cases of intelligence wrongdoing have no takers as I and no doubt many an anonymous other know well. Using the nine out of ten template, the categories just adverted to are by instinct and/or reward disposed to align with the ways and interests of secret state.
If ever a case against the state is entered upon, it is a back-door engagement for compensation - the purchase of silence.
No exposition. No truth. No admission of wrongdoing. No correction.
And so the magic roundabout spins on.
To lawyers playing the game, the client is a meal ticket, a new Mercedes or so. Who funds the cover-up? A silly question. The answer is always the same – you!
(It would not surprise me to be told the legal-judicial and related costs in these matters over the extent of the Troubles was in the order of hundreds of millions £/€. Post Troubles, the mountain continues to grow and still truth is an elusive prey.)
As for applying the nine out of ten equation to the “human rights” professionals, if anyone can identify the odd one out, the one out of ten, please let me know. We can have him or her stuffed on demise and put on a plinth in the natural history museum alongside the rare and extinct.
[When next in the foyer of the British Museum, look for the plinth with “Exhibit A” on it (“A twenty stone boulder it wa’, rough and raw, tossed out of a trench on a shovel by Big Paddy McGraw.” – from The Ballad of Big Paddy McGraw.]
Humour? Yes. But don’t just stand there with your mouths open, put me to the test by asking any of that lousy lot this question – “Who murdered Heidi Hazell?” They won’t likely know and if they do know they won’t likely want you to know they know. When you know more, you’ll know why.
So when the next “whistleblowing” hero is parachuted on to the scene to rain hush-hush ephemera on us dressed up as national security secrets that find a welcoming media, take a deep breath.
The smell assaulting your nostrils will almost certainly be fishy.
Note: Heidi Hazell, the German wife of a British army sergeant, was shot dead near Dortmund, Germany on 7 September 1989 in a compromised IRA operation.
Who murdered Heidi Hazell? The Security Service did. No, not directly. They pulled the strings, not the trigger – an agent did that.
For further development, read sections 15 to 17 of this compilation. Please help out.
“I also did not believe as a young soldier that I would have to place in the public domain information which was of public interest because the Army that I served was intent on lying and avoiding its responsibilities to society as a whole. To spend days in a prison cell for these alleged offences was a chastening experience.
[Whingeba Ingram making much of a few days in a prison cell. Many republican volunteers endured lengthy periods of incarceration on behalf of national security interests. Some even going on hunger strikes.
It is also the making of a CV. Like being arrested and imprisoned for anti-war, peace camp and civil authority protests at home and abroad.
A lesser known face of the democratic process in action.
Carrying on, I rhetorically pose: where outside of Northern Ireland were “duff-duff” bullets (charge reduced rounds) used?]
“Today I am a lot older and fatter and probably wiser with probably a more liberal sprinkling of stubbornness introduced into my character than when I agreed to maintain and keep custody of state secrets. I would like to believe that if I had known that the document I was being asked to sign was intended and designed to prevent disclosure of ILLEGAL acts, that I would have had the moral backbone and courage to have declined the offer. In reality, I signed the Official Secrets Act not believing MY government was capable of waging war on one section of a community. Today I believe differently. Successive governments have lied and deliberately engaged in a series of cover-ups to frustrate innocent people from discovering the truth about the circumstances that led to the deaths of their loved ones. It must stop.
[In the aforegoing paragraphs Goebbels is alive and well and living in London, Washington, Canberra, Dublin, and wherever else the “democratic” writ runs.]
“To those in the Army who question my motivation, I say this: There are many in the press and other forms of media who [can] confirm I am not financially motivated. To those in the Army who suggest I am a disgruntled ex-soldier, I say, please remember I left the Army with my last confidential report which, fortunately, I retained. This report was prepared, ironically, by Brigadier Kerr, and was a recommendation for promotion. I will not bore you with Brigadier Kerr’s glowing testimonial for me. Suffice to say that it was welcome and accurate. In conclusion, my home has been burgled, I have been threatened, my family has been threatened, yet revenge forms no part of my motivation and if you must continue to question my motivation, take a close, long look at Steak’s file. Need I say more?
[Kerr was then a colonel. Note in the underlined, the big hearted stoic and the big lie. Retrace and read his “confidential report”. In that piece of bunkum, which, if it exists, is likely a parallel document, Ingram says he was censured for his high minded questioning of FRU activities to senior army officers. That is not a “glowing testimonial”.
Absurdly, one lie knocking another lie.
