GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for March, 2014

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/03/2014

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.



based on having read Dr. Richard North’s BREXIT submission in full some time ago I felt it was by far the most likely paper to win the BREXIT Prize.

It was detailed, factual and remarkably well researched with literally 100s of sourced documents collated to make a very comprehensive and well informed submission.

That , as Richard announced on his blog which I have featured below, he has not been shortlisted in the final six leaves me with two different thoughts, the first of which is that I am really looking forward to reading those last six submissions and particularly the winner as their submissions must be incredibly inovative and hugely grounded in both law, politics and even the un sccience of economics to have surpased Richard’s submission.

My second reaction, which sadly I fear will prove right, is that Richard’s detailed and inovative submission has far outclassed the other submissions and has proved embarrassing to some of the judges in that it proved challenging to understand in its comprehensive handling and very detailed understanding of not just the EU but the new world of global politics and power. Further that there is a strong possibility that Richard’s submission slaughters the holy cows of misunderstanding of the facts held by some amongst the judges.

I can but hope my fears are not realised and the winner has presented an inovative, practical and informed solution to the challenges posed by the brief of the prize intentions.

I look forward with some concern to 08-Apr-2014 and the results but though my knowledge of all of the judges is limited there are some very large loopholes in the impartiality of the judges – not least that Roger Bootle has recently written and published his own solution to the problems which on just one reading seemed to miss all too many points making it largely unworkable and clearly being so absorbed by economics had little relevance to the realities of disassociation from the EU for these United Kingdoms.

The clash of the views of the judges may well have tainted the validity of their decision making process – unlike Richard I shall await the results with baited breath!


BREXIT: entirely unsurprising

 Wednesday 26 March 2014

000a IEA-026 Brexit.jpg

As indicated in my overnight piece, our “Brexit” submission did not make it to the final six. Instead, I got a bland, patronising note from the IEA press person (above), a classic example of rank bad manners. Given the effort all of us put into the competition, at the very least we should have been sent a personal e-mail from the chairman of the judging panel.

Although I could have used the money, not to be included is actually a relief. It frees me from the constraints of the competition and allows me to return to the debate. With that in mind, I am able to publish my submission here (.pdf 98 pages), and will work up some shorter essays for the blog, based on the content. We are also planning a dedicated website, to explore the wider issues involved.

In terms of the content, I feel my single, most important contribution is the observation that “Brexit” is not a single event, but a process. It must be a series of ongoing strategies which allow for a FLexible response and Continuous development.  Thus “Brexit” became “FLexCit”.

The IEA has now issued a press release nominating the six finalists, and the award ceremony will be held on 8 April in London.

Richard North 26/03/2014

Here are details of The IEA’s BREXIT Prize as it moves forward:

The Institute of Economic Affairs is delighted to announce the final six candidates for the IEA Brexit Prize. The Rt Hon Lord Lawson will be awarding the €100,000 prize to the winning entry outlining a blueprint for Britain after the EU on 8 April.

Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will be a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA. Judges-decisions are final.

Final shortlist:

·       Rory Broomfield and Iain Murray

·       Prof Stephen Bush

·       Ben Clements

·       Tim Hewish

·       Iain Mansfield

·       Daniel Pycock

Commenting on the release of the final shortlist, Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“The Brexit prize is an essential and timely contribution as we sit at a crossroads regarding our future relationship with both the EU and the rest of the world. Rather than focusing on the pluses and minuses of membership, we urgently need to address how the UK should arrange its affairs if a referendum triggered a Brexit. These final six entries will be key in providing the much needed intellectual backdrop for this.”

Judging panel

·       Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer

·       David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London

·       Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School

·       Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. (Advisor and non-voting member)

·       Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital

·       Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine

·       Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham

·       Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs



Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Details & Links:
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive:
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
Health Blog.:

Skype: GregL-W



 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
To Leave-The-EU

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, IEA, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/03/2014

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
Clean Politics up NOW make Politicians Responsible for their actions! 


The antics of some self serving Politicians

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

THE AIM is to consider the difficulties of leaving The EU and seek solutions so that we may maximise THE BENEFITS of a Free, Independent, Sovereign Nation Trading with all they choose around the world at liberty with minimal Government control and intervention. IF YOU have ideas you believe worth publishing please comment and mail them in!!


BREXIT Shows That At Least Someone Is Thinking!

for almost 25 years I have been seeking out some organisation of repute that has, or is devising, an EU Exit & Survival Strategy.

For the best part of that time I had hoped that UKIP m,ight act responsibly and draw up the details of such a plan and the strategic points and tactical steps required but sadly despite some 15 years of highlighting their structural inadequacies, leadership ineptitude and profound lack of gravitas or intellectual rigour they have failed on all counts to both represent the best interests of the Leave-The-EU movement they CLAIM to represent and have been followers rather than leaderrs!

To this day UKIP has manifestly displayed a lack of strate gic planning, an absence of tactical plans and absolutely no signs or any kind of an Exit & Survival Strategy and no evidence of making any steps towards such a policy/plan – being reliant rather on opportunistic self interest abjectly failing to educate the public on the issues or for that matter themselves and their members and supporters!

At last someone is thinking:.

IEA Brexit Prize

IEA Brexit PrizeScenario
A referendum has resulted in an “Out” vote and Her Majesty’s Government has triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What measures does the UK need to take in the following two years, domestically (within the UK), vis-a-vis the remaining EU and internationally, in order to promote a free and prosperous economy?
An “Out” vote in a British referendum would be a major historic geo-political and economic event, perhaps even comparable with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and re-unification of Germany. It is time, therefore, that the UK explores the process of withdrawal and its economic and political consequences. This competition is designed to examine the process of withdrawal and, more importantly, how the UK might fit into the fresh geo-political and economic landscape that would follow.
Entry Requirements
Against this background, competitors are invited to compose a Blueprint for Britain outside the EU, covering the process of withdrawal from the EU and the post-exit repositioning of the UK in the global trading and governance systems, covering, inter alia:

  • The legal and constitutional process necessary for the UK to leave the EU and set up, if desired, alternative international relationships. This would include not just the process within the EU itself but the changes to UK law and regulation that would be desirable or necessary.
  • Negotiation of the UK’s post-EU-exit position to settle the UK’s relationships with the remaining EU and other interested parties and, crucially, with the rest of the world, in respect of trade, supranational governance, immigration, the environment, financial regulation, defence etc.

Submissions are invited from individuals, groups of individuals, academia and corporate bodies such as consultancy firms, law firms, accounting firms, think-tanks and investment banks. Initial submissions will be around 2,000 words. The competition’s initial judging panel will then invite the authors of around twenty of those entries to make full submissions of between 10,000 and 20,000 words within a further four months.
Judging Panel

  • Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer
  • David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
  • Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School
  • Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries
  • Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital
  • Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine
  • Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham
  • Ruth Lea, Non-Executive Director of the Arbuthnot Banking Group
  • Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs

Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA.
16th July 2013 – Brexit Prize announced
16th September 2013, 4pm – Deadline for initial submissions
End October 2013 – Selection of 20 best initial submissions announced
Early February 2014 – Deadline for final submissions
March 2014 – Winner announced
For media enquiries, please contact Ruth Porter: 0207 799 8920 / 07751 717 781
For general enquiries and to request an entry number please contact Amelia Abplanalp: / 020 7799 8900. Please indicate if you will be in the under 31 category.
To download full information and remit, click here.
To download guidelines for entrants, click here.
To download style guide for entrants, click here.


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Details & Links:
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive:
General Stuff ongoing:
Health Blog.:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

Reclaim YOUR Future 
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

Posted in BREXIT | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IN MEMORIAM of Those Who Died At Sharpeville 1960 & others.

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 21/03/2014

IN MEMORIAM of Those Who Died At Sharpeville 1960 & others.


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.



at the commemoration 52 years later it was all so very different with interlock pavements, tarmac roads and of course school uniforms – some call that progress.

