Press Complaints Commission & Espionage

I mentioned earlier in my blog, and the point has also been made elsewhere by others, that there was clearly incorrect information being spread about the case of Daniel James. Daniel’s case was being called the first spy case since the Cold War and even the first such case since that of Michael Bettany in 1984.

There was no good reason why such incorrect details should have been published, and it was especially inexcusable that this story was used in many local and national newspapers, in the UK as well as throughout the world. In an attempt to correct the false information I made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about three British newspapers: The Scotsman, Daily Mirror, and Daily Telegraph.

I have just received letters from the Press Complaints Commission giving the details of the satisfactory resolution of my complaints against these three newspapers. Copies of the letters are printed below.

Complaint against The Scotsman

Complaint against Daily Mirror

Complaint against Daily Telegraph

It was interesting that all those who published the false story accepted its reliability without question, although there must have been journalists with sufficient experience who were aware that it could not be true. The story appeared to originate from an article by Peter Graff of Reuters (British soldier pleads not guilty to Afghan spying on 13 July), and it is quite worrying that so many journalists will repeat erroneous Reuters reports without checking their accuracy.

I note that Reuters finally corrected their article on 7 August 2007.

Annie Machon writes about MI5’s attack on David Shayler

Annie Machon has written in the Daily Mail newspaper (11 August 2007) about the damage MI5 has inflicted on David Shayler, as punishment for him whistle blowing on them in the 1990s. What she has revealed shows the extraordinary lengths MI5 will go to in abusing the powers of the State to suppress the truth, and to protect their own unmerited reputation.

Annie Machon is only confirming what many of us have experienced over a long period of time: MI5 is a very incompetent organisation. In order to protect itself against internal whistleblowers, and attacks from others outside the Secret State, MI5 will stop at nothing in going on the offensive. The policy seems to be to attack any individual who has identified the Secret Service’s weaknesses, resulting in those deficiencies being allowed to fester away indefinitely. Like the school bully, MI5 suffers from a flawed corporate personality - and the last thing such bullies want is to have their inadequacies exposed in public.

MI5 cannot deal with espionage and terrorism in the UK; that fact has been clearly demonstrated over the decades. Most of the real espionage cases over the years have been uncovered by the incompetence of the spies, or by some good luck on the part of MI5. However, MI5 has now taken to manufacturing alleged spies in order to enhance its own track record; as in my case, and those of Rafael Juan Bravo and Ian Parr - all of us were framed for dealing with non-existent “Russians” (in reality MI5 officers). Now we have the case of Corporal Daniel James, who is being accused of passing British “secrets” to “Iranians”, when no spying was actually going on.

MI5’s record on terrorism is no better; the fact that they failed to stop the 2005 bombings in London speaks for itself. They failed to stop the 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy in London, and then covered up the facts by framing two innocent Palestinians, Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh, who were then used as convenient scapegoats for that crime. MI5 even betray their own agents, as in the case of Bisher Al-Rawi, who ended up spending four-and-a-half years locked up without charge in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Not surprisingly, MI5 finds it easier to spy on soft targets, like British politicians and trade unionists, and they see nothing wrong with the illegal phone-tapping of anybody they feel could be a threat to the Security Service or the British Establishment.

Saving those in power from embarrassment appears to be a priority in MI5’s policies, such as the denial that MI5 had anything to do with the attempted assassination of Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. Heaven forbid that organisations like MI5 should be accountable to the public or subject to democratic control - at least I cannot see the new boss man Jonathan Evans demanding tighter controls.

So, just what is all the secrecy surrounding MI5 really for? Annie Machon gives the true reason why these “secrets” are only for the few: ‘The British Establishment is ruthless in protecting its own interests rather than those of our country.’

Well said Annie !!!

Martin Winstone, Reginald Humphryes and Meirion Francis Lewis

Readers of my blog will be aware that I am currently awaiting confirmation of the accuracy of key evidence given by Professor Meirion Francis Lewis at my trial, and the person who can resolve this issue is Mr Martin Winstone of MBDA.

The evidence in question concerns Exhibit pages 51-59, from the document bundles used at my trial, which can now be viewed on the Cryptome website. Although Mr Winstone’s name appears on this document, together with the names of 15 other individuals, not one of them was apparently interviewed by the police about it. Is that not a very curious and incomprehensible feature, considering that this document turned out to be the most important exhibit in the whole case?

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is currently in communication with Martin Winstone, to determine the exact significance of the document’s contents. However, there still remain some anomalies about what happened during the period leading up to the point when Professor Meirion Francis Lewis gave evidence at my trial on 7 and 11 October 1993.

