(www.stakeknife.eu)
Twitter: @seankellyis
(14)
*
The Irish News
On
For the sake of convenience,
I relate only to the former article in this brief preamble. For information
only purposes, the second shorter report will also be scanned. Readers’ can
conclude on it as they wish.
In the preliminary sections
of this presentation I contrasted the quality of writing of various items
credited to Martin Ingram, questioning if they were all by one hand (and mind).
Parts 6-7 of my 39 part
document (index section six) entitled Martin Ingram, there is reference to an
undated submission by Ingram to Greg McCartney, solicitor, contained on pages
K12.13 and K12.14 of the Ingram statement bundle to the Saville Inquiry.
I observed:
“Note: 2) A poor
presentation. Is this a natural Ingram document? Other work by him seem to have
had a professional input in their preparation. His Saville Inquiry witness
statement, for example, and articles said to have been written by him in The
Irish News, the Andersonstown News, The Guardian.” Also: “Undated. Misspelling.
Bad grammar. Sloppy typing…
The real Ingram?”
Reports in The Guardian
(London), the Andersonstown News (Belfast), available online, were obtained and
read in recent years.
The Irish News reports
listed above, were, as already stated, received and read for the first time on
Monday 31 January 2012.
My passing opinion on these
matters is not an attempt to intellectually slight Mr. Ingram, who I accept is
a repository of a wide and specialised military
experience, even if at times a slopcart dimension
spills over in some of its recounting.
However, I do query his
integrity.
Part of my search is to note
what he says and how he says it. In this regard, one accepts that his literary
skill, if not “officer standard” is competent.
From that questions arise.
If some of his submissions/articles appear to reflect his own effort in their
entirety, others suggest input from third party sources.
In the former respect there
is his undated missive to Greg McCartney, solicitor. Further like examples can
be found online, in particular his 20 page statement to the Smithwick Tribunal
on which a selective critique is included at an earlier juncture in this
compilation.
In the items mentioned or
alluded to, there are obvious defects. Ingram at times struggles in the use of
language and with consistency of story telling. In the round, his recounting of
events are prone to contradiction and, worse, lies.
A mixed bag.
I am thinking of articles by
Ingram and articles credited to Ingram with more than a hint of a third party
input.
In two instances, work
credited to Ingram were I would suggest written by outside sources – though in
respect of the book to be mentioned, possibly with background detail provided
by Ingram.
They are the Monday 11
December 2000 Irish News article, which follows this preamble, and the foreword
to Kevin Fulton’s book, Unsung Hero (2006), which I have not included.
If the latter was penned by
a ghost writer, the former – I aver, was more likely in good part the work of a
member of the Security Service or a security-intelligence officer, likely
military, working on their behalf.
Or maybe a former colleague
of Ingram? If Ingram did have an input, it was nominal, or rewritten to an
extent to make it so, I would say.
So the reader can assess the
Irish News piece, enclosed is a typed and scanned copy reduced to A4 size to
allow computer inclusion.
Please read it and make
comparison with the “all Ingram” works mentioned earlier and indeed his Andersonstown
News article of 01.03. 2001, also included in this compilation, which I suspect
was the result of a collaboration by Ingram and a non credited third party.
To what end the deception?
To sell a pup to the republican movement – hogwash via the good offices of one
of their own newspapers.
(Seán Kelly, Wednesday 01
February 2012.)
*
The Irish News, 11
December 2000 – Martin Ingram (a pseudonym), a
former member of the British military’s Force Research Unit, is a witness to
the Stevens 3 Inquiry. He believes that the probe will conclude that senior RUC
and army officers ‘acquiesced’ in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries.
As an ex-Intelligence Corps
soldier who served with the Force Research Unit, it is a strange feeling
writing an opinion piece for a newspaper that I once viewed as a mouthpiece for
the republican movement. Indeed, the paper was used by intelligence operators
on a regular basis to extract up-to-date photography of individuals of
‘interest’ ie, GAA matches etc.
This type of passive
intelligence-gathering from open media is perfectly legal and there are many
people within the nationalist community who would support the security forces’
right to maintain an up-to-date intelligence database to fight the scourge of
terrorism.