Now in 2014 54 years later we should remember them:

March 21




Death and injury toll

The official figure is that 69 people were killed, including 8 women and 10 children, and 180 injured, including 31 women and 19 children.

Many were shot in the back as they turned to flee.

Reasons for firing

Police reports in 1960 claimed that young and inexperienced police officers panicked and opened fire spontaneously, setting off a chain reaction that lasted about forty seconds. It is likely that the police were nervous as two months before the massacre nine constables had been murdered under similar circumstances at Cato Manor.

In addition, nearly all policemen present had received no previous training regarding the control of mob disturbances.

Most of them had already been coping with the situation for over twenty-four hours without respite.[7] Lieutenant Colonel Pienaar, the commanding officer of the police reinforcements at Sharpeville, said in his statement that “the native mentality does not allow them to gather for a peaceful demonstration. For them to gather means violence.”

He also denied giving any order to fire and stated that he would not have done so.


June 16



 SOUTH AFRICA 16-Jun-1976 02 SOWETO 01

The Cillie Commission of Enquiry clsimed 575 people died in the SOWETO uprising of 1976 where Police action resulted in 451 deaths. 3 907 people were injured.

Though there are claims that there were in excess of 1,500 deaths across South Africa in related incidents.



June 16



 SOUTH AFRICA 16-Jun-2012 03

Aug 16



 SOUTH AFRICA 16-Aug-2012 04 MARIKANA 01

44 striking miners at Marikana Mine near Krugersdorp, outside Johannesburg, South Africa were massacred and at least 78 others were injured as a result of violent and aggressive policing by the heavily armed South African Police.

Some will be sufficiently observant to note that our Politicians are as ever serving their own interests rather than the people’s, in the Western World also.


As we commemorate the 100th. anniversary of World War I where 37 Million lives were lost  putting a stop to German ambitions to dominate a largely unified centralised and militarised Europe.

We also remember the 60>85 Million who lost their lives as a result of German efforts yet again to create a centrally controlled, undemocratic militaristic EUrope in World War II including The Holocaust & genocide.

We note the attempts of the largely undemocratic EU dominated by Germany yet again to impose a centrally controlled Greater EUrope and most recently note the catastrophy of EU interference in such sovereign states as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Egypt, Mali, Chad, Syria and now Crimea and The Ukrain.

On a more local scale we note the economic illiteracy of Gordon Brown and New Labour and the resultant economic crash they orchestrated largely in pursuit of Tony Blair’s ambitions and lies and their legacy, not least of which was the squandering of £Billions of tax payers money on bailing out first their cronies and then their backers and supporters in banking.

We now watch in horror as the Government makes every effort to impose the EU’s undemocratic will on the largely unwilling British people to construct the EU vanity project of HS2 which has no apparent finite cost nor compelling benefit whilst it will clearly dissadvantage not only the areas through which it passes but also those which it does not service.

We need only consider for a moment the obscene damage done to these United Kingdoms not only by widening highways and increasing bridge strengths for the EU to impose its grossly oversized lorries but also the massive damage done by flooding in the last few months as a result of so called green policies and wetland control, undemocratically imposed by the EU.


What goes around comes around with even the once wealth Western World slipping into different sectors of society and massive wealth for the ruling clique and their immediate claque over the increasingly impoverished masses – As we lose our fundamental human rights of self determination and police force against protest at abuse of the people it gets more like Sharpeville in March 1960 day on day!



Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Details & Links:
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive:
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
Health Blog.:

Skype: GregL-W



 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
To Leave-The-EU

Posted in MARIKANA MASSACER, SHARPEVILLE MASSACRE, South Africa, SOWETO 1976, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PLEASE REMEMBER The My Lai Massacre 16-March-1968

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 16/03/2014

PLEASE REMEMBER The My Lai Massacre 16-March-1968


On the 16-March-1968 a detatchment of US troops under the direct command of Lt. William Calley entered the village of My Lai and slaughtered and raped old women, children, and entire families.

Some 500 civilians were slaughtered.

The USA took no meaningful action against the 18 men charged and the 19th. Lt. Calleyreceived little more than a tokenary punishment.

Do note that not one of the senior officers in the line of command EVER stood trial for this obscene action of cowardice and brutality.

John Kerry as a young man responded to the Senate Enquiry and claimed it was The USA at fault and no one man should be held responsible for a faulty system:

Many years later that same John Kerry as a Senator voted for the corrupt and unlawfull invasion and brutal massacres of Iraq under the same irresponsible gung ho code.
It is this same John Kerry who succeeded to the job of Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton & now represents the USA on the global stage!

Is this what is meant by power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Please take a moment and think of those wretched civilians slaughtered in My Lai 44 years ago today.

Then take a moment to consider the slaughter in the same cause of forcing people to practice some obscene concept to suit old men in Government – forcing them in Iraq and Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Mali & so many more to adopt a given model of democracy or be shot or tortured if they resist.

. .

Courtesy of Wikipedia entry:


  • Lieutenant Colonel Frank A. Barker – commander of Task Force Barker who ordered the destruction of the village and controlled the artillery preparation and combat assault from his helicopter; he was killed in Vietnam on June 13, 1968, before the investigation had begun.[4][55]
  • Lieutenant Stephen Brooks – platoon leader of 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company.
  • Second Lieutenant William L. Calley – platoon leader of 1st Platoon, Charlie Company.
  • Colonel Oran K. Henderson – brigade commander who ordered the attack; he had been in a helicopter over Mỹ Lai.[4]
  • Major General Samuel W. Koster – commander of the Americal Division.
  • Captain Eugene Kotouc – military intelligence officer who provided some of the information on which the Mỹ Lai combat assault was based; together with Medina and a South Vietnamese police officer, he tortured and executed suspects later that day.[15]
  • Captain Ernest Medina – company commander of Charlie Company who planned, ordered, and supervised the execution of the operation in Sơn Mỹ village.[56]

1st Platoon, Charlie Company

  • Sergeant Michael Bernhardt – refused to participate in the killing of civilians. Captain Medina threatened Sergeant Bernhardt to deter him from writing to Bernhardt’s congressman to expose the massacre and, as a result, was allegedly given more dangerous duties such as point duty on patrol.[57] Later he would help expose and detail the massacre in numerous interviews with the press, and he served as a prosecution witness in the trial of Medina, where he was subjected to intense cross examination by defense counsel F. Lee Bailey. Recipient of the New York Society for Ethical Culture‘s 1970 Ethical Humanist Award.[58]
  • Herbert Carter – platoon “tunnel rat“. He claimed he shot himself in the foot in order to be MEDEVACed out of the village.[citation needed]
  • Dennis Conti – testified he initially refused to shoot, but later fired some M79 grenade launcher rounds at a group of fleeing people with unknown effect.
  • James Dursi – killed a mother and child, then refused to kill anyone else even when ordered to do so.
  • Ronald Grzesik – a team leader. He claimed he followed orders to round up civilians, but refused to kill them.
  • Robert Maples – stated to have refused to participate.[clarification needed]
  • Paul Meadlo – said he was afraid of being shot if he did not participate. Lost his foot to a land mine the next day. Later, he publicly admitted his part in the massacre.
  • Sergeant David Mitchell – accused by witnesses of shooting people at the ditch site; pleaded not guilty. Mitchell was acquitted. His attorney was Ossie Brown of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who thereafter became the district attorney of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.[59]
  • Varnado Simpson – committed suicide in 1997, citing guilt over several murders committed in Mỹ Lai.
  • Charles Sledge – radio operator, later prosecution witness.
  • Harry Stanley – claimed to have refused to participate.
  • Esequiel Torres – previously had tortured and hanged an old man because Torres found his bandaged leg suspicious. He and Roschevitz (described below) were involved in the shooting of a group of ten women and five children in a hut. Later he was ordered by Calley to shoot a number of people with a M60 machine gun; he fired a burst before refusing to fire again, after which Calley took his weapon and opened fire himself.[citation needed]
  • Frederick Widmer – Widmer, who has been the subject of pointed blame, is quoted as saying, “The most disturbing thing I saw was one boy—and this was something that, you know, this is what haunts me from the whole, the whole ordeal down there. And there was a boy with his arm shot off, shot up half, half hanging on and he just had this bewildered look in his face and like, ‘What did I do, what’s wrong?’ He was just, you know, it’s, it’s hard to describe, couldn’t comprehend. I, I shot the boy, killed him and it’s—I’d like to think of it more or less as a mercy killing because somebody else would have killed him in the end, but it wasn’t right.”[60]

Other soldiers

Hugh Thompson, Jr. rescued Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai massacre.

