www.news-alliance.com

MI5 TERROR FANTASY MASKS THE REAL SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE TERROR THREAT....


Eliza Manningham-Buller, recently retired Director General of MI5 ..............Jonathan Evans, Director General of MI5

To serious students of the international intelligence community, the May 2002 appointment of Eliza Manningham- Buller to Director General of MI5 (The Security Service) was no surprise, it was predicted in the first quarter of 1999. On the same day Manningham-Buller was promoted to head MI5, the Queen hosted a Downing Street reception for 'her' former Prime Ministers. The Windsors certainly approved of Manningham-Buller’s appointment and indeed sanctioned her strategic appointment.

Manningham-Buller is of blood-blooded aristocratic lineage, a safe pair of hands to trust with the ship of state, and to prop-up the British Establishment in the fall-out from the murder of Princess Diana. Manningham-Buller is the daughter of Viscount Dilhorne, a former Tory Lord Chancellor. She joined MI5 in 1974 after teaching English at a private school for girls and quickly climbed through the ranks of MI5. In 1984 (no pun intended on Orwell’s great novel) she was heading MI5’s anti-Soviet affairs section as the “Evil Empire” bordered on imminent collapse.

By 1988, she was leading MI5’s Middle East section and in 1991 she became MI5’s Washington liaison officer. A year later she left the US to lead all of MI5’s anti-IRA operations on the mainland. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB) had just lost the ‘franchise’ and had to submit to MI5 primacy amid considerable acrimony. By late July 1997, Manningham-Buller had risen to become Deputy Director General of MI5. She had made a ‘startling’ rise through the ranks, no doubt because of family connections to ‘The Firm’ as the royals call themselves.

Of equal interest, is the fact that Manningham-Buller, by July 1997, in her position as Deputy Director General of MI5 was privy to top-level operations of the nature of the surveillance operation carried out against Princess Diana and her ‘contacts’. A month later, on 31 August 1997, Manningham-Buller was in a position to exert considerable operational influence over the Metropolitan Police Special Branch; alleged to be behind the raids on Lionel Cherruault’s home and Big Pictures photo agency in London.

Going back a few years, interesting and entirely relevant details are to be found in Manningham-Buller’s immediate ancestry on her mother’s side. Her mother was Lady Mary Lilian Lindsay, 4 daughter of the 27 Earl of Crawford. The Earls of Crawford, hold the post of Premier Earl of Scotland, vying for pivotal position with the Lords High Constable of Scotland.

Manningham-Buller’s brother in law Sir John Parsons is the former Deputy Keeper of the Queen’s Privy Purse also known as the ‘royal slush fund’. Her cousin Robert Alexander Lindsay, the Earl of Crawford later served as the Queen Mother’s Lord Chamberlain, appointed in 1992, at the same time his cousin Eliza was heading back to Britain to take over MI5’s operations against the IRA. Jobs for the boys, and girls, one might argue and convincingly so.

The Queen Mother had shown inexplicable kindness to the MI5 traitor Anthony Blunt, who many said should have been executed, comrade of the Soviet Union. Not since Blunt has there been such close family connections between MI5 and the Royal Household. It is no ‘accident’ that Eliza Manningham-Buller was appointed to Director General of MI5. The public clamour for an ‘Inquest’ or British-led investigation into the murky death of Princess Diana was becoming deafening.

The vast majority of the Queen’s 'subjects' do not believe the princess’s death was an accident but that is not to say that the Queen ordered the hit on Diana. The spooks have carte blanche to act as they please without royal commission. Former royal butler Paul Burrell is completely right to say that the Queen does not know about the ‘secret work’ undertaken by MI5 and MI6. The spooks have carte blanche to defend their stranglehold on power and that includes propping up the Monarchy and State by whatever means necessary.

It is not known exactly how influential the royals are in the selection process for senior intelligence officers but the views of the Monarch are taken on board and are part of the prerequisite selection process. The Queen favoured Manningham-Buller because of her ancestral links to the royal household and the fact the Eliza could be ‘trusted’ to keep any embarrassing secrets about the royals from leaking into the public domain. But Eliza did not succeed entirely.

The issue, actually came to a head with the arrest and prosecution of Paul Burrell and the whole strategy eventually backfired in spectacular fashion. The strategy to cover up the secrets of Diana’s little box, worked in reverse and ensured that many of the princess’s secrets seeped into the public domain, causing the House of Windsor and associated hangers-on, considerable distress, fundamentally damaging the public’s perception of the monarchy forever.