In contrast, most reasonable
law-abiding citizens from both communities would denounce the involvement by
security forces in any collusion, official or otherwise, with any paramilitary
organisation, even if it meant increased success in controlling terrorist activity
and, in particular, the success at reducing random sectarian attacks.
The basic premise of any
democratic and free society is the security forces act within the law and are
accountable for their actions to the people and if any individuals in positions
of power or influence have or are accused of having abused this power, then the
mechanism to establish the truth should be transparent and have the ability to
speedily resolve the issues at point. The RUC requested such an inquiry to be
established during late 1989.
The original investigation
was led by Sir John Stevens, who was the deputy chief constable of Cambridge
police, and manned by officers drawn from England. The terms of reference were simply
to investigate possible collusion between elements of the security forces and
illegal paramilitary organizations. The investigation was well intentioned and
resulted in the exposure of the Force Research Unit agent Brian Nelson. Nelson
had been an intelligence officer for the Ulster Defence Association.
This investigation
culminated in both a ‘secret’ report and a curtailed court case which allowed
Nelson to plead guilty to a number of charges for which, in return, he received
a substantially reduced prison term and a lucrative resettlement package.
This accomodation denied to
those affected by Nelson’s activities the opportunity to glean in an open court
the circumstances regarding Nelson’s career as a paid agent of the state and,
perhaps more importantly, the opportunity to examine the role undertaken by
members of the security forces in the handling of Brian Nelson.
The ‘running’ of human
intelligence is never easy nor straightforward and though there are no formal
guidelines each and every handler knows that if they transgress the law there
is no defence.
In my experience the vast
majority of handlers employed by the Force Research Unit operated within the
law and, where possible, were even-handed and objective in their work. It is my
belief that handlers involved in the running of Nelson and at least one other
agent did not conform to acceptable practices, although it is up to a properly
convened court of law or inquiry to determine whether their practices were
lawful or otherwise.
Amazingly, one of Nelson’s
handlers appeared recently on Peter Taylor’s BBC programme Brits to defend both his actions and the case management of Nelson
in general. He used a pseudonym Geoff and although his physical appearance was
deliberately silhouetted to protect his identity, it was clear to anybody who
had worked with Geoff and perhaps, more importantly the Stevens detectives,
that the person portrayed as Geoff was indeed an ex-FRU soldier.
Speaking personally, I was
astounded when Peter Taylor asked a series of questions regarding conspiracies
to murder and for the avoidance of doubt the transcript of this programme is
reproduced below.
Taylor: Brian Nelson went to
gaol because he was involved in conspiracies to murder.
Geoff: Yes, at our behest.
Taylor: He was encouraged to
be involved in those conspiracies.
Geoff: Yes, he was.
Taylor: By you and your colleagues.
Geoff: Yes, he was.
Taylor: By the FRU.
Geoff: Yes.
The astonishing admission of
involvement in conspiracies to murder is not news to me, although I was shaken
by the nonchalant and arrogant manner that Geoff delivered this information
safe in the belief that he was immune from prosecution. Wrong!
This interview is compounded
by the knowledge that Geoff is now a serving RUC officer, although he felt
inhibited to inform the public of this relevant fact during his interview.
I can envisage no greater
advertisement or justification for the full and immediate implementation of
Patten, because this is not an isolated incident involving RUC members and no
comfort should be drawn from the fact that Geoff is an ex-soldier. It is vital
that we reform the mindset of the RUC and for those not minded to uphold the
values that we demand of a police officer, the door beckons.
I can fully understand the frustrations
in the nationalist community, having endured an investigation which has been
‘live’ for over 10 years. However, only more time and a degree in patience will
tell if the current Stevens 3 investigation into primarily the facts
surrounding the murder of Mr. Finucane, is successful. Either reassuring the
nationalist/republican community that there was no institutionalized collusion
or that those individuals who did commit offences will be brought before a
properly convened court of law and remedies to the old working practices put
into place.
I believe that a progress
report compiled by the Stevens investigation is to be produced and presented to
government early in the new year and a significant and reassuring gesture to
the educated public and, by inference, your readers, would be the public being
allowed sight of this progress report as an informed debate may take place, for
perhaps the first time.
