It is no doubt of concern to responsible people (or at least it should be) that GCHQ and MI6 have to give a few examples falsely claimed that:
- Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction on the basis of evidence which they knew to be incorrect.
- Michael Flynn had some illicit contacts with a Russian which they did so for the purpose of recruiting me to MI6.
- There were some sex tapes on Donald Trump.
- Russia was spreading “fake news” when in actual fact they were unable to provide examples of “fake news”.
- The Russians killed an alumni of St Catharine’s and employee of SIS when in fact the evidence shows that it it was in fact the British state who killed him.
- I had an American passport and had been arrested in the Ukraine which they achieved by putting false information on an interpol database.
- Porton Down were certain that the nerve agent came from Russia
- The OPCW were unable to state where the chemical weapon originated. Not true because the head of the OPCW stated that it could have come from anywhere
To be entirely accurate, the later two claims were made by the person who is nominally responsible for but not actually employed by GCHQ and MI6, namely the current foreign secretary, Boris Johnson.
This is lest we forget at the same time as they continually tried to prevent me from drawing up a dossier in relation to Russian interference in various countries with the result that I have had to submit a complaint to the IPT and the European Commission.
I felt therefore that it was important to establish whether the allegation made by the British that Russia had been spreading disinformation with respect to the Skripals was in fact true. I elected therefore to send the following FOI request to the FCO on the 20th of March
Now one might imagine given their professed annoyance at the matter that they would be extremely keen to give chapter and verse upon this supposed Russian disinformation and I, like most people, would be happy to hear any examples which they might have.
Surprisingly (or not) they are reluctant to do so.
After having waited the standard length of time (one might ask why should they make me wait since they are so keen to state there is Russian disinformation), on the 20th of April, I receive a reply to my FOI request claiming that they do indeed have examples but that
- They are not sure it is in the public interest to provide them
- There will therefore be a delay while they consider the matter.
I would think quite obvious to most people that they do not have any such examples of Russian disinformation in that “the public interest” is not a plausible reason for denying access to examples of Russian disinformation which
- Are in the public domain
- They protest about quite vocally
It would seem logical to state that there is a delay in the response because they are hoping that there will be examples of Russian disinformation in the future. This would seem to me to be pointless given the fact that my FOI request was in relation to Russian disinformation which had been broadcast up to that point and Russian disinformation which might occur at some point in the future.
Here is that response to the FOI request.
I waited slightly longer than the standard 20 days for a response whereupon, in the manner of groundhog day, I am told that they are still considering the matter and that I have to wait a further 20 working days.
There is however a slight flaw in this in that the expected date of any reply is the 23rd of March 2018 which as you can see in the copy of the letter presents a problem in that this in the past.
Along with the fact that the date is in the past and the claim that they are unsure whether it is in the “public interest” to provide examples of Russian disinformation even those these are already in the public domain and they complain about them , one can state that the claim of Russian disinformation is another instance whereby the FCO is making false allegations.
A copy of the letter is given below
With respect to the Skripals, the FCO is, as it has a habit of doing, telling demonstrable untruths by claiming falsely that
- Porton Down said the nerve agent came from Russia when they know they made no such claim.
- Russia was spreading lots of disinformation when they are unable and unwilling to provide examples because that is not true.
This would appear to me to present two significant problems.
- As a result of these false allegations, not only is it difficult to believe claims of Russian responsibility for the attack upon the Skripals which are made either directly by a British intelligence agency or by proxy of other organizations, it is also difficult to believe other things which they claim (as demonstrated by the list above).
- Can an organization with such a record of telling untruths, an action which because of limited resources detracts from the ability of others to deal with real threats, be said to a reliable partner to others. Would it not be more rational for Europe or indeed a member state to be responsible for such things as information gathering within Europe rather than being so dependent as is currently the case upon the United Kingdom, particularly given the fact that it is soon to leave the European Union in any case.
Cambridge police are a risible organsiation and GCHQ prove my point
In reaction to what was stated here ( and it is in reaction as I shall explain), all they can talk about is the crime of “impersonating” a government website, thereby proving the point that their role is not to protect the public but to protect the powers that be,
I say its in reaction because of
- The timing, coming so soon after the final publication at 14:35 of this article and at the moment I look at rt.com (as can be seen from the screenshot of my browsing history). This suggests that they are on the defensive and looking for an excuse to find fault rather than deal with the issues.
- The fact that they make a reference to spoof government websites like this one.
- They use a PDF which is presumably infected and aimed at infecting machines such as this which run “spoof websites” and which are critical of the government
- They infer that people like me commit fraud which thereby proves the point of this article.
- They work in conjunction with GCHQ who respond within a minute by not addressing the issue and by attempting to recruit with a veiled insult that I have my “head in the clouds”.
Such actions prove the following:
- As an organization, GCHQ repeatedly lies and is incapable and unwilling to reform itself when needed. In fact, as shown by the above, when it is confronted with evidence in this respect, it will become defensive and instead go on the attack by resorting to dirty tricks.
- The local police are untrustworthy given that they have shown that their role is to protect the powers that be, even where there are issues with corruption (as I think the above can be categorised).
- GCHQ is not interested in national or indeed European security. If this were the case they would have paused and taken time to think about what I have written. It is quite apparent by this example of their behavior and others that they are interested more in power, position, money and status.
- There are apparently 23000 jihadists in the United Kingdom which the intelligence services have trouble keeping track of. Nonetheless they view doing this sort of thing as a greater priority. Thus they are quite willing to forgo the job of looking after security for the sake of self-preservation.
- In acting in this manner and doing so openly and freely, with a complete lack of self-awareness, they also reveal that they are not particularly intelligent.
- The quote by Edward Heath is very much true, given that I read rt.com which, unlike the BBC, makes no bones about the fact that to a large extent it represents the point of view of the Russian government.”They talked the most ridiculous nonsense, and their whole philosophy was ridiculous nonsense.If some of them were on the tube and saw someone reading the Daily Mirror they would say – ‘Get after him, that man is dangerous, we must find out where he bought it.’ “
UPDATE: 6/6/2018 10:30
This may or may not be related to the last update
Given the fact that
- The content is the same as what I related above
- The organization concerned works in the same area as GCHQ, namely law enforcement.
- The European Union is on the basis of the evidence subordinate to the interests of the UK
- The European Union is thusfar keen to prove as much
It would be very worrying indeed if it were indeed the case that the last point in particular applied given the fact that
- Europe thusfar does not have the best record in terms of preventing terrorism.
- The limitations with regards to the resources which are available to European intelligence agencies in order to tackle terrorism.