  • William Doherty and Michael Terry – soldiers in the 3rd Platoon who killed the wounded in the ditch.[36]
  • Ronald L. Haeberle – photographer attached to the 11th Brigade information office who accompanied C Company.
  • Nicholas Capezza – chief medic in Charlie Company. He insisted he saw nothing unusual.
  • Sergeant Minh – ARVN interpreter who confronted Captain Medina about the number of civilians that were killed. Medina replied, “Sergeant Minh, don’t ask anything – those were the orders.”[61]
  • Gary Roschevitz – grabbed an M16 rifle from Varnado Simpson to kill five Vietnamese prisoners.[62]According to various witnesses, he later forced seven women to undress with the intention of raping them. When the women refused, he reportedly shot them.[63]

Rescue helicopter crew

  • Warrant Officer One Hugh Thompson, Jr. – helicopter pilot who confronted the ground forces personally. Died 6 January 2006.
  • Specialist Four Glenn Andreotta – crew chief. Killed In Action: 8 April 1968.
  • Specialist Four Lawrence Colburn – door gunner.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” 
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)Regards,
Greg L-W.for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE  

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EUfor their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

Make your vote count vote:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar<

Details & Links:
General Stuff:
Health Blog.:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in My Lai Massacre | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Michael Shrimpton’s Official Defence Statement in full

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 14/03/2014

Michael Shrimpton’s Official Defence Statement in full.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.



News and Photo Gallery


Crime Vaults




Video Vaults


Crime Archive


Online archive






AYLESBURY A barrister accused of making hoax claims to a senior Ministry of Defence official about a bomb being hidden at an east London hospital is to stand trial next year. Michael Shrimpton, 56, allegedly told Barry Burton, a close colleague of Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond, that an explosive device was at Newham Hospital. Shrimpton, the author of conspiracy theory book, Spyhunter, is also said to have made bogus bomb claims to the offices of David Liddington, MP for Aylesbury, the following day, Southwark Crown Court heard.


The Court case is this month at Southwark!

A Copy of Michael Shrimpton’s Defence Statement has fortuitously come to hand from a source I have used from time to time.

Since I have tracked a version on a public forum I feel there is no point in redacting the details I can not confirm to protect Michael Shrimpton against his own fertile imagination and some of his more ‘strange statements’ so herewith:


Michael Shrimpton’s
Official Defence Statement in full:




B E T W E E N:-




– and –


M  I C H A E L   S H R I M P T O N,  E S Q U I R E





D E F E N C E   C A S E    S T A T E M E N T







1.         At all material times the Defendant acted in complete good faith, as a good citizen should, drawing to the attention of the proper authorities intelligence which came into his possession, via prosecution witness Neil Jones (page 129), whose good faith in the matter is not disputed.  The intelligence indicated a potential nuclear or radiological threat to the Games of the XXX Olympiad (“the London Games”), with surface detonation and a Ground Zero within 2.5 miles of the Olympic Stadium in East London.  The intelligence appears to have been passed to Mr Jones via multiple sources, including a cut-out in Belgrade and the respected intelligence commentator Benjamin Fulford in Tokyo.  It followed published threats by the al Qaeda terrorist organisation of a catastrophic (“Level Three”) attack against the United Kingdom during the Games period, specifically mentioning London as the target city. 


2.         As an illustration of his good faith, the Defendant used his best endeavours to try and verify the intelligence before contacting the authorities.  The approach to the Secretary of State for Defence, in his capacity as a member of the National Security Council of the United Kingdom, was on the informal advice of a retired Director-General of Intelligence, Air Marshal Sir John Walker, whom the Defendant contacted on his mobile telephone.  The Defendant was known to the Air Marshal, a distinguished air intelligence officer and former commander of a nuclear strike wing.  The actus reus of the offence is not made out in respect of either count in the indictment.  No positive assertions as to the presence of an Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) in London were made in either call, i.e. the intelligence was qualified.  The notes of the conversations are inaccurate to the point of being garbled.  The note by Mr Barry Burton of the MOD was not made until the following day and the note by Ms Sarah Sproat is little more than a summary on a ‘Post-It’ note.  In the ordinary course of events each call, having been made on a digital telephone exchange, would have been recorded by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) under the Echelon system, the Defendant’s voiceprint being held by GCHQ, the American National Security Agency (NSA) and other Allied signals intelligence agencies under the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing arrangements.  On the balance of probabilities recordings of both calls are being withheld by GCHQ from the CPS in order to prejudice the defence.  On balance the Director GCHQ probably has the sanction of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, to withhold this material evidence from the CPS, the Defendant and the court.  The Defendant respectfully adopts the conclusions of Benjamin Fulford (www.Veterans, already disclosed) that (1) the Cabinet Secretary reports to the Director General Operations 2 (GO2) and (2) the current Director GO2 is Sir John Scarlett, former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). 


3.         The intelligence briefing to the MOD, which it was intended to back up with a briefing to the Foreign Secretary, hence the call to David Lidington MP’s agent, was substantially accurate and was confirmed by radiation signature readings taken by US military satellites, probably KH-13s, of the National Reconnaissance Office, in low earth orbit between 2200 hours Zulu (GMT) and 0100 hours Zulu on 20th/21st April 2012.  These readings, which were downloaded to a ground station near Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA, indicated that a source of weapons-grade plutonium was present adjacent to, then on, the Blackwater River Estuary in Essex.  This Satellite Intelligence (SATINT) is consistent with reporting of a viable IND being removed from the UK by a German SSK.  The SATINT would have been made available to GCHQ as a matter of course under the UKUSA (originally BRUSA) Intelligence Treaty and on balance is probably being withheld from the CPS, the defence and court.  The intelligence was also confirmed in broad terms in November 2012 at the Lancaster House GICNT seminar, the Powerpoint presentations of which should be disclosed (the Defendant has learnt from several of the participants that there were no formal papers).           


The Nature and Sources of the Defendant’s Intelligence Expertise              


4.         As set out in Part 1 of Spyhunter the Defendant is an intelligence and national security specialist, as confirmed by the amount of intelligence material in his possession when his new flat was unlawfully raided by Thames Valley Police.  Since nothing of evidential significance to the prosecution, save for one Exhibit (AAH/4, a notebook), which simply confirms the point made in paragraph 2 supra, as it listed a number of people and agencies via whom the Defendant was trying to verify the intelligence, or vice versa, the Defendant does not intend making an application under PACE s.78 to exclude any of the illegally seized material.  The Defendant has never held himself out as an intelligence officer.  If the prosecution wish to assert that he has made such a claim they must call the person who alleges that claim was made to him or her, i.e. objection will be taken at trial to inadmissible hearsay statements.    