During the Brian Nelson
court case, Lt Col J, the FRU commanding officer responsible for the case
management of Nelson, stated clearly and honestly that “at the heart of the
‘informer system’ lies a legal nonsense”. This situation has led to many people
suffering and, as part of any inquiry, this legal nonsense needs to be
clarified and clear and explicit rules, or in military terms standard operating
practices, need to be urgently put into action.
This report will I believe
portray a picture of institutionalized collusion primarily in the Belfast
region. This collusion, although not officially sanctioned, had the conscious
acquiescence of senior RUC officers including…[sic] whilst serving in the
Special Branch and, of course, senior army officers.
This situation was a ticking
time bomb and is and was totally unacceptable. The practice of using one terrorist
army to attack another terrorist army is both morally indefensible and
unlawful. Indeed, I was told on more than one occasion the ‘ends justifies the
means’ and the ‘right’ people were allowed to live and the ‘wrong’ were not.
This practice of presiding
as a judge, juror and executioner is wrong and regrettably I cannot say the
mindset of some of the individuals concerned has changed to this day.
Indeed, in recent
communications they have reinforced their opinions. I, for my part, cannot and
will not subscribe to the same and I and my family have suffered as a
consequence.
In some media reporting the
FRU was portrayed as a ‘maverick’ unit with a number of rogue members operating
in a cavalier fashion. This portrayal would satisfy those looking to limit any
potential blame to a number of individuals.
How very convenient.
Those who proffer this line
of thought should examine both the management controls in place and, crucially,
the basis and intelligence requirement that were sought by commanders and on
which the FRU was established in 1980.
There are three ‘special
duties’ units which operate within the north and other parts of Ireland. For
the avoidance of doubt these are 22 SAS, 14 Coy, and Force Research Unit.
Two of these units are
directly under the operational command of the RUC, that is to say that they
cannot operate unless they are directly tasked via RUC officers and the army
cannot task independently.
The FRU was established with
different terms of reference and was not brought under operational command of
the RUC for political and operational reasons. If there was a genuine desire
and the political will to have the RUC in command of all intelligence-gathering
as those who proffer the RUC primacy argument, then why was the FRU not commanded
like the other two ‘special’ units with RUC commanders?
The peoples of Ireland, and
especially the republican movement, are grappling with the implications and
challenges that the Good Friday agreement poses to all sectors of the community
and it is imperative that soldiers like myself get off the fence and do the
decent thing and stop the lies, deceit and hiding behind the dressing gown of
mother state.
The agreement created an opportunity
for a genuine period of glasnost and we should not allow those who have a
vested interest in remaining in a state of cold war to delay or indeed destroy
the vision of peace, equality and prosperity that all decent, sane people
aspire for.
END
*
Note: One observes
querulously, not so much on the content of the article, that is trite run of
the mill double talk, but how they
can get away with having their propaganda published in a nationalist newspaper.
Perhaps, given the background
provided in previous documents, and those to come, I pronounce rhetorically?
|
|
|
The Irish News, Monday 11
December 2000. |
|
|
|
|
The Irish News, Thursday
10 October 2002. END Update: *) It is perhaps fair to
say The Irish News is considered to be the premier “nationalist” newspaper in
Northern Ireland. *) Yet, remarkably, up to
and including year 2016, the newspaper has continued to promote the lie of agent
Stakeknife. *) Up to and including
year 2016, the newspaper has further promoted the fiction that Francisco
Notorantonio was murdered in lieu of Freddie Scappaticci, alleged agent
Stakeknife. Short of bi-location, the
basis for this claim is an intellectual and physical impossibility. *) Up to and including
year 2016, the Irish News promoted the claim that Freddie Scappaticci was the
“golden egg” of British army intelligence in Northern Ireland. This nugget of dissembling
is derived from a sham interview of a supposed “General Sir John Wilsey”,
former GOC Land Forces in Northern Ireland (1990-1993) by ex-FRU sergeant Ian
Hurst. Like the Notorantonio
story, this claim is also bogus. The alleged General Sir John Wilsey in the
telecon “interview” of Saturday 14 April 2012 was almost certainly an
impersonator. A measure of elementary
investigative journalism would have exposed many of the questionable aspects
in the Stakeknife fabrication. In 2015, an Irish News
journalist made reference to a claim by another writer that Freddie
Scappaticci was a (long weekend) guest of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher at Chequers, the country retreat of British prime ministers.
