Shrimpton: Brexit, the Betrayal – “Veterans Today” 4 July 2016

The latest intelligence in London is that Number 10 and the Cabinet Office are planning to defy the electorate and reverse Brexit. Cameron, the Tory whips and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the pro-EU Cabinet Secretary, are backing a Remain campaigner, failed Home Secretary Theresa May, in the Tory leadership election.

The first sign of trouble came on Friday June 24th, when Cameron’s resignation was not followed immediately by Heywood’s. Heywood is known as a screaming Euro-fanatic, no offense intended, so much so that he wrecked the Civil Service’s already tattered reputation for impartiality by openly supporting Remain.

He is arguably the most hated civil servant in Britain since the notorious Sir Horace Wilson, architect of the shameful Munich Agreement and the man who tried to stop the Spitfire, so desperate was he to let the Luftwaffe through. Some on the Right are already calling for him to be tried for High Treason, although I am not sure why, since Blair abolished the death penalty for treason.

The problem for Cameron and Heywood is that the Tory Party is overwhelmingly patriotic and Eurosceptic. Party members voted overwhelmingly for Brexit and the idea of another pro-EU, Remain campaigner following Cameron as Leader is beyond ludicrous. May’s candidacy is a gratuitous insult to the Party membership, no offense intended. She has in the past made Eurosceptic noises, but that’s all they were – noises. She revealed her true, pro-EU colors when she signed up for the Remain campaign.

To get round the problem May has reportedly teamed up with the man who stabbed Boris Johnson in the back (in fairness, some are saying that he stabbed Boris in the front), Michael Gove. Like May, Gove is a ruthless, charmless, centrist machine politician, again no offense intended. He is smarter than May, but just as ambitious and manipulative. He is a long-term Cameron ally, and it was no surprise when his campaign was given the nod by the Cabinet Office-controlled Electoral Commission, which backed Remain.

The idea seems to have been that Gove and May would be on the same ticket, with Gove being offered the job of Chancellor, but pretend to be standing against each other. If true, that would explain why Gove has no campaign structure in place and repeatedly ruled out standing for the top job, stating, accurately, that he lacks the qualifications to be Prime Minister.

With the ballot sewn up (the membership only gets to choose between the top two) the Party would be denied the choice of a Eurosceptic. Thankfully, the Party in the country has smelt a rat and Gove’s campaign is faltering, so much so that May is having to transfer some of her supporters to him.

Andrea Leadsom, the smart and telegenic Eurosceptic minister, is likely to be get onto the ballot. Liam Fox MP is a nice chap, with respect, with sound views on Europe, although he is a supporter of UK NATO membership, but he is trailing badly.  His supporters need to switch to Andrea Leadsom, but it is likely that he will be eliminated in the first ballot anyway, on Tuesday.

The EEA Stitch-Up

The mechanism Cameron, May and German Chancellor Merkel have apparently chosen to reverse the historic Brexit vote is the European Economic Area Agreement. Much less well-known than the Treaty on European Union, this ties in Norway and Iceland to the so-called single market. Membership involves the uncontrolled dumping of German goods and Eastern European and Iberian Peninsula labor onto the target countries. This would meet two of Germany’s four key demands.

Don’t forget that the UK is not only the EU27’s largest export market, it is also the most profitable, since EU exporters tend to charge rip-off prices to British consumers.

The third key German demand is the right to continue distributing dangerous narcotics in the UK. This is linked into their first demand, since most of the German-sponsored cocaine and heroin shipments into the UK come in EU-registered trucks, which are not normally stopped and searched. If a German shipment is stopped they can always get the Cabinet Office to lean on the bent Crown Prosecution Service to drop the charges, or on the Ministry of Justice to appoint a judge to the case who has been around to see Miss Whiplash, as it were. Not all judges’ interest in correction is confined to criminal justice policy.

There are two main drug distribution cartels in the UK, which seem to be divided geographically (they both distribute cocaine and heroin). Each reports to the German operation in London, GO2, which in turn is part of the DVD. The UK is the second most profitable market for German-sponsored narcotics after the US. Aside from the huge revenue stream (we are talking maybe 300 metric tons of coke a year, and by coke I don’t mean Diet Pepsi), the Germans see this as a useful means of undermining society and inflicting British casualties, about 30,000 a year, mostly young people.