The Republican Movement has never had it so good. Diana, certainly, would have let off a few chortles, probably vindictive ones. One is reminded of Christopher Hitchens famous line to Diana at the Serpentine: “You have done more to bring about a Republic without trying than I have by trying.” And this reason more than anything, even the anti-landmines campaign, was why the Establishment needed to neutralise the Diana Threat. Jobs for the boys, no more, if the monarchy collapsed….

And British Intelligence have for centuries (Elizabeth's Spy Master) cleared up after the royals. Even before MI5 and MI6 were formed, their predecessors were employed both secretly and directly by Parliament and part of their remit was to uphold the monarchy at any cost and that included eliminating troublesome individuals. Some people even refer to MI6 as the Monarch’s private security firm but the spooks do have other tasks to perform as well as cleaning up after multiple royal faux pas.

Eliza Manningham-Buller was the perfect choice for Director General of MI5 in the eyes of the Monarch and little Eliza, unbeknown to her at the time, was 'stalked' as a potential MI5 officer from the age of 13. Her rise through MI5 was startling, particularly given the fact that her record on combating ‘terrorism’ has been poor, lamentably so. One must remember her infamous instruction to Parliament the day before the 7/7 London bombings: “There is no group with the willingness or capability to carry out terrorist attacks in Britain at this time.”

Indeed, Eliza leapfrogged all of the competition for the post of Director General, and in the opinions of many commentators, the competition was better qualified to lead MI5 and combat ‘genuine’ terrorist threats to the UK. One such candidate was former Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, David Veness, who was seen as the ideal choice because of his role as Anti-Terrorist Squad Chief at New Scotland Yard. But his chances of becoming DG were seriously afflicted by a very unsavoury affair in the English Channel on 21 December 2001, just weeks after 9/11.

The cargo ship MV Nisha had been chartered, we were led to believe, by Al Qaeda to carry a huge amount of explosives into the UK. When the ship was boarded in the English Channel, with the rapacious media watching everything that happened, no explosives were found. One might add that this was the same Al Qaeda, to which MI6 paid £100,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund an assassination attempt against Colonel Gaddaffi, the Libyan leader. The attack failed but what this incident proved is that MI6 will go to any lengths to get a troublesome individual off the scene permanently,

The fall out from the MV Nisha affair, although it achieved exactly what MI5 wanted it to achieve, (the repetitive terrorisation of the public in the so-called ‘war on terror’) also put the post of DG out of the reach of the hapless Veness. But he should not have been blamed for the faux pas. Veness was tipped off about the MV Nisha by ‘MI5’ and many intelligence analysts claim that he was set up for a fall to discredit him, thus ensuring he did not become DG of MI5.

The then Home Secretary David Blunkett was opposed to the rise of Eliza Manningham-Buller, seeing her as ‘old school’, and preferred Veness to take the lead at MI5. But the media coverage after the MV Nisha calamity was so damaging, New Labour had to distance the affair and Veness was seen as soiled goods. He could not in these circumstances, and did not become DG of MI5. And there was much opposition to Veness from within the Manningham-Buller faction inside MI5.

The MI5 faction did not like the idea of a ‘copper or plod’ leading them and above all, sharing their ‘dirty secrets’, which are almost always out of bounds for the police, who simply do as they are told by the spooks. But the MV Nisha affair alone was not enough to deselect David Veness. Sir Stephan Lander, former DG, now Chairman of SOCA, made a personal recommendation that Eliza should get the top job.

This is the same Stephan Lander who told Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, “I could read all of your emails this afternoon if I wanted to Piers.” The lapdog editor replied by stating that he ‘felt much safer knowing that such an intelligent man was protecting us from terrorism’. Would that be the terrorism of the press and their annoying questions? But journalists are seldom brave and the courage factor diminishes still further in the post of editor.

Eliza it was who got the ‘top job’, to coin Diana’s phrase in the famous Panorama interview, and the opposition fell on their swords, most notably due to MI5’s atrocious or planted ‘intelligence’ regarding the non-existent threat posed by the MV Nisha.