It is in a book – it must
be true! See Dead Men Talking
(2004), by Nicholas Davies, pages 86-88. This claim, like the
“jewel in the crown”, bi-location, “the golden egg”, the “rat hole”, and much
else, are all derived from FRU freebies. Why doesn’t The Irish
News, on behalf of and in the interest of its readership, research and comment
on the reality of these positions? My submissions to the
Operation Kenova “investigation into the alleged activities of the person
known as Stakeknife” are available to be read by prior arrangement at my
address. Do note the Operation
Kenova direction is to a “person known as Stakeknife” and not an ”agent known
as Stakeknife”. That’s because the latter does not exist – and never did. ***** |
|
|
|
|
|
The Irish News,
Wednesday 20 May 2020 –
“Publishers of The Irish News, Belfast
Telegraph and Newsletter have
joined with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to issue [a] powerful
statement demanding [the ‘immediate withdrawal’ of paramilitary death threats
against Northern Ireland journalists] and those responsible be ‘brought to
justice’ and for the ‘free and independent media’ to be protected.” Yes the lives of
journalists should be safeguarded but not especially more so than other
members of society. However, don’t be fooled into believing it is to maintain
a “free and independent media” – that we do not have. Having reached this point
in my “search for truth” into the Stakeknife story, you will have read a good
deal of the evidence confirming it is a bogus construction . Ask yourself this
question: “How did the lie enter the public arena?” Answer. The same way as a
lot of other spoof stories from the treasure chest of national security
agencies – by their writer friends in the “free and independent media”. If you can’t believe the
journalists, you can’t trust the editors. So the next question is: “Why did
the media lie to us and on whose behalf?” Answer: Judge for yourself. When published lies are
brought to the attention of the media, like those in the Stakeknife story,
why the failure to correct? Answer: Because the media is
not “free and independent”. Why was it left to me, and
old man with only a marginal level of formal education, to research the
Stakeknife story? Answer: Because the “free and independent media” wouldn’t
do it. They sold us the lie but
would not pursue the truth. * Extracted from www.statemurder.eu
State Murder 1, Section 8 The late Enoch Powell MP, writing in the Independent on Friday 1 April 1988, on the SAS shooting dead
three IRA members in Gibraltar on Sunday 6 March 1988, damned the British
press and parliamentary opposition for a failure to ask questions and go on
asking them, something which he characterized as an “ugly silence”. A
criticism directed at a disinclination to do their job and root out the truth
on the shootings. Powell would employ Aneurin Bevan’s “Alliterative denunciation of the British media
as ‘the most prostituted press in the world.’” He rhetorically posed: “Where have all the journalists gone? I do not think I can be the only
person asking this. In almost any major event or item of news, there is a
question or point of view which ought to be voiced, however awkward it may be
and however much out of line with the general gush of public sentiment and
prejudice. It is nearly always the sort of question and point of view which governments prefer should not
be asked; and governments are equipped with the resources to swamp public
presentation and reportage, so that the awkward question and awkward point of
view are squeezed off the television screen and news paper pages. “It used, or am I mistaken?, to be able to be taken for granted that
there would be an editor or writer somewhere who would do the work of asking
that question and going on asking it, putting that point of view and going on
putting it. They were not very likeable people. “In fact they were more than a bit of a nuisance. But that was their
job and they did it…” Are the words of Mr. Powell as true today as they were in 1988? Now-a-days the “free and independent media” are more likely to be pro-active
in national security dissembling. The Stakeknife story is one case in point. The Anglo-Saxon world is particularly adept at this form of
manipulation and disinformation; often coming to us through the medium of a
“whistleblower”. I know of no “investigative” journalist or newspaper of any worth in
the exposition of egregious national security wrongdoing in the “free west” –
do you? If you think you do, that’s because you haven’t checked it out. |
|
|
|
|