The fourth key German demand is that the UK economy continue to be strangled in debt by not having HMRC collect the vast sums in unpaid tax on high-yield trading operations secreted off-shore. At least £1.5 trillion pounds in unpaid tax is held in offshore accounts by British banks, businesses and high net worth individuals, each of whom is liable to pay tax ,if domiciled in the UK, on their offshore trading operations. Nearly all UK mortgages are bundled up and traded offshore, e.g., hence the panic in the courts when informed consumers ask who really owns their mortgage.

It is thought that May and Gove would be willing to cave in to all four key German demands, although May is so intelligence-illiterate (she is the Home Secretary after all), with respect, that she may never have heard of GO2. She is also economically illiterate, with respect, like George Osborne, who would hardly have been made Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Cabinet Secretary had he known his sums. She may not know, therefore, that British banks and businesses own more cash offshore than onshore.

If May becomes Prime Minister and Michael Gove Chancellor it would be a black day for democracy in Britain. There would be massive unrest once it became clear that they were willing to dump between 1.5 and 2.5 million European economic migrants on the UK over 5 years, in order to relieve the pressure on competing European economies, depress wages and maintain a permanent white underclass.

The high figure assumes Turkish membership of the EU, which would allow Turkish nationals unrestricted access to the UK labor market. Turkey is a key German ally in the Near East and Berlin has already signified its acceptance of Turkish membership of the EU to Ankara.

The dispossessed would be likely to respond violently to this betrayal of democracy. If they are able to use the existing far-right links to the Army and the Royal Marines they would probably be able to arm themselves with modern automatic weapons with a high cyclic rate, allowing them to inflict heavy casualties on European migrants.

They would also be able to arm themselves with mil-spec armor-piercing rounds, which would penetrate the thin ‘bullet-proof’ jackets worn by the police. The state of police morale in this country is poor – most forces would probably collapse once casualties had climbed into even three figures. The police are bullies, with respect, and like most bullies they are weak.

To add to this combustible mix the muppets who run this country have slashed the Army to the point where it can no longer mount an adequate guard on its armories and magazines. They’re OK during the week, but at the weekend it’s Guns’R’Us, apparently.


The fly in the ointment is Spain. They refuse to recognise the right of the people of Gibraltar to stay British and have been making menacing noises, accompanied by armed violations of the Gibraltar Maritime Frontier. So far the Royal Navy has not responded with lethal force, although I am hearing that they have come close a few times.

The ‘Dons’ are in an uppity mood and are probably revising their 2002 invasion plan. The master Spanish attack plan for Gibraltar does not involve a frontal assault across the British Lines, but flanking maneuvers using amphibious landings, supported by tanks, at multiple points.

If the Spanish respond to Brexit by invading Gibraltar we are unlikely to repeat the strategic mistakes of the Falklands War, where we failed to declare war on Argentina, failed, absurdly, to bomb Buenos Aires with our V-Force and generally didn’t kill enough ‘Argies’. The result, inevitably, is that Argentina still suffers from blood-lust and is hankering after a second war, which might see an Argentine invasion of the Falklands coordinated with a Spanish invasion of Gibraltar.

As we saw after 1945 with Germany it’s a big mistake to let your enemy off lightly – whole suburbs were left standing in some German cities in 1945, which was ludicrous. Pussyfoot with your enemy as we pussyfooted with Germany and Japan in World War II and they’ll just come after you again.

If there is another Anglo-Spanish War (the last was the Peninsula War, although that was more of a war in Spain, against our community partner Napoleon, rather than against Spain), the RAF will bomb Madrid and other strategic Spanish targets. Although France, Germany and Italy would probably stay neutral (the NATO treaty was not designed to deal with aggression by one NATO member against another), the sight of the RAF bombing the European mainland would be likely to have an adverse impact on any UK/EU negotiations.

There needn’t be any negotiations at all of course. The UK could and should go for a clean break, using the Vienna Convention, rather than opt for the messy and pointless Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. We aren’t going to get anything worthwhile from our European enemies.