5.         The Defendant has advised and represented intelligence officers, including “Juliet Lima”, now living in West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, from whom the prosecution has taken a statement and whose connection to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was acknowledged in interview.  He has had an article published in a specialist peer-reviewed intelligence publication, the respected Journal of International Security Affairs, whose then Editor, the late Ambassador Harvey Feldman, had long-standing links to the CIA.  He has also been invited to speak at intelligence conferences, including the Intelligence Conference (INTELCON) at Crystal City, Virginia, USA in February 2005, the Intelligence Summit, at the same venue (the Hyatt Crystal City) in 2006 and the Intelligence Conference at Gregynog, Wales in 2013.  He has also taught the subject, online, using an encrypted online teaching programme called “Educator”, at Masters Degree level, as a member of the Adjunct Faculty at the American Military University and has recently written an intelligence text, Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence.  The Defendant has also acted as Human Intelligence (HUMINT) source for a number of Western intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the Metropolitan Police.  In 2010 the Defendant provided accurate intelligence about memory sticks holding raw intelligence data being in the possession of the murdered GCHQ officer Dr Gareth Williams to Detective Chief Inspector Jackie Sebire, who led the police investigation into Dr Williams’s death.  The facts that he was murdered and was in possession of memory sticks were subsequently confirmed at the inquest into his death.  The Defendant was about two years ahead of any other HUMINT source to the Met on the memory sticks.   


6.         The Defendant has also been consulted by the media on inter alia intelligence matters, including by the makers of the BBC TV series Spooks.  The attempt to denigrate him by Kudos may simply reflect an anxiety not to lose contracts from the BBC, which pays for a substantial amount of Kudos Productions’ output.  The hearsay opinions about him attributed to the Spooks scriptwriters are not accepted and the prosecution are put to strict proof of them. 


7.         The Defendant has visited inter alia the Department of Defense (Pentagon) and the White House in Washington DC.  He has conferred at the Pentagon with inter alia Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, military advisers to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Director of the Office of Net Assessment, Dr Andrew Marshall.  Pace the with respect intelligence illiterate assertions of the officers in interview Dr Marshall remained at the Pentagon well beyond retirement aged (he is presently aged over 90).  The most powerful intelligence officer in the Pentagon, Vice-President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld were protégés of his.  The Defendant successfully represented the late General Pinochet Ugarté in negotiations in Washington DC in 1999/2000 designed to secure the general’s release from house arrest in the United Kingdom, in breach of the United Kingdom’s international obligation of comity with the Republic of Chile, of which the general was a former Head of State. 


8.         The CIA and the White House were represented informally in those negotiations by the late Lieutenant-General Vernon Walters, formerly Deputy Director and briefly Acting Director of the CIA.  An exceedingly high-powered individual General Walters acted as an advisor to every American President from Harry S. Truman onwards.  He was heavily involved in the arrangements for the Paris Peace Talks which concluded US involvement as a belligerent in the Vietnam War, and advised President Richard Nixon in respect of the US rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  During the course of the Pinochet negotiations the Defendant was invited to lunch by Ambassador (as he became) John Bolton.  That lunch was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.  Ambassador Bolton, subsequently, was gracious enough to invite the Defendant to attend the Ambassador’s swearing in as Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs by Justice Thomas of the United States Supreme Court, at the State Department in Washington, in 2001.  Thames Valley Police are well aware of this as they rang the Defendant on his mobile phone following an incursion by gypsies onto land in Aylesbury, Bucks in which he held a moiety interest, and the Defendant took the call just as his limousine arrived at the State Department.


9.         On  27th February 2006 the Defendant was flown out to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in the North Atlantic in a Grumman Greyhound C-2 Carrier On Board Delivery (COD) aircraft, as part of the of the United States Navy’s Distinguished Visitor Program.  The Defendant was invited to a one on one working breakfast with a Flag Officer.  The matters discussed must of necessity remain confidential, on the grounds of national security, not least as none of the Thames Valley Police (TVP) officers or CPS officials involved in this prosecution, with respect, has a sufficiently high security clearance.  Whilst it is not unknown for a British civilian, not connected to the government nor a member of the intelligence services, to be flown onto and catapulted off an American nuclear carrier it is not an everyday occurrence


Intelligence Successes in which the Defendant has participated. 


10.       The Defendant is well used to working with others in the broader Allied Intelligence Community (INTELCOM) and freely acknowledges that others have participated in some of the intelligence successes identified below.  In relation to Operation Vulcan he has never denied that he worked as part of a team, loosely defined.  That does not mean that there was direct contact between members of the team.  Given the level of intelligence monitoring of the Defendant’s phone lines and e-mail no intelligence source or officer could contact him by electronic means including via digital telephone exchange without exposing their identity to inter alia GCHQ, Siemens, the covert German Deutscher Verteidigungs Dienst  intelligence agency and GO2.   The Defendant respectfully adopts the statement in the Washington Post for 9th June 2013, commenting on the NSA’s Prism programme (which the Defendant supports) that “intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target.”  The context is admittedly different, but applies just as well to the deniable supply of intelligence by an agency wishing to remain in the background.  It follows a fortiori that the telephone call tracing exercise carried out TVP was with respect pointless.  The fact that public money was wasted on it at all simply reflects with respect the intelligence illiteracy of the officers involved.   


11.       The Defendant correctly categorised the 7/7 terrorists as non-suicide bombers within two weeks of the attacks and so informally briefed in West Midlands Police Special Branch at the first specialist conference on the 7/7 attacks, held at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall on 26th July 2005.  The Defendant also warned the Metropolitan Police, at or around midnight on 19/7, after a SO12 (Special Branch) officer visited his then home on Watermead, near Aylesbury, about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack on the London Underground on 22/7.  The police failure to act on this warning placed dozens if not hundreds of lives at risk.  In the events which happened the al Qaeda terrorists were concerned that their detonators had been rigged for immediate detonation, as on 7/7, and withdrew them from the explosives.  The Defendant correctly appreciated that Jean Charles de Menezes was not an “electrician” but a rogue Brazilian intelligence officer, ex ABIN, who was working for al Qaeda as a mercenary electronics expert.  If the prosecution wish to assert that he was working as an electrician in London they are challenged to say where and to produce evidence.  MI5, MI6 and GCHQ all hold relevant files on de Menezes, which should be produced. 


12.   In relation to nuclear threats and nuclear terrorism Operation Vulcan was the Defendant’s fifth success.  In August 2000, as set out in Spyhunter, he correctly appreciated that al Qaeda were seeking to acquire weapons-grade U-235 uranium from a covert source in the Philippines.  That was the background to the fax to the Defendant on 24th August 2000 from Dr Henry Kissinger, which TVP have.  Since U-235 would only be used in a Level 3 catastrophic attack and the only one in the planning stages in August 2000 was 9/11 it is a reasonable inference that al Qaeda and the DVD originally planned to leverage the 9/11 attacks with Improvised Radiological Devices (IRDs).  The relevant US files will have been made available to MI6 under the UKUSA arrangements.


13.    The Defendant also correctly appreciated that the scientific intelligence officer Dr David Kelly CMG was murdered and that the motive for his murder, by GO2, was to prevent him passing on to his contacts in Tel Aviv the fact that President Chirac of France, at German request, had covertly shipped, by SSK, several quantities of weapons-grade plutonium from the covert French stockpile.  The Defendant further appreciated, and so advised the proper Israeli security authorities, the National Nuclear Safety Administration in the US and Mohammed el-Baradei, then the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, that the Iranian enriched uranium programme was an intelligence blind and that Iran was in possession of operational, plutonium-cored, nuclear warheads.  These conclusions are disputed within INTELCOM but the Defendant stands by them and notes that both the United States and Israel abandoned plans for a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran.  So far as the Defendant is aware his conclusions are now widely accepted by intelligence agencies throughout the Middle East. 


14.       After the Defendant became aware that Dr Kelly, along with David Cameron, then a Conservative Central Office official and now First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, accompanied UK-manufactured nuclear weapons casings to South Africa, suitable for the South African Blackburn B-103 Buccaneer S. Mk 50 delivery system, with its unique rotary bomb-bay, and that three of the SA weapons were supplied in turn to Iraq and the Iran he correctly appreciated  a possible threat to Houston, Texas.  The SA weapons were covert, since the Republic of South Africa was officially not a nuclear-armed state, and the weapons were designed for easy covert shipment in a standard ISO container with rails welded to the floor, using a cradle designed by a British engineering firm.  Since they could easily be shipped in a container they were a security nightmare, since any Iranian-flagged container ship could deliver a device to any port in the Western world.  If the containers were lead-lined, as they would be bound to be, detection would be difficult, until the advent of muon tomography, partly inspired by this very threat. 