“…and if you must continue to question my motivation, take a close, long look at Steak’s file.” Thirty years after Ingram gave birth to the legend, we still await to “take a close, long look at Steak’s file.”
Is the power of bi-location necessary?]
“To republicans I say this: Éist liomsa anois [pay attention now]. Yes, I was part of an Army that fought a war on your land and I apologise. If you desire, as I believe you do, peace and justice then you must let go of the old rhetoric and enter a new era of understanding and tolerance. To discover the truth surrounding the last 30 years you must accept people like me have a role in exposing the wrongdoings of the past and not label every soldier of the FRU a murderer, because they were not.
[MI5 giving a lecture on the philosophy of peace and the Irish language; and afforded the space to do so in a nationalist newspaper.]
“To place me alongside (William) Stobie or (Brian) Nelson is repulsive and unfair. To those in the Republican News who suggest I made public information because I was at the bottom of the food chain or from a fear of prosecution, I say: you are wrong. I currently face no prosecution for any alleged offences and to suggest otherwise will only act as a deterrent to others in the Security Forces who may be prepared to come forward and deliver the information that is required to inform those that have a moral right to that knowledge.
[Why should Ingram heed what the Republican News says? Likewise, why should people believe words from an MI5 source operating at a classic remove? A decade on and we still await a member of the “Security Forces who may be prepared to come forward and…”]
“An old intelligence story seems applicable. In the bitter cold of the Russian winter in a small village, during a howling gale and with darkness falling, a Russian peasant wandering home sees a small game bird on the ground and nearly dead from the cold. The peasant picks up the bird and warms it. At that moment a herd of cattle comes by and one of them drops a large dollop right in front of him. He puts the bird in the steaming dollop so that it will stay warm and then fly away. But a second peasant comes along and, hearing the bird chirping happily in the dollop, seizes it, breaks its neck and takes it home for supper.
“The story has three morals:
“Don’t believe everybody who drops you in the shit is your enemy;
“Don’t believe everybody who gets you out of the shit is your friend;
“Whenever you are in the shit, keep quiet about it.
[Ingram handing down tablets of wisdom from the British army intelligence training camp at Templar Barracks in Kent on the reading of scatological tea leaves.]
“Once truth has emerged from Northern Ireland, as it surely will one day, there will be an outrage and society will question why people who sign the Official Secrets Act have no forum to register their concerns. It is time there was an independent body formed with powers to investigate my allegations of illegality. The body would act as a safety valve. Genuine secrets deserve to be protected.
[Humbug from a man who’s very existence is a negation of truth and justice. “Genuine secrets deserve to be protected.” Yes, like the truth on the status of Martin Ingram, and where he was based between 1991 (army discharge) and 1999 (birth of Stakeknife).]
“Unlawful and dastardly deeds deserve no such protection. In principle there is a valid reason for imposing restrictions on the free flow of information. That said, the government must strike a balance because if the presumption in favour of freedom of expression and access to information is to be respected as this government would have us believe, you should not object to a forum being established free from political interference, in a similar way to the Privy Council.
[The previous paragraph is a jumble of contradictions. A Privy Council like forum offering impartial intelligence evaluation on behalf of the government and people? A barrack room lawyer must have flogged that nonsense to Ingram. And, “dastardly deeds”. He didn’t hear that phrase in the Greenfly bar. (A usage originally attributed to Ingram in a 19 November 2000 Sunday Tribune article by Ed Moloney. Online, P2).
As to “the government striking a balance.” That’s a non sequitur. Even more so than governments’, intelligence agencies are a law unto themselves. The system allows no access, precludes accountability, denies redress; part of the farcical enactment of their lived out non-existence in what is grandly known as the “democratic process”.
But in one particular the system and the “free flow of information” are in harmony – when it comes to dissembling by state.
We who pay, and pay the price, have no say. One of the best kept secret’s of the “Free West”.]
“My experience is of a state which prefers to gag the individual by means of civil injunction and to browbeat our media into not reporting to the public information which they have a right to. Every democracy requires citizens and soldiers to be informed, for one very good reason: so that they can exercise their right to participate in a democratic society.”
[That load of twaddle is about equal to a mountebank selling bottled miracle cures to a captive audience. Who helped Ingram write it? MI5 is in there somewhere – and laughing.]
As inferred, Ingram likely had assistance from a third party in writing the above essay, as derived from an online copy. Fancy charging the proletariat to read “green slime” indoctrination. FRU acting at a deniable remove for MI5.
Did real republicans sacrifice their all for that?
Previous: “Martin Ingram” Document – Parts 18-39