Andrea Leadsom

Our hopes for Brexit, democracy, peace and prosperity rest on Andrea Leadsom. From what I’m hearing she’s the next Mrs Thatcher, but slightly more approachable (even I never called Mrs Thatcher ‘Maggie’!).

Interstellar Velocity

Not much space this week for a response to comments, nor a review (The Man From U.N.C.L.E. next week), however the query about how you accelerate a mass beyond light speed deserves a response.

The answer was provided by the great Sir Isaac Newton, a more intelligent man than Einstein. If you accelerate a stream of sub-atomic particles past C, or light speed, in an interstellar engine in one direction, your interstellar ship will travel in the other. The boys at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland have already accelerated a particle stream beyond C, although they were forced to deny their results under German pressure.

There is no upper limit to the mass of an object which can be propelled faster than the speed of light. Whole galaxies are doing it, and a galaxy is pretty big.

You would need a lot of energy to power a ship of course – not much point trying to power your interstellar ship with a wind-farm, e.g. Happily, such an energy source is available to us, and it wouldn’t need much more than a Ford Pinto sized gas tank. It’s called nuclear fusion.

Fusion research in the UK is being held back by the EU, as part of its agenda to hold back the human race. Once Brexit is actually delivered we will be able to pour money into fusion research.

The sort of scientist who believes in man-made global warming, i.e. very silly scientists, will tell you that it’s all about perspective, or the distance between receding galaxies and the Sol System expanding by more than the speed of light. That’s bollocks, with respect.

When I used to thunder past Golf GTIs (Rabbits, to you guys – good name for a Volkswagen) in my Bentley Turbo R I would rapidly put space between my car and the ‘Hun’. The reason the space between the two cars expanded rapidly was because I was travelling rapidly.

Although German opposition to the peaceful exploration of space has seen space technology largely stagnate since Apollo, we have been making huge progress in areas like composites, life support systems and computers, which will be more than useful when we come to design first interplanetary and then interstellar space ships. Pace most science-fiction movies you would no more design such a ship to be launched through the atmosphere, by the way, than you would put wheels on the Queen Mary. You use would use shuttlecraft, a la Star Trek, although these shuttles would have a visible means of propulsion.

For journeys into interplanetary space you wouldn’t need or want faster than light speed of course, indeed it would be wholly impracticable. Interstellar speeds would be reserved for interstellar space, where there is less to hit.

By the way, one commenter on last week’s column appeared to hint that I might be anti-German. I don’t know where he got that idea from. As I explain in Spyhunter, I am no more anti-German than Bomber Harris.


Jail for pervert barrister who said nuclear bomb would blow up the Queen at the London Olympics

Friday 06 February 2015

Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006

A barrister who made a high-level hoax call saying a nuclear bomb was poised to blow up the Queen at the London 2012 Olympics has been jailed.
Michael Shrimpton, 57, of Jusons Glebe, Wendover, was found guilty last year and today he was sentenced to 12 months at Southwark Crown Court.

Michael Shrimpton has been jailed for 12 months

In April 19 2012, Shrimpton contacted the office of the Defence Secretary Philip Dunne, and David Lidington MP claiming a nuclear warhead had been placed in London, possibly near to a hospital to be detonated at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.

He claimed that intelligence had been blocked from being passed through official channels because the Germans had infiltrated MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.

Both offices say they thought the calls were a hoax, but they had to be passed to the Olympic Security Team and the police due to the nature of the threat.
The court heard that Shrimpton is a self-appointed intelligence expert who suggested a sinister German intelligence agency was responsible for this plot to blow up the opening ceremony of the London Olympics.
Shrimpton had come to the attention of various police forces over the years and following the London terrorist attacks in July 2005, he earned himself the official label of ‘an intelligence nuisance’.
He was described by the prosecution counsel as an “unrelenting networker, desperate to associate himself with persons in real power and influence, and using any even marginal association with such people to bolster his credibility with other such people”.