15.       The Defendant’s appreciation that Houston was a possible target was probably correct.  After he so advised the FBI he was invited into a meeting in the FBI Houston Field Office in February 2005, driving there from Los Angeles, via meetings with inter alia the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Tuscon, Arizona (a DEA Supervisor involved in that meeting, India India, now retired, kindly agreed to take a call from the second officer in the case, DS Mottau, who has refused to speak to him, evidence the Defendant says of TVP’s bad faith and unwillingness to due diligence the Defendant’s statements).  There was Iranian intelligence (VEVAK) activity on the ground in Houston and the nearby port of Galveston.  One of these weapons was probably detonated by North Korea, confirming the theoretical yield of 15 kilotons (KT).  The Defendant’s appreciation that a 15KT detonation in a container ship moored in Galveston harbour would significantly damage Houston, home to a large part of America’s energy sector, was correct.  The Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS), MI5, MI6 and GCHQ all have files on these weapons.  The then Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, may be able to confirm to the Attorney-General, it being a matter entirely for him, that British Special Forces were charged with intercepting these devices on the ground, near the Iraq/Syrian frontier, shortly before the Iraq War, at a time when the weapons were under the control of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  


16.       In 2010/11 the Defendant correctly appreciated the possibility that one or more of these devices might be used by Iran to threaten the London Games, by mooring a container ship downstream of the Thames Barrier in the Thames Estuary, where the blast radius would pose a threat to the Olympic Stadium.  This appreciation seems to have been shared by Admiral Lord West of Spithead (page 122).   


17.       In 2007 the Defendant correctly appreciated that Madeleine McCann’s kidnap was sponsored by the German DVD, whose existence is acknowledged by Commodore English (page 132).  As a matter of law the prosecution may not traduce the evidence of their own witness, not least as intelligence is a highly specialist area, requiring high IQ, the CPS officials and TVP officers involved with the case with respect lack any meaningful intelligence expertise or experience whatsoever and none of them is qualified to contradict the Commodore on matters falling within his specialist area of expertise.  The largely inadmissible smear report circulated by Leicestershire Police contains outright fabrications, including the false claim that an officer of Leicestershire Police spoke with Major-General Julian Thompson, RM (ret’d).  The willingness of TVP Special Branch to adopt these smears without putting the allegations to the Defendant or checking them with respect drags down their credibility as well.


18.       GCHQ, MI5, MI6 and DIS all have relevant files on the McCann kidnap and murder.  The Pentagon and CIA files will also be available under the UKUSA arrangements.  The current Metropolitan Police inquiry is a farce with respect and arguably a cruel hoax upon the poor parents, who have been systematically and cruelly misled by the police, who are partly responsible for their daughter’s murder.  The Cabinet Office and intelligence services are perfectly well aware that the poor girl was murdered in or around December 2008, and that her photograph was sent via e-mail to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, who selected her for kidnap and sexual abuse.  GCHQ have a copy of the e-mail, with Madeleine’s photograph annexed as a JPEG file, which was intercepted by the NSA at the e-maul switching centre at RAF Minwith Hill, Yorkshire.  It should of course be disclosed.  The Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, was probably aware that she had been located to a high degree of probability on board the MV Naomi Corlett in Moroccan territorial waters.  The rescue mission proposed by Gerard Group International LLC, on whose Advisory Board the Defendant then sat, was blocked, it would seem for political reasons, as the UK Government was fearful of the damage which would be done to Anglo-European relations by the exposure of the President of the European Commission as an active paedophile, and moreover one who was being blackmailed by the most powerful German intelligence agency (the DVD), who were supplying him with kidnapped toddlers to abuse, in order to satiate his perverted sexual desires.  Leicestershire Police are suppressing inter alia an e-mail to them from the Cabinet Office, annexing a chain e-mail from the Foreign Office, complaining about the Defendant’s level of access to IMINT and Communications Intelligence/Intercept (COMINT) material.  The Defendant respectfully asserts this is being done for fear of the credibility it would give the Defendant.


19.       The Defendant correctly appreciates that terrorism is a state-sponsored phenomenon.  He took a leading role in making the link between 9/11 and Iraq, in particular in identifying the terrorist training facility in Iraq (Salman Pak) where the 9/11 pilots were trained and the equipment on which they were trained (a Boeing 767 simulator seized from Kuwait Airways in August 1990).  GCHQ are well aware of this intelligence, as relevant NRO/NSA IMINT was passed to them, but have chosen to suppress it.  The Defendant did offer to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry but with respect its report is likely to be a whitewash.  TVP, and UK police in general, are prevented by doctrinal constraints from dealing with Level 3 terrorist attacks.  Viewing terrorism as a spontaneous phenomenon carried out by groups with a grievance, real or imagined, as they do, with respect they are unable to grasp that successful terrorist organisations are backed by intelligence agencies.  They also fail to grasp that terrorist attacks in the UK are normally assisted from the inside by GO2.  This helps explain their with respect pathetic failure to get to grips with the IRA’s murderous campaign and a whole series of policing failures, including the Brighton Bombing, where they nearly managed to lose the Prime Minister.  The police at best are only able to deal with a Level 2 attack, almost invariably after the event, as policing in the UK, unlike the USA after 9/11, is not intelligence led.  With a nuclear/radiological attack the police with respect are hopelessly out of their depth, indeed at best can only be spectators.  The official counter-terrorist strategy, CONTEST, is with respect risibly inadequate and calculated to perpetuate the failures of the campaign against the IRA, such as it was.                                   


20.       The Defendant also correctly appreciated that Osama bin Laden was not personally religious, i.e. that his public image was a front.  In coming to that conclusion he was informed by his knowledge, gained in part through high-level direct and indirect Saudi contacts, including the late H.E. Prince Mohammed, Governor of the Eastern Province, who before his assassination supported the Customer Buy-Out bid for Rolls-Royce and Bentley Motors co-ordinated by the Defendant in 1997/1998, without wishing to give offence to any Muslim, that Islam was a fraudulent religion.  That is because the Koran was not dictated by God, as Islamic theologians proclaim, but by a series of theologians at the Vatican, hence the original being in Latin and the requirement for early Islamic scholars to speak Latin.  The Defendant also understood that the first author of the Koran died before the work could be completed, explaining the differences between the earlier and later chapters.  That in turn helps explain the deep division between Sufi and Salafist Muslims, which in turn has a bearing on understanding Islamo-fascist terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda.  Understanding that bin Laden only wore religious dress when on public view (e.g. when recording propaganda videos) helped in tracking him.  This analysis was of interest inter alia to the NSA and FBI, which may help explain why the illegally seized material included a name in the Arabian Peninsula intelligence section of the FBI.  Intelligence analysts and policy-makers who view Islam as a genuine religion, and fail to understand that al Qaeda is sponsored by the DVD, inevitably will be unable to accurately predict its targeting priorities.  TVP, e.g. have mocked the Defendant for stating that al Qaeda had probably targeted British rail infrastructure.  It is of course easy to mock that which you do not understand.  Bild carried reports in the week beginning 19th August 2013 that al Qaeda was targeting rail infrastructure in Europe, citing US intelligence reports.        


21.       The Defendant also passed on intelligence on several planned assassination attempts on President George W. Bush.  Since urgent warnings were passed to the Secret Service via telephone GCHQ will on balance have a record of them.  It is highly improbable that the Secret Service would agree to the release of files from its efficient Intelligence Center in Arlington, but the GCHQ files should suffice.  The Defendant has been in contact with the Secret Service, who have agreed to speak to TVP.  The absence of a Secret Service witness refuting the Defendant’s claims, which are not being made for the first time and in any event appear in Spyhunter, is noted, as is the absence of a witness from the FBI, to whom the Defendant has also spoken.       