Eliza won through, backed to the hilt by the Queen, MI5 and the ‘sudden failure’ of her opponents. Her record on combating terror has been woeful but on upholding the finest ‘traditions’ of the British Establishment, she has excelled, propping up a crumbling monarchy, which is one of MI5’s primary functions, if not the primary function. It is oft said that if MI5 were disbanded, the monarchy would collapse – over to the Republican Movement on that one.

And part of Eliza’s role of upholding the Establishment, no matter what foul deeds have been done to achieve this end, was overseeing the police ‘investigation’ into ‘allegations’ of ‘theft’ against Paul Burrell. It is pertinent to remind readers of the Queen’s assignation with Burrell in December 1997: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country about which we have no knowledge,” and those powers most definitely include MI5!

The ‘Squidgygate’ tapes of Diana’s intimate telephone conversations with ‘friend’ James Gilbey did not publicly surface until 24 August 1992. They were placed on the airwaves in 1989 and the Sun newspaper was sold a copy of the recording but decided not to publish the material because it was deemed highly sensitive. MI5 are believed to be behind the plot to discredit Diana by recording the ‘private’ telephone call and then rebroadcasting it on civilian band radio to make it look like the call was intercepted by an ‘enthusiast’.

Diana’s former royal protection officer, Ken Wharfe opines that the release of the recording is “credible evidence” that the Establishment were out to “destroy” his former boss. Ken Wharfe, ever the loyal plod, also blames the Al Fayed bodyguards for the crash in the Alma Tunnel, suggesting it was their “incompetence” that created the scenario for the ‘accident’ to happen. It should also be noted that Diana did not trust anything to do with the State and that included Wharfe! Indeed, Diana dispensed with royal ‘protection’ because she was convinced they were spying on her and reporting back to their masters - to MI5 and from there to the Royal Household.

Part of Eliza Manningham-Buller’s role in the aftermath of Diana’s death, was the suppression of photographs of the crash but in this she failed also. But more importantly, her remit was to neutralise the damage that could be caused by the release of the contents of Pandora’s box of tricks, which included a tape she made as ‘insurance’ against assassination, and the tape recording she made of the allegations made by royal valet George Smith.

In 1996, as the princess’s arranged marriage to Prince Charles drew to a very public end, she befriended George Smith and made a tape recording of his astonishing allegations: first, he was raped by an aide of Prince Charles and second, he once saw a ‘male royal’ engaging in a homosexual act with a male employee. The Mail on Sunday would later suggest the ‘male royal’ was Prince Charles but the truth remains unclear. Paul Burrell claims he last saw this explosive Rape Tape in the company of Diana’s sister, and Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen, Lady Sarah McCorquodale.

Diana saw the tape as so damaging to the Royals that she kept it under lock and key, for a rainy day, one might presume. And Burrell also claims that the Spencer family shredded most if not all of Diana’s personal correspondence in the days after the funeral, again presumably to conceal family secrets and protect the Monarchy’s ‘right to rule’.

On page 378 of A Royal Duty, Burrell wrote: -

The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt; a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as the Rape Tape. It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff who worked for Prince Charles. It all came to a head because George who had worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares, was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an incident that he said he was bottling up.

And again on page 379, he wrote: -

The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she loathed him. ‘I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George, and I will never forgive him for that,’ she seethed, after her futile attempts to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a settlement [Lawyer, Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000. The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard ‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on my home became clear….

The Spencer family alleged that Burrell “retained the material up until the beginning of his trial,” and as part of a deal with the royals to collapse it, he handed over the tape. The police did not find the tape when they raided Burrell’s home. And this was not the first time the police had shown interest in the tape. Scotland Yard’s Organised Crime Group, allegedly at the behest of Prince Charles, covertly filmed Diana’s visits to Smith. What ‘organised crime’ the 'Organised Crime Group' thought may be going on is beyond rationale. Perhaps they should have investigated more thoroughly the fire bomb attack on Burrell’s flower shop….

Keith Perry, writing in the Sunday Express on 17 November 2002, stated that in the run up to the collapse of Burrell’s trial, the Crown Prosecution Service and Eliza Manningham-Buller viewed the tapes, possibly 16 to 18 in number, although Burrell claims he only ever had 6 of them. It is interesting that the tapes did not play a part in Burrell’s trial, at least not officially, so why were the CPS and Manningham-Buller viewing the tapes, which apparently did not substantiate the ‘Crown’s’ case against Burrell?