On handing down the 12 month sentence HHJ Judge McCreath said: “I must have regard to the very clear risk of disruption which Mr Shrimpton must have recognised when he made the false reports.
“This is a case that cries out for immediate custody, it is impossible for me to suspend the sentence in this case, however I am prepared to take a merciful approach.”
Last year Shrimpton, who says he legally advised General Pinochet in the nineties, failed in his appeal against a conviction for possesing indecent images of children.
He said that images of young boys found on a computer memory stick were put there by secret service agents, and that he was the victim of a government stitch-up.

Senior investigating officer, Detective Sergeant Andrew Mottau, from the South East Counter Terrorism Unit, said: “The nature of such a claim had to be taken very seriously, despite it transpiring to be a hoax.
“This incident could have caused enormous disruption at a time of heightened tension and resulted in the diversion of valuable resources.
“I hope today’s sentence serves as a reminder that wasting police time is a serious offence and anyone who does it can expect to be robustly dealt with.
“I would like to thank the large number of witnesses in this case, their support cannot be understated and their testimony was vital in securing this conviction.”
Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Thames and Chiltern Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: “This case involved the making of two bomb hoaxes on 19 and 20 April 2012 relating to the London 2012 Olympics when preparations for the Games were at an advanced stage.

“During the hoaxes Michael Shrimpton passed extraordinary and dramatic information about a threatened nuclear attack on the Games to senior authority figures. Although the information passed was outlandish and fanciful, there was a great deal of national tension in the months preceding the Games and it would have been foolish to reject or ignore the threats, especially when made by a professional man.
“Shrimpton is a barrister with a fascination for politics, the military and intelligence. The bomb hoaxes were not so much an attempt to cause disruption, but a mechanism to gild his self-constructed reputation as an intelligence expert. However, the imparting of such false information had the potential to cause enormous disruption, diversion of scarce resources, and wasted public money.
“Shrimpton represented himself during the trial and pleaded not guilty to the offences claiming he acted in good faith to pass on the information from his ‘sources’ and did so without malice or intent. However, he was found guilty by a jury on 25 November 2014, of two counts of communicating false information with intent after a two week trial at Southwark Crown Court.
“Due to the hard work and dedication of the prosecution team a just outcome has been achieved and Michael Shrimpton, who is not just a harmless eccentric, but a menace has today been sentenced accordingly.”

source: http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/jail-for-pervert-barrister-who-said-nuclear-bomb-would-blow-up-the-queen-at-the-london-olympics-1-6566127

Michael Shrimpton Exposes Ted Heath (and others)


Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006

Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006


Published on: Sep 14, 2015 @ 10:48


“Barrister Michael Shrimpton at Southwark crown court, London, Britain – 06 Feb 2015

Barrister Michael Shrimpton, 57, was today jailed for 12 months after he called a close colleague of former Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to say that a nuclear warhead had been brought to east London and was going to be used to attack the Queen”

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 Today.com, 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.   

  1. 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. 
  1.   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.
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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.  
  1. 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).   
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.                                   


  1. 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.        
  1. 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


  1. 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


  1. 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


  1. 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

  1. 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.
  1.   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

  1. 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. 

PLEASE NOTE: 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.

. Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

This entry was posted on 14/03/2014 at 04:11 and is filed under Crown vs Shrimpton, Michael SHRIMPTON, Uncategorized. Tagged: Crown vs Shrimpton, GL-W., Greg Lance-Watkins, Greg_L-W, Michael Shrimpton. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. Viscount Monckton said 10/03/2015 at 02:05Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Ac 1977 makes it an offence to give false information about a bomb threat. It was this section that was used against Michael Shrimpton. But Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 revives the offence of misprision of a felony rightly stamped out in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and makes it an offence not to report a bomb threat. Michael Shrimpton plainly believed there was a bomb threat (whether he should have believed it is another matter). It was, therefore, his duty to report the threat, which he did in the usual way via the MI5 reporting phone line.Be that as it may, anyone who now reports a suspected terrorist act to the authorities would be mad to do so. The nitwits who govern us did not think this through before they prosecuted, and I fear that lives may now be lost as a direct result of their stupidity in bringing this case and the hanging judge’s vicious sentence. Terrorists will have a field day in the UK now, because anyone who has heard of the Shrimpton case will not go near the police or MI5 with any suspicions. The law will need to be changed to get this idiotic judgment set aside, and fast.
    • Greg Lance-Watkins said 16/03/2015 at 11:53Hi,Having known Michael for many years and being all too well aware of his personna, character and obsessions and having had him as an uneasy house guest for aroumnd a month I do NOT believe Justice was the outcome of this trial.I believe Michael Shrimpton should have received a legal caution and enforced treatment under the mental health act. As a result of what would seem to be a total miscarriage of justice which has so badly let Michael down I fear for his future both in the short and long term.Reply
    • Regards, Greg_L-W.
    • It is my belief that Under Law Michael Shrimpton acted correctly based on his belief and that his belief was neither criminal nor mischievous but delusional.
    • as I have made clear, I believe that the trial and sentencing of Michael Shrimpton was NOT justice done and seen to be done but rather a total miscarriage of justice.
  2. Reply
  3. I declare an interest as a long-standing friend of Michael, who gave me sound advice on the West Highland sleeper case almost 20 years ago. He has not really been well in recent years, and both the fact of the trial (which should never have taken place) and the savagery of the sentence raise for the first time in my own mind that Michael may have been right after all in what he reported to the authorities, who for some reason thought that putting him in prison for a year would keep him quiet and make his story go away. The reverse will be the case.
  4. Viscount Monckton said 16/03/2015 at 13:40 We are indeed agreed that justice has not been done. I am taking steps to rectify the situation. The Home Office is playing hard to get and says it will not tell me for six weeks where Michael Shrimpton is. This is unacceptable. I am arranging for Questions to be put down about its slovenly misconduct in this regard. In the meantime, Michael is at grave risk of harm and there will be repercussions if the Home Office’s refusal to disclose his location timeously contributes to any actual harm.

source:  http://www.gl-w.com/2014/03/14/michael-shrimptons-official-defence-statement-in-full/

  1. —————————————————————————————–

Ex-judge: ‘Secret service framed me over child porn’

Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006

Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006 

17:25Monday 20 October 2014

A former judge claims secret service agents planted child porn on his computer memory stick in a plot to discredit him.

Michael Shrimpton, an outspoken critic of foreign affairs who advised Chilean dictator General Pinochet, said officers switched the memory stick, which also contained a book he was writing on German intelligence practices,

An appeal against his conviction heard his home in Jusons Glebe, Wendover was searched in April 2012 after he contacted the Ministry of Defence to warn them about an attempt he had uncovered to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb at the Olympics.

However, police instead arrested Mr Shrimpton and found a number of memory sticks which were bagged and labelled by officers.

 Only one, which was found in a green glasses case next to Mr Shrimpton’s bed, was found to have contained deleted files, 40 of which were found by police specialists to be indecent images of young boys.

Mr Shrimpton, a barrister and former immigration judge who once advised Pinochet during his fight against extradition from Britain in the nineties, was sentenced to a three year supervision order, a five year Sexual Offences Prevention Order and was told to sign the Sex Offenders Register for possessing indecent images.

Representing himself, the 57 year old told the hearing at Aylesbury Crown Court sitting at Amersham that he believes intelligence services engaged a tactical interception system called G12, to monitor the search on his home and tamper with the items recovered.

He also claimed that he can prove his credentials as an intelligence specialist using a certificate gained when he was flown out to the USS Enterprise Navy aircraft carrier in 2006, and said that address books at his home contained direct numbers for world intelligence agencies. 

Prosecuting, Richard Barton told Judge Karen Holt that he did not dispute that Mr Shrimpton had been aboard the USS Enterprise, but did not accept that it was as an intelligence specialist.

He also accepted that Mr Shrimpton’s own laptop computer was not the one used to download the indecent images onto the memory stick.

In court Mr Shrimpton said that he believed police did not have authority to take the laptop or memory stick, because his home is also used as his chambers for law work and could have contained legally sensitive information.

Speaking to the Bucks Herald outside court Mr Shrimpton said that he was ‘not worried’ about the case, and dismissed it as an effort to discredit him for being outspoken about key political issues as an intelligence specialist. 

He said: “With every respect to the CPS and TVP this prosecution, based on an allegation of possession of a memory stick which has neither my fingerprints nor DNA on it, is a farce.

“TVP also admit my fingerprints are not on the laptop they have, which, absurdly, they claim is the one they unlawfully seized from my new home in April 2012.

“I wrote my new book Spyhunter on the original laptop. Spyhunter is a 330,000 word intelligence text, the writing of which involved at least a million keystrokes, i.e. the prosecution are alleging that a laptop which I touched at least a million times is mine even though there is not single fingerprint of mine on it, nor any of my DNA.”

The former chairman of Watermead Parish Council has been outspoken on issues including the search for Madeleine McCann, the 911 attacks, the war in Iraq, and international government involvement in the sinking of the Titanic.

Most recently he spoke out claiming that Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 was shot down by a Chinese missile.

source:  http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/ex-judge-secret-service-framed-me-over-child-porn-1-6368337

more tripe:

Jail for pervert barrister who said nuclear bomb would blow up http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/…/jail-for-pervert-barrister-who-said-nuclear-bo…Cached6 Feb 2015 – Michael Shrimpton on the USS Enterprise in 2006 … Michael Shrimpton has been jailed for 12 months. On April 19 2012, Shrimpton contacted …

http://www.mirror.co.uk › News › UK News › London 2012 Olympics

  • Similar7 Feb 2015 – Michael Shrimpton, 57, made the claim in a hoax phone call just … Shrimpton was sentenced for both counts for 12 months to run concurrently.

Nazi bomb hoax barrister handed 12-month jail sentence …http://www.legalcheek.com/…/breaking-news-nazi-bomb-hoax-barrister-hande…Cached6 Feb 2015 – Michael Shrimpton’s professional fate in the hands of bar regulator as … Olympic Games bomb hoax has been sentenced to 12 months in jail, …

Michael Shrimpton faces jail for claming German spies were …


  • Similar25 Nov 2014 – Michael Shrimpton, 57, is facing jail after being found guilty of phoning …. 12. Click to rate. Freeman of England, London, 9 months ago.

Hoax caller jailed after claiming bomb would detonate …http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/…/11777567.Hoax_caller_jailed_after_claimi…Cached 6 Feb 2015 – Barrister Michael Shrimpton, from Wendover, was labelled an … in Jusons Glebe, has now been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment after …

JUSTICE DENIED: Michael Shrimpton.barrister, author, CSA …


14 Apr 2015 – Barrister and author Michael Shrimpton was jailed in London today. … Michael Shrimpton Tell about Ted Heath the pedophile and child murderer …. 2015 (65). ▻ September (3). ▻ August (7). ▻ July (12). ▻ June (5) … We learn this month that Barry George has been denied compensation for being falsely …

Barrister Michael Shrimpton, 57, was today jailed for 12 …

6 Feb 2015 – Barrister Michael Shrimpton, 57, was today jailed for 12 months after he… 6 Feb 2015 : 4419056a LRN. Download; Lightbox …

Michael Shrimpton – Barrister gets 12 months in prison | UK …

ukcriminallawblog.com › In the news

6 Feb 2015 – Introduction. We looked last year at the, frankly somewhat bizarre, case of Michael Shrimpton – the barrister and former part-time Judge, who …

Shrimpton gets jail time for false report – Obama Conspiracy …

7 Feb 2015 – One of many birther hopes that didn’t pan out, British barrister Michael Shrimpton was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in jail for making …

Hayley O’Keeffe on Twitter: “Bomb hoax barrister Michael …

Bomb hoax barrister Michael Shrimpton jailed for 12 months. Copy online at http://www.bucksherald.co.uk soon. 5:20 AM – 6 Feb 2015. 0 retweets 0 favorites

see more:

17 July: Michael Shrimpton: “May or Shan’t?” VT –  300000 EURO-IMMIGRANTS / YEAR TO UK WILL CONTINUE


About butlincat

my butlincats blog: http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/butlincat http://www.twitter.com/butlincat https://www.facebook.com/butlin.cat.9 [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbutlincat-graham-5a35b440/detail/recent-activity/
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.