The Boeing Sentry AEW Mk 1 Grounding


22.       The political grounding of the Sentry fleet, our best defence against a nuclear terrorist attack, at the critical time provides powerful support for the reasoning of the Vulcan team, and powerful evidence that the Cabinet Office, as Benjamin Fulford has stated, are penetrated by Germany’s GO2.  Of course the aircraft could have been sortied, had there been the political will, as there was nothing wrong with them.  The MOD would not have misled the public, and in turn the court, with the with respect nonsensical explanations put forward, without Cabinet Office backing.  The prosecution position on the Sentries is built upon an obvious lie, that an RAF Sentry has been withdrawn from service.  Seven Sentries in all were delivered by Boeing, and all seven are still in service, six in squadron service and one as a training aircraft, all at RAF Waddington.  The prosecution would not have put themselves in such an exposed position, potentially damaging to the credibility of TVP and the CPS as organisations (clearly both should be broken up), had not they not fallen with respect for their own propaganda and refused to accept that the Defendant is an air intelligence specialist sufficiently high-powered to be able to confirm from both Boeing, the airframe manufacturer, and Lockheed Martin, the prime maintenance contractor, that there were no reported problems with the Boeing E-3 Sentry in 2012.


Nuclear Warheads Available to the German DVD for Terrorist Purposes as of 01APR12


23.       As of 1st April 2012 there were probably up to seven (7) nuclear warheads available to the DVD, although there are areas of uncertainty over the deployment of a nuclear warhead trigger for the Boxing Day Tsunami and if so how many were deployed, the North Korean nuclear programme and the possible splitting of acquired warheads, i.e. the division of fissile material so as to create two or more smaller viable devices.  TVP have never accepted with respect that there are any nuclear warheads unaccounted for, a facile position with respect, unsupported with INTELCOM, indeed, again with respect, it borders on fantasy.  Officially there are no missing nuclear warheads of course, but the official position is simply adopted so as to not to alarm the public.  A total of four, diallable, 500KT P700 Granit warheads were removed from the SSGN Kursk in August 2000 (the already submitted article on Soviet cruise missiles, which need not be evidenced as it is a published text from a reputable source, and may be cited in the same way as an extract from a learned specialist journal, accurately sets out the history of the Soviet/Russian SLCM programme).  A further four 550 KT, non-diallable, SS-19 warheads seem to have been acquired from Kiev on behalf of Iran by the DVD agent Viktor Bout in or about 2002.  Two, possibly three, of these may have been deployed in earthquake-triggering undersea detonations (GCHQ have access to the seismic surveys of each event).  One may have been retrieved since April 2012 by the CIA in a successful sting operation.  There may have been two of the SA 15 KT devices still in circulation, although they appear to have been sent to North Korea, where both may have been detonated.  It is the threat posed by these warheads which stimulated the immense research effort into methods of countering covert IND insertion, including muon tomography, able to penetrate lead shielding.                


The Interviews


24.       The purported interview transcripts are incomplete and inaccurate, and are not accepted.  Strictly the interviews are inadmissible, as there are no admissions, however there is no objection to the discs being played to the jury.  The Defendant will be giving evidence, there is no departure from any of his statements in interview, all of which were given in good faith and are accurate, save as some confusion over Skype (the Defendant has been a long-term Skype user and has used Skype terminals other than his own, but Skype software was not in fact downloaded onto seized mini-laptop computer) and playing the discs would to a large extent, the court may agree, take the place of evidence in chief.   


Disclosure/Abuse of Process


25.       There has been a wholesale failure to disclose material intelligence files in the possession of JIC, the Cabinet Office, MI5, MI6, TVP Special Branch, SOCA, CTC, GCHQ and DIS, such as to corrupt the trial process and with respect call into question the integrity of both TVP and the CPS.  The DPP has very properly, with respect, been forced to stand down and hopefully his replacement will work to a higher ethical standard, ditto the new Director-General of MI5.  Clearly Sir Jonathan Evans could not continue as D-G after the Service’s multiple failures over Vulcan, which happened on his watch and nearly cost tens of thousands of lives.  The Director of SOCA has also been forced out and rightly so, with respect.  Again the defence respectfully hope that his successor will work to a higher ethical standard and stop withholding relevant material, including the Defendant’s role as a CHIS, from the defence and the court.


26.   The Defendant should explain the concept of collateral intelligence attack.  When it becomes desirable in the national security interest to force say the director of an intelligence or law enforcement agency from office it is almost unknown for the real reason to be made public, particularly in a nation such as the UK where the state bureaucracy is penetrated by a hostile intelligence agency and has only limited functionality (the CPS with respect is a classic example of a penetrated state prosecutor, hence the Defendant’s conclusion, expressed in Spyhunter that it is in the national security interest of the United Kingdom for it to be broken up).  The director in question will usually come under counter-intelligence scrutiny and may or may not be placed under surveillance.  If the surveillance or standard MISE checks throw up concerns over corrupt practices, as was the case with the outgoing Director of SOCA (improper concealment of private business dealings) these can be used to force the Director to resign, usually ‘to spend more time with his family.’  This can either be done directly, or indirectly through say an oversight committee or tame journalists in the media.  For the avoidance of doubt, although several hundred media contacts were in the unlawfully seized material, this not something the Defendant himself would ordinarily do, although he might be sounded out informally by intelligence officers about concerns they might have, or asked for suggestions as to a suitable successor.                       


Lines of Cross-Examination


27.       These are indicated in the attached Annex, which it is hoped is a helpful way of setting them out. 




20th August 2013
















Hannah Edwards

Why was the Defendant’s voicemail not treated as a hoax if that was genuinely her view?  The Defendant would also with to further clarify the timeline and why the political references he gave were not taken up.  If the prosecution wish to take statements from them they are at liberty to do so.

Barry Burton

What was actually said?  Why was no note taken at the time?  What exactly was said by the Cabinet Office and to whom did he speak?  Why is there no statement from that person?   To which agencies was the intelligence passed on and why, if it genuinely the view of MOD that the Defendant’s briefing on Vulcan was given in bad faith?  What checks were made with DIS?  Did TVP go back to Burton after DIS, DIA and ONI names and numbers were seized from the Defendant’s home?  Why were the MOD willing to mislead the public, TVP, the CPS and the court over the Sentries?  Who grounded them?  What is the state of MOD’s knowledge on Vulcan?  Why were the referees the Defendant named not consulted, as a background check on him?  Can Burton confirm the accuracy of the names and numbers for MOD in AAH/18?  Have checks been made, e.g. with former Chiefs of Staff, as to whether they know the Defendant?  Are MOD aware of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA)?  Is it right that the Defendant is associated with them?  How many former Chiefs of Staff are associated with UKNDA?  What follow-up contact has there been with the Pentagon, the RAN and the Indian Navy over Vulcan, in particular over associated naval activity in the Indian Ocean?  Why was the call not recorded?  What have MOD done to retrieve the Echelon recording from GCHQ?

Cecile Brits

Why was the Defendant’s e-mail not acted upon?  What checks if any were made with e.g. AWRE Aldermaston about the phrase ‘emissions-silent’, standard terminology for a nuclear security specialist?  What qualifications does Ms Brit possess which suit her to make judgments about nuclear security?  Can she confirm that Sir David Nicholson has been forced to resign in disgrace following over 1,000 unnecessary deaths at a hospital for which he was responsible?  Was that scandal the real reason for his resignation or was it his contribution to the grotesque security failure over Vulcan, which placed many more lives at risk, including that of our beloved Sovereign?

Sarah Sproat

What actually was said and why were the recordings not kept?  Does she support David Lidington’s re-selection as MP?  