Piers Morgan summed it up succinctly in The Insider: ‘This will go on for weeks, and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything, and he knows the lot because he was there.’ And suddenly, the Queen remembered her discussion with Burrell at Buckingham Palace in December 1997 and was certain that Burrell told her that he was taking some of Diana’s belongings into his possession for safekeeping. Burrell also took six of the tapes, what happened to the rest?

There have been selective leaks of the tapes and the probable reason for this is that Scotland Yard took the blame, again, for the whole fiasco that was the Burrell trial. Others suggest that leaks were made in a flurry in March 2003, to prevent Charles speaking out against the Iraq war. Whatever, the truth, it is clear that no proper investigation was made into George Smith’s allegations that he was raped and that he saw a ‘male royal’ engage in homosexual acts with a member of staff.

The Peat Report established no wrongdoing (surprisingly?) in the Royal Household and achieved the primary objective of “restoring order” to the Prince’s Household. All nice and neat and tidy, yet again. It never ceases to amaze that any member of the Establishment accused of wrongdoing is eventually exonerated and much the same can be said of Parliament under the corrupt regime of cash for honours crook Tony Blair.

The tapes, leaked in a controlled fashion, did far less damage than they might have done if released in their entirety without being doctored first. And imagine the disaster that would have ensued if the tapes had been released, driven by the impetus of Princess Diana, an icon across the world! Such a scenario would likely have brought down the House of Windsor or at the very least, prevented Charles from inheriting the throne and supplanted Prince William as the heir apparent. The decision, with great foresight, was made to eliminate the Diana question and it was, well almost.

Just before midnight on 30 August 1997 and even before the Mercedes S280 pulled off from the rue Cambon on the journey that would enter the annals of history, the British Establishment signalled its intention to resolve the Diana question once and for all. The very public attack on Mohamed Al Fayed in the Sunday Mirror was the opening shot of the night’s events. MI6, tasked by Prince Philip, who Al Fayed accuses of ordering the hit on Diana and Dodi, had instructed the spooks to draw up a damning dossier against the Al Fayeds.

This was not mere brinkmanship, both sides, particularly the Windsors meant business and one side or the other would not survive the battle for survival. As far as the Windsors were concerned it was them or the Al Fayeds and that also included Diana who had left the royal clique behind and become the greatest threat to the monarchy since Wallis-Simpson. The Queen Mother believed Diana was a far greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson!

With these great threats, not to national security or the public, only to the House of Windsor and its small army of hangers on, a safe pair of hands was needed at MI5 to ensure the tapes were kept out of the public domain or at the very least, if they leaked, the damage minimised. Eliza Manningham-Buller has fulfilled her role to the Monarch and ensured that the damage was minimised. In this regard, her time in office as DG can be regarded as a success but in the war on terror, she has been an abysmal failure.

No one can forget the cock up, Eliza made of the report to Parliament, the day before the 7/7 attacks on London. But of even greater concern to the whole nation, is that just fourteen months later, Eliza is on autocue again to tell the nation, as part of MI5’s terror fantasy, that thousands of would-be terrorists are on the loose in Britain and that the poor old spooks need yet more millions to protect us or merely to waste on cover ups or plotting yet more illegal wars in Iraq or Iran. What changed during those fourteen months to create such a colossal increase in the ‘terror threat’?

On 6 July 2005, Manningham-Buller told Parliament there was no threat to the nation from any group – the next day over 50 people were murdered on the streets and subways of London. And fourteen months later, suddenly from having no credible threats to the nation, thousands have sprung up, in the dark like mushrooms to threaten our very existence on the planet. One is reminded of the rudimentary lesson about the relationship between government and the governed: “Treat them like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit!”

Eliza Manningham-Buller was appointed just before the arrest and prosecution of Paul Burrell; the objective of which was designed to neutralise the threat the tapes posed to the House of Windsor. In short order, the completely discredited Paget 'Investigation' was ordered into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, with Eliza Manningham-Buller at the helm again.

And with the Paget whitewash 'concluded' and the ‘secrets’ of Diana’s box of secrets hidden away, the Queen’s Emissary at MI5, retired from the service in April 2007 to be replaced by Jonathan Evans. One can only hope that Mr Evans will have a damn sight more success on combatting real terrorism than his blue-blooded predecessor.

Anti-Terrorist hotline: 0800 789 321