[…] Times article of 29 October 2000 Labour MP Tam Dalyell wrote: ‘I can now reveal that in 1967, I talked at some length to the head of MI6, the late Sir Maurice Oldfield, who helped to persuade Wilson not to accede to Lyndon Johnson’s request to send a battalion of bagpipers (sic) to Vietnam. […]
[…] provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 on the grounds of safeguarding national security. Similar certificates were signed (by Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary) on behalf of MI6 and GCHQ. In October 2001, Norman Baker MP won a Data Protection Tribunal appeal; the National Security Appeals Panel of the Tribunal ruled that a blanket […]
[…] is just a poor effort on Bethel’s part. One can’t deny that it is useful – after all, it is the first book written solely about an MI6 operation – but one is disappointed by its thinness and its viewpoint. Bethel’s (partly legitimate) excuse is that documentation is unavailable because of Kim Philby’s involvement […]
[…] what the British Left assumed Catholic Action in Britain was up to (but for which it never produced the evidence). Frank Steele (obit Guardian 5 January 1998) MI6 officer sent into Northern Ireland in 1971. Involved in 1972/3 attempts to resolve the conflict. C. Gordon Tether (obit Financial Times 3 December 1997) FT writer […]
[…] the Telegraphs – it is reasonable to assume that there is a decent chance the material is coming from the Foreign Office or the psy-ops people at MI6. Beyond that little is certain. I do not see what is accomplished by suggesting, as he does here, that Martin Bright of The Observer might (or […]
[…] are therefore inaccessible. (5) Who dares to say that our civil servants are lacking in initiative? Same old Con Undeterred by the disinformation given to him by MI6 about Gadaffi’s son which led to a successful libel action against The Sunday Telegraph,(6)and undeterred by all the nonsense he ran in the run-up the attack […]
[…] times annually by two British eccentrics with a limited distribution to “about 50 like-minded friends.” N.B. It is anti-intelligence, specifically against the Western intelligence services, particularly MI5, MI6 and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The subject matter is apparently varied, eclectic, and highly interesting and informative for intelligence professionals and buffs.’ While good reviews […]
[…] interest is clear; for example, John Young, of the cryptome site, had received telephone calls on behalf of SIS, asking him to remove the CX95 document (concerning MI6 involvement with a plot to kill Gaddafy) from his website, but refused. But should anything be published on the internet? John Young said they would publish […]
[…] around the KGB defector Oleg Gordiefsky. Gordiefsky’s public role, the quid pro quo for the pension he is now receiving, is to bolster the key myth of MI6, that while we may be the junior partner in the intelligence relationship with the U.S., we’re the best, the most subtle and the most reliable — […]
[…] is still transparently false. There is no ‘syndicate’, no matter how loosely you define it – and his definition is very loose indeed. And how long are authors going to continue taking seriously John Coleman (he of the ‘Committee of 300’ nonsense, cited extensively here), and his description of himself as a former MI6 officer?