Margaret Haddow

Does she support David Lidington’s re-selection?  Is it right that ACCA is split, on the issues of gay marriage, HS2 and Europe, on which issues the Defendant is opposed to David Lidington?  Can she confirm the circumstances in which the Defendant defected to the Conservative and Unionist Party in 1997?  Can she confirm that the Defendant is known to senior figures on the Right of the Party?

Delma Beebe

Can she confirm that the Defendant and John Randall MP are known to each other?  The media reports of the Defendant’s defection and the associated press conference, attended by John Randall and the Defendant, at which he was introduced as a Tory should be put to her, as a courtesy.  They were served as an annex to the dismissal submissions. 

DC Hurt

Where are his notes, supporting his claim that the Defendant stated that he was an “intelligence officer”?  Was this officer mistaken about that, or is he simply lying, in order to discredit the Defendant?  If he was lying was asked to lie by a superior officer and if so which officer? 

DC Cussen

Agreed, as to fact. 

DC Hughes

Agreed, as to fact.  Clearly the legality of the search and seizure are disputed but those are matters for the civil proceedings. 

Lynsey Blas

Why have there been no follow-up enquiries re the Defendant’s intelligence contacts?  What has been done to review Neil Jones’s telephone records, even after it became clear that he and the Defendant were in regular communication at the material time?  Why was nothing done to verify the Defendant’s statements in interview, save for pointless checks of his phone records, even after he had made it clear that cut-outs were being used?  Did she notice a van opposite 8 Jusons Glebe when the illegal raid was being carried out?  What contact has there been with MI5 and GHCQ?  Why were MI6 and the Foreign Office not contacted after the ministerial statement to the press on 1st November 2012 confirming a nuclear threat to the London Games?  What has been done to put material statements by the Defendant to other prosecution witnesses?  Why are the two letters from MI5 to the Defendant being suppressed? 

Monika Krupska

Agreed as to fact.

DC Havelock

As per Lynsey Blas, with additional questions about contact with MI5.  Intel contacts in AAH/18 and 19 will be put to this witness.  Why can the claim in interview that Ambassador Bolton gave a statement not be supported by a statement from the Ambassador?  Why were no checks made with Major-General Howes in Washington or MOD re Director Marshall of ONA at the Pentagon?  Does this officer now accept the truth of the Defendant’s statements about the age and status of Director Marshall?  Why do TVP still support CONTEST when it’s risible nonsense and has been an obvious failure?  Does this officer now accept that SECTU are out of their depth in dealing with terrorism and do not understand it?  What nuclear warheads do SECTU accept are in circulation and available to al Qaeda?  Why could SECTU not do a basic Internet search and locate the websites missed by those responsible for Olympic security?  What contact has there been with the Russian GRU and SVR?  Why is there no statement from the US Secret Service?  Does this officer accept that TVP have a history of lying about the Defendant and concealing material facts from the Bar Council and High Court judges?  Why was the Special Branch report on the ID of the bogus Iranian Bar Council complainant not disclosed?  Why have Special Branch had the Defendant under surveillance for “thirty years” (the officer’s own words in interview) and why have TVP Special Branch been party to the dissemination of smears on the Defendant including the blatant lies that he was forced out of Tanfield Chambers and the Military Commentators Circle?  Why did TVP SB smear the Defendant to Christopher Story, aiding the latter’s assassination by the DVD and was this officer in any way involved in the disgraceful murder of the British intelligence officer Dr David Kelly CMG?

Andrew Todd

Why was this witness party to gross breaches of security and confidentiality?  Who is John Lynes, to whom does he report and why is there no statement from him?  Does he accept that the Security Liaison Office are penetrated by GO2?   Did any of the Principals approve of the actions he took?  Has he been asked to verify the contact details at the Palace seized from the Defendant?  Why have the Defendant’s Palace and Lord Lieutenancy files not been disclosed?  Does he accept that the Defendant was in communication with the Palace over a successful attempt to prevent the theft of monies from a joint account in which one of the Principals had an interest?  

Matthew Beckess


Squadron Leader Evans

With whom did you consult before issuing your statement?  Why have you not dealt with the discrepancy between your statement and the public statements at the time of the MOD?  What was the “engineering issue”?  Which aircraft was “disposed of”?  What aircraft were delivered to the RAF and how many are still in service?  Where is the audit trail for this alleged “engineering issue”?  Why was Boeing, as the design authority for the E-3, not notified?  Ditto the USAF, Royal Saudi Air Force, Armée de l’Air and NATO?  The known hull losses and production history of the E-3 will be examined in detail.  Where is the statement from Lockheed Martin?  Is it right that Lockheed Martin maintain the aircraft?  Why is there no reference to them in his statement?  Were the Vulcan team correct in their conclusion that that the Sentry was the one aircraft in the RAF inventory able to carry suitable radiation sampling equipment?  Does this officer accept that the RAF have a long history of radiation sampling, e.g. Operation Chanti 01 (543 Squadron, ex El Pumerillo AFB Peru, following a French nuclear test, probably at Mururoa Atoll, 20th June 1974, Handley Page HP80 Victor B(SR) Mk 2 XL193)?  Does the Sentry have the ability to deploy muon tomography packages?  What nuclear devices are assumed to be available for terrorist insertion into the UK?  What intelligence follow-up was there to the NRO/NSA satellite confirmation of the Vulcan intelligence?  What intelligence ‘wash-up’ has there been to the E-3 Fleet’s failure to detect the Vulcan devices, in particular consultation with the USAF AEW community?  What about the Cambridge Airport King Air crash and its monitoring of the Olympic site?

Commander Gareth John

What was the Fleet’s disposition as of 21st April 2012?  Why is there no reference to contact from ONI, ‘wash-up’ after Vulcan and the SOSUS records?  What contact was there with the Indian Navy, RAN and USN over the incident in the Indian Ocean involving an SSK, NE of the Comoros Islands?  Does this officer accept that there is a covert Iranian submarine base in the Comoros Islands?  What was done if anything about the covert SSK facility in the Philippines identified by the Vulcan team?

Katie Swinden

This witness’s offensive characterisation of the Defendant’s dealings with Kudos will be challenged.  Was she involved in the attempt to deceive BBC Bristol over the Defendant’s retention by Kudos?

Justin Glass

The political differences between the Defendant and this witness, particularly over the EU, will be explored, along with the strong links between EAG and the Foreign Office.   It will be suggested that there is a degree of political bias in his statements.

DC Naughton

Was this statement cleared with the Chief Constable?  If not, why not?  Why was there no investigation of the Defendant’s analysis that Shimon Peres (not “Perez”) had pulled out of the Opening Ceremony on security advice from the Mossad?  If the witness cannot even spell the name of Israel’s veteran Head of State how could be set himself up as an expert on Jewish religious observance?  Is he Jewish?  How many Jewish religious services has he attended?  Has he ever visited Israel?  The witness will be challenged as to his apparent rejection of the Defendant’s briefing to BTP on 10th August re 7/7, 21/7 and Jean Charles de Menezes.  Why have those officers not been called, not least as the reference to their views is clearly inadmissible?

Katie Rothman

Clarification will be sought as to why the Defendant was invited and the attendees at this seminar.  Has Professor Neumann been passed the name of Patricia Wilson in the Chancellor’s office in Berlin and if not, why not?  Does the witness know who Patricia Wilson is?

DS Palmer

This witness will be strongly challenged as to the circulation by TVP of smears of the Defendant and various lies in his statement, including the false claim that TVP SB officers visited him.  Was this officer involved in the smear operation which helped the DVD to murder the Defendant’s friend and source Christopher Story FRSA and the cover-up of Dr Kelly’s murder?  Why have SB put the Defendant under unlawful surveillance for 30 years?  Who authorised the surveillance?  Why does he think the Defendant’s Wikipedia entry was placed by him?

Karen Isted

Cross-examination will be limited to identifying by name the West Midlands SB officer who attended the RUSI seminar on 7/7.

Robert Adkins

The same issue as to the SB officer arises.