Just what was the communication made between Professor Lewis and Reginald Humphryes, and was Martin Winstone the man who told Reginald Humphryes that the document was used on the ALARM project? Certainly, Mr Winstone is the most likely source of information about the project that linked to that restricted document (Exhibit pages 51-59).

As it does not involve any sensitive information, I decided to contact Martin Winstone directly, and to ask for his help to resolve a couple of important points concerning what happened around the time of my trial. Below is a copy of the email I sent to him:

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
From: Michael John Smith
To: Martin Winstone, martin.winstone [at] mbda.co.uk, martinrwinstone [at] aol.com

Cc: Andrew Mackinlay MP
Angela Flower, info [at] ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk
Daniel McCaughan, dvm [at] picatec.com
Meirion Francis Lewis, meirionfrancis.lewis [at] virgin.net
Reginald Humphryes, Crawley, uk.enquiries [at] thalesgroup.com
Carol Reed, carol.reed [at] mbda.co.uk
Steve Wadey, steve.wadey [at] mbda.co.uk
Richard Jefferies, Richard.Jefferies [at] lmj-solicitors.co.uk
Eamonn Maher, eamonn.maher[at] 3-cs.co.uk
Duncan Campbell, iptv [at] gn.apc.org
Jane Mackenzie, jane.mackenzie [at] private-eye.co.uk
Jason Lewis, Jason.Lewis [at] mailonsunday.co.uk
Mary Dejevsky, m.dejevsky [at] independent.co.uk
Martin Bright, martin [at] newstatesman.co.uk
Michael Smith, mick [at] michaelsmithwriter.com
Neil Mackay, Neil.Mackay [at] sundayherald.com
Tom Newton Dunn, tom.newtondunn [at] the-sun.co.uk
Robin Ramsay, lobster [at] lobster.karoo.co.uk
John Symonds, nellysymonds [at] aol.com
John Young, jya [at] pipeline.com

Subject: Technical evidence submitted to the CCRC

Dear Mr. Winstone,

I apologise for having to contact you again, but I believe that you are the only person who can help me resolve the anomalies within my case.

I understand that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has contacted you to confirm whether or not an exhibit at my trial in 1993 was actually ever used on any ALARM missile. I shall await your reply to the CCRC’s questions, and I will not interfere in that process.

The issues that concern me now, and which could well lead to the satisfactory resolution of my case, are quite simple and involve no sensitive information. I propose to ask you only 2 questions regarding the events of 1992/3:

(1) Were you approached or interviewed, by either the Police or the Ministry of Defence, between August 1992 and October 1993 with respect to the MSDS document 79481/PBH/BB/SO8 (draft issue 2)?

(2) Is it not a fact that you had communication with Mr Reginald Humphryes in October 1993 regarding the possible significance of the said document?

I think you will appreciate that these questions only require a “yes” or “no” answer, and that they do not involve any classified information.

My only desire is to establish the truth and to finally put this matter to rest, and I would be eternally grateful for any help that you can give to me.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith


Well, we shall have to wait and see if Mr Winstone responds to my plea for help.

It is strange how people like Martin Winstone can appear quite austere and unapproachable when they are seen in their professional role. However, it appears that Martin is keen on badminton, and that conjures up an altogether different image of him. Similarly, Professor Lewis is passionate about stamp collecting - it’s quite sweet really.

So, possibly one of my readers, or even one of Martin Winstone’s friends, neighbours, or fellow badminton players might encourage him to provide me with the answers I need. Mr Winstone can be contacted at his home address below:

Martin R. Winstone
73 Westfield Avenue
Watford
Herts
WD24 7HF

Phone: 01438 755881 (work)
01923 235338 (home)

email: martinrwinstone@aol.com
martin.winstone@mbda.co.uk

Martin Winstone lives here in Watford

My parole licence ended 8 August 2007

After all the celebrations and hangovers of the past few days, I can finally get around to reporting that my parole licence ended on 8 August 2007. I was so busy last week that I even forgot to attend the last meeting with my Probation Officer, and I had to set another appointment.

It's quite a relief not to have to report to the Probation Office any longer, and I am now free to leave the UK for the first time in 15 years. More importantly, I no longer have to be careful at what I do to progress the investigations into my conviction for espionage, whereas previously I was under the threat of being returned to prison if I overstepped the mark.

So, a new era begins, and we shall have to see where destiny leads me.