Susan Elliott

Why have Leicestershire Police lied about the Defendant?  Who authorised the lies?  Why is the e-mail from the Cabinet Office being suppressed, along with the tapes of the briefing by the Defendant on the McCann kidnap?  Why did Leicestershire Police facilitate Madeleine McCann’s continued kidnap and murder by passing on highly confidential intelligence to Lisbon after they had been warned that Lisbon were penetrated?  What does this officer know of the blocking by the Cabinet Office and DIS of the planned JARIC/NSA hook-up?  What steps were done to verify the contents of the Barham report?  How does this witness explain the kidnap and continued hiding of the young girl from sight if the Gerard Group analysis is rejected?  If Madeleine is still alive, where is she?  Why was nothing done to retrieve the Montpelier CCTV footage of Madeleine?  Does the witness accept that the police inquiry was not intelligence led and was largely a farce, being based upon the facile premise that a kidnap on this scale could have been organised by a lone paedophile with no intelligence agency backing?

Paul Farmery

How did the OIC manage to miss multiple Internet references to a catastrophic/nuclear attack on the London Games?  What steps were in place to detect a nuclear attack on the Games and when was the ramp-up hinted at by Alistair Burt MP in November 2012 implemented?  What detection devices were in place and when were they put there?  Why is there no reference to the Cambridge King Air?  Why were the public fobbed off with such an obviously untrue explanation as to why the King Air was overflying the Olympic site?  Why did it crash?  The generalised incompetence of the civilian security arrangements for the London Games, leading to the need for military intervention to assist the civil power, will be examined.  Is it not true that one reason for the dramatically increased military involvement was that intelligence reports had started to circulate of a nuclear/radiological threat?  Is this witness contradicting the Security Minister at the Foreign Office?  If not how does he explain the discrepancy between his statement and the minister’s press briefing?   

Admiral Lord West of Sptithead

Has the e-mail from him to the Defendant been shown to him?  Why did he send it?  Why did he not deny the analysis put to him by the Defendant at the time?  Has he heard of Sir Louis le Bailly, an equally distinguished predecessor as DGI?  Is he aware that Sir Louis and the Defendant knew each other and has he been shown the dedications by Sir Louis when making gifts of his two splendid little books to the Defendant?  What does Lord West know of naval deployments on 20th/21st April?   Does he still accept that he was right to be concerned when in government with the potential Iranian threat?  Can His Lordship comment on the Kursk sinking, the article on Soviet cruise missiles served on the CPS, which he should be shown in advance, and does he accept that the Kursk was carrying 4 nuclear-tipped SS-N-19s?  If not, why not, given Russian naval doctrine for attacking US CVBGs?  What about the SA 15KT nukes?  What are his views on the Defendant’s observations on naval matters in Spyhunter?  How usual is it for British civilians to be flown by the US Navy onto a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier?  

Air Marshal Sir John Walker

How did Sir John advise the Defendant in their call(s)?  Does he accept that the Defendant has intelligence expertise?  Has he been told about the number of intelligence contacts found when his home was raided?  What does he know about RAF radiation sampling capabilities?  Were the Vulcan team correct to assume that the Sentry was the right ‘bit of kit’ for the job?  What does he know of the SA nukes, the Kursk nukes, the stolen SS-N-19s and the development of muon tomography?  What does he know of Commodore English?  Is he aware that Commodore English has confirmed the existence of the DVD and GO2?  Same questions for Sir John, as a former DGI, re Sir Louis le Bailly, as for Lord West.  What does Sir John know about the McCann kidnap and murder by the DVD?  Questions re the Barham report, prepared at his suggestion for the JIC.  Does he accept that Leicestershire Police were only allowed to lead the investigation in the expectation that they wouldn’t get anywhere, as they were known to be incompetent, to the extent that they were a laughing stock in INTELCOM?  What does he know of Juliet Lima, the U-2 pilot represented by the Defendant?  General questions re the analysis in Spyhunter, e.g. of the abortive coup in the UK in 1968.

Michael Wyatt

What passed between him and the Defendant in their telephone calls in April 2012?  What does he know of GO2?  General discussion re the utility of ambulances and liveried vehicles for transporting illicit material and radiation masking.  What does he know of the Olympic security ramp-up and the deployment of muon detectors?  What does he know of the DVD and the Vulcan devices?  Are their security concerns re the TVP Chief Constable?  What is his intelligence background?  What does he know of the McCann kidnap?  What conversations has he had with Sir John Scarlett concerning the Defendant, Operation Vulcan and Operation Canberra (the McCann kidnap/murder investigation)?  What intelligence files is he aware of which have been suppressed in this case?

Neil Jones

The witness will be taken through Operation Vulcan from the beginning.  Why was he concerned?  What statements were being made on the Internet?  What discussions did he have with Ben Fulford in Tokyo?  Can he assist re his other sources?  What can he say about a Type 23 frigate deployed off the Kent coast on 20th and 21st April 2012?  What does he know of the exfiltration of the first device, code-named Vulcan One?  What about Vulcan Two?  What about the Kursk?  What nuclear devices are out there, in his opinion?  Are there any MISE concerns re the Chief Constable of TVP?  What does he know of the McCann kidnap and murder and the assassination of Christopher Story?  How well did he know Mr Story?  What track record does Mr Jones have in the intelligence field?  

Commodore English

What is his intelligence background, starting with the Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg 1937, continuing through World War II and thereafter?  Did he interrogate former Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess?  Exploration of his statements, which are accepted, re the DVD and GO2.  What does he know of Vulcan One and Two?  What does he know of the McCann case?   Exploration of his knowledge of the DVD’s SSK fleet and movements, with particular reference to Vulcan and McCann.  What can he say about the relationship between GO2 and the Cabinet Office?  What does he know of the Kelly and Story assassinations?

Nicola Slater

Why the change in TVP’s investigations, both as to line and personnel?  Why have the MI5 letters been suppressed?  What is her true opinion of the intelligence contacts, details of which were seized in the raid on the Defendant’s home?  Discussion of the failures of the investigation generally.

DS Mottau

As per DC Havelock and DC Slater. 

It is my very strongly held belief that plausible as Michael Shrimpton may seem it is my belief that many of his claims are little more than delusional and theories largely fed by his own imagination.

I feel able to make these statements as I have known Michael Shrimpton for numerous years and he was a house guest on his return from his parental home in Australia for almost a month and it was during this time that he abused my hospitality by embroiling me in his fancifull claimed bomb plot regarding the Olympics by, without my knowledge, using my home phone to make some of the calls to issue the bomb hoax/story.

I was interviewed by the police on the matter and provided a detailed statement and was unequivalently exhonerated of all blame even seeking to intercede on behalf of the Police to try to arrange an accomodation with Michael Shrimpton that would have spared the public purse the cost of prosecution of his offences – sadly Michael Shrimpton did not wish to remain silent on his claims of a bomb and admit an error of judgement but was determined to try to defend his claims in Court!

Michael Shrimpton will, being trained as a barrister, be defending himself in Court!

As I recall there is a saying about attorneys who defend themselves having a fool for a client! I fear this may prove the case for this particular barrister also.

Make of his strange claims what you will but to me they read with all the plausibility of a publication by Brian Gerrish or the bizarre claims of those involved in promoting the Hollie Greig scam or the claque of trolls abusing and obfuscating to support gross negligence and dereliction of parental duty by Kate & Gerry McCann in leaving 3 babies unattended to go out for the evening.

To be fair to Michael Shrimpton he can produce the most implausible of stories in a manner which is both humerous and to some plausible his stories are not as transparently self serving and at times dishonest as those of Nigel Farage but they do fall more into that style of entertainment than credible facts of gravitas.



The case came to Court on the due date and I am reliably informed that the case was adjourned & is now scheduled to be heard on 10-Nov-2014.



Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Details & Links:
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive:
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
Health Blog.:

Skype: GregL-W



 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
To Leave-The-EU

Posted in Crown vs Shrimpton, Michael SHRIMPTON, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 16 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: