Charles Haughey

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Spying on the prodigal prince and his American wife. Harry and Megan are surely the targets of surveillance by His Majesty's secret services. MI6 reported to Queen Elizabeth II for 70 years. By David Burke.

    by 0 Comments

    Introduction. Queen Elizabeth II received briefings from fifteen chiefs of the British Secret Service during her 70-year reign, much of it about Ireland. The briefings undoubtedly covered a wide spectrum from Charles Haughey, the bogeyman of Irish politics – as the UK saw it – to Martin McGuinness and the murder of Lord Louis Mountbatten. In the modern era the communications of Prince Harry and his American wife are surely being monitored by Britain’s vast espionage network, in particular, GCHQ. 1. Royal briefings. Richard Moore, the Chief of the British Secret Service (MI6/SIS), has offered his “deepest sympathy and condolences to the Royal Family”, adding that: Fifteen Chiefs of SIS held office during her long reign. Each of us were honoured to oversee the provision of intelligence to the longest running reader of intelligence reports. In my meetings with The Queen, I was always struck by her candour, wit and burning sense of duty. MI6 is Britain’s overseas intelligence service. It is part of the Foreign Office. (MI5 operates inside the UK and Britain’s colonies.) The fact that Queen Elizabeth II enjoyed meetings with no less than fifteen MI6 chiefs and that reports were submitted to her, may come as a surprise to some. However, readers of ‘The Secret Royals’ by Rory Cormac and Richard Aldrich will not be surprised. ‘Secret Royals’ came out in hardback last year and is about to be published in softcover shortly. The book is a genuine page-turner packed with one fascinating story after another, the cumulative effect of which is to afford a fascinating insight into the relationship between the British intelligence community and Buckingham Palace. It is no exaggeration to say that the TV series ‘The Crown’ is drab by comparison to it. (The book is known as ‘Spying and the Crown’ in some jurisdictions.) In full, the statement issued by MI6 Chief Moore (also known as ‘C’) reads as follows: 2. Charles Haughey was perceived as an enemy of the Crown. Many secrets, however, remain buried in the vaults. It would be fascinating to know what type of material MI6 showed to Queen Elizabeth about this country. Did they, for example, reveal what they knew about Charles Haughey, the perceived bogeyman of Irish politics? MI6, like the British establishment, never understood Haughey and tagged him as a clandestine IRA godfather, at least during the 1970s. In 1980, Robin Haydon, Britain’s ambassador to Dublin, described Haughey to Lord Peter Carrington at the Foreign Office as ‘no friend of ours’ and as a man who had the potential to become ‘hostile’ towards the UK. Haydon was known as ‘Sir Spy’ among Haughey’s inner circle. No doubt MI6 was just as critical of Haughey in its briefings at Buckingham Palace. 3. Reports about the Provisional IRA. The information furnished to Buckingham Palace in 1979 must have made for sombre reading. Did Martin McGuinness’ name crop up in the briefing about the murder of Lord Louis Mountbatten? If MI6 was any good, it should have. In later years, both parties shook hands with each other as part of the peace process. And what of the reports on Haughey after he became Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) in December 1979? An intriguing thought is that these reports may still exist in some shape or form at Buckingham Palace and may one day fall into the hands of historians such as Aldrich and Cormac. 4. MI6 and damage to Anglo-Irish affairs. How much damage did MI6 chiefs such as Sir John Rennie, 1968-73; Sir Maurice Oldfield, 1973-78; and Sir Arthur Franks, 1978-82,  occasion to Anglo-Irish affairs by briefing Queen Elizabeth with faulty information about Haughey, Fianna Fail and the attitude of people in Ireland towards the IRA? A file released by Britain’s National Archive in London in 2009 revealed Queen Elizabeth’s  “alleged dislike of the Irish”. The comment was made by a Foreign Office official in 1979. This (and other factors) shut down the possibility of a state visit to London by Irish President Patrick Hillery. A more extensive analysis of the queen’s hostility towards Ireland was not released. The effect of a state visit by the late President Hillery and a reciprocal one by Queen Elizabeth in 1979/80 is now difficult, if not impossible, to guage save to say that it could only have improved relations. Haughey’s first term as taoiseach spanned December 1979 to June 1981. In 1979, during a trip to Chicago, Princess Margaret commented at a reception hosted by the city’s mayor, Jane Byrne, that: “The Irish, they’re pigs.” (A claim was later made that she had uttered the word ‘jigs’ not ‘pigs’.) 5. A regular visitor to Ireland. Henceforth, Richard Moore will report to King Charles III. The new monarch, a popular figure in Ireland, will be eager to learn all he can about the Irish dignitaries he has met, and those he has yet to meet. Those who have met King Charles on his many visits to Ireland, such as President Michael D. Higgins, have praised him for the depth of his knowledge about the island. The President has even opined that he knows more about this country than ‘some’ British politicians. In private, senior Irish diplomats are voicing alarm not merely about the profound ignorance of senior Tory politicians, but also their advisers at the FCDO. 6. On Her – and now – His Majesty’s secret service. MI5 and GCHQ will also report to the new king. GCHQ monitors global communications including those of Ireland. King Charles has already established an excellent relationship with the intelligence community. As prince, he was patron of GCHQ, MI6 and MI5. On one visit to GCHQ he told his hosts that: Few people in this country will ever know just how great a debt we all owe you. But for those privileged enough to understand something of what you do, the difference you make to our security, our prosperity and to the defence of our values is both clear and invaluable. During a visit to

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Vilifying the victims: two of the most vile British Intelligence smear campaigns of the Troubles blamed innocent murder victims for their own demise. By David Burke.

    by 0 Comments

    The Information Research Department (IRD) of Britain’s Foreign Office sought to smear the victims of Bloody Sunday and the McGurks bar bomb atrocity. They even went so far as to attack a group of British politicians by linking them to a campaign for justice for the victims of Bloody Sunday. To the IRD, any association with the campaign for justice for the victims of Bloody Sunday was a shameful act. On 30 January 1972, British paratroopers murdered 13 unarmed civilians in Derry, none of whom posed any sort of a threat to the military – unless, that is, you consider the waving of a white piece of cloth in the air a potentially lethal act. Within minutes Britain’s black propaganda machine swung into action. The head of the Army’s PsyOps department, Col Maurice Tugwell, who had joined the British Army in Derry, was among them. Upfront, Col Derek Wilford, the cowardly commander of 1 Para (cowardly because he has sacrificed his own men by lying about the orders he gave them to save his own skin) spewed out a torrent of lies about an imaginary attack on his troops by the IRA. Later, the Information Research Department (IRD) of the Foreign Office took over the smear campaign against the Bloody Sunday campaigners. A man with deep Irish roots – Hugh Mooney – led the IRD charge. Mooney was a graduate of Trinity College Dublin. He had once worked for the Irish Times. As an IRD officer, Mooney was complicit in a multiplicity of MI6-IRD smear campaigns. An indication of his mindset can be gleaned from the fact that when he later tried to smear leading members of the British Labour Party, he felt the best way to bring them into disrepute was to link them to the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday. (This episode, and a forged document the IRD created to further it, are described more fully later in this article.) Mooney had assets in the British press. One of them was a Tory guru called Tom Utley. Ultley was a British intelligence ‘agent of influence’ or in modern parlance, an ‘influencer’.  At the time of the Bloody Sunday massacre, Utley was working for the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, both pro-Tory papers popular with middle and upper class Britain. Mooney and Utley discussed the Bloody Sunday problem together. It was ultimately resolved that Utley would write a paperback about it. According to a confidential letter dated 24 March 1972, the FCO reported to the MoD that Utley hoped to ‘complete the writing in about six weeks, though this may be a little over-ambitious’. According to the letter, he was ‘obviously’ going to ‘need a certain amount of help from Army PR, particularly on the propaganda aspect’. While Utley failed to produce the book, in 1975 he published the rather grandiosely titled ‘Lessons of Ulster’ which took a broader look at Northern Ireland and a litany of developments that had occurred in the meantime. An indication of his mind-set can be gauged from the fact that he objected to the use of the phrase ‘Bloody Sunday’, something he described as ‘slavish obedience to IRA mythology’. He argued that some of those killed were ‘fresh-faced boys who might otherwise have lived to swell the ranks of patriotic militancy’. In other words, they probably would have joined the IRA if they had not been shot. An indication of his mind-set can be gauged from the fact that he objected to the use of the phrase ‘Bloody Sunday’, something he described as ‘slavish obedience to IRA mythology’. He argued that some of those killed were ‘fresh-faced boys who might otherwise have lived to swell the ranks of patriotic militancy’. In other words, they probably would have joined the IRA if they had not been shot. The IRD demonised the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday and those who supported them. Clearly, they believed they had turned them into political untouchables. Hence, they felt they could undermine British Labour Party MPs by associating them with the Bloody Sunday quest for justice. Towards this end, the IRD forged a pamphlet based on a genuine Bloody Sunday campaign leaflet. The original is reproduced hereunder: Merlyn Rees, who served as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (and later as Home Secretary) was undermined – at least in the eyes of Mooney and his IRD colleagues  – by linking him to the Bloody Sunday campaign.  His name was added to the IRD forgery which appears under this paragraph. (See the bottom of the left hand column). A man called Stan Newens appears on the authentic pamphlet. He was supplanted by Stan Orme MP on the fabricated version. In a similar fashion, Tony Smythe became Tony Benn. David Owen MP was added to the list too.  Owen, however, had the last laugh: when he became Foreign Secretary later in the 1970s, he abolished the IRD. Mooney deployed a similar tactic to smear Charles Haughey TD of Fianna Fail, i.e., he took an original document produced in Ireland and doctored it to include smears about Haughey before printing his own version in London. Mooney was also responsible for the smear campaign against the victims of the McGurks bar bomb atrocity. 15 innocent people were murdered when the UVF attack McGurks bar in Belfast in December 1971. The black propagandists issued a statement insinuating that at least some of the victims of the attack were responsible for their own demise. The propagandists alleged that the bomb had been brought inside the pub by an IRA unit and had exploded prematurely – a so-called ‘own goal’. The campaign was furthered by statements by politicians. See Alleged disappearance of UVF Bomb Massacre Files: MoD excuse for destruction of Brigadier Kitson’s logs is far from convincing. By David Burke. Despite the best efforts of David Owen, the black propagandists found other avenues through which they managed to smear their victims including Charles Haughey. David Burke is the author of 

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The boot is on the other foot. Former British 'PSYOPS' officer Colin Wallace sues the MoD. His case demonstrates that lying to Parliament did not start with Boris Johnson.

    by 0 Comments

      By Joseph de Burca.     Introduction to Village’s online pamphlet on the Colin Wallace Affair. The Tory Government of Boris Johnson is routinely accused of deceiving the House of Commons. Many British commentators behave as if this is a new low in their democratic history.  Yet, there is nothing unusual about the situation. The UK’s Parliament has been misled by ministers at the behest of Britain’s intelligence services, especially MI5 for decades. MI5 is attached to the Home Office and is responsible for internal security. The deception of Parliament has been nowhere more evident than in the case of Colin Wallace, the man who tried to expose the notorious Kincora Boys’ Home child sex abuse scandal.  Village readers will be familiar with the case of Wallace. In the 1970s he worked at the British Army HQNI at Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn. He had a public job but also a clandestine one. On the surface, he performed public relations duties for the army. Towards this end, he briefed journalists about an array of routine military activities. His ‘open’ superior was Peter Broderick, a very senior official of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Broderick served as the head of the Army Press Desk. Secretly, Wallace was also reporting to Col Maurice Tugwell and later Col Geoffrey Hutton who were in charge of the Information Policy Unit (IPU) which conducted psychological operations known as ‘PsyOps’.  Hutton took over from Col Tugwell in March 1973 and was in post for two years.  He was in charge when Wallace left NI in February 1975. Wallace has just issued proceedings in the High Court in Belfast with the intention of prising out further documents which are in the possession of the British government which will confirm his PsyOps role in detail.  In 1974-75 Ian Cameron of MI5 plotted against Wallace who wanted to expose the Kincora Boys’ Home scandal and was refusing to engage in smear campaigns directed against British politicians. During the course of his work, Wallace was ordered to leak certain documents to the journalist Robert Fisk. He was then disciplined for what he had done. At his disciplinary hearing, MI5 and others conspired to deceive the tribunal hearing his case. They alleged that he had only one role – his ordinary PR duties – and therefore should not have leaked anything sensitive to Fisk. Secretly, Cameron contacted the chair of the tribunal and told him that Wallace was in the UVF. Wallace, of course, had nothing to do with the UVF. Wallace lost his job. Worse still, in the 1980s he was framed for manslaughter on the basis of fabricated evidence by a corrupt Home Office pathologist who lied to the Court. The conviction was later overturned but not before Wallace spent six years in prison. The MoD has alleged that all of the files belonging to the IPU were destroyed in 1980.  The Ministry has admitted that those responsible for the destruction of the files have never been interviewed. It is highly unlikely that the documents were actually destroyed. In the main, this article – which is intended as an online version of the old fashioned pamphlet –  has been drawn together from reports which have already appeared in Village. This account has been prepared in response to the launch of Wallace’s legal action in Belfast. The materials included in the ‘pamphlet’ merely represent a portion of the evidence which shows that Wallace has been telling the truth for decades and the MoD, NIO, Home Office, Conservative Party and Whitehall have been lying. Readers should also watch the documentary ‘The Man Who Knew Too Much’ which is available on Youtube. More information about Colin Wallace can be found at:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace WALLACE AND THE PERILOUS  PANTIES Wearing his IPU hat, Wallace and the members of his team were responsible for waging psychological warfare against Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries.  It is important to bear in mind that psychological warfare is not solely about spreading false information, it is about the use of intelligence and factual information in such a way as to influence the behaviour of others.  For example, one of Colin Wallace’s more amusing and notable successes was to deter female members and collaborators of the IRA from transporting explosives for the organisation. Wallace put a story into circulation that the static from the typical female pair of nylon knickers generated sufficient  electricity to explode the bomb materials being carried. As a result, there was a great reluctance to transport explosives. There was a scientific basis at the root of the story, as can be seen from a document entitled: ‘Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards’. At pages 85-99 it stated: Explosives. The explosives or explosive mixtures that are sensitive to static discharge (electro-static sensitivity of 0.1 joule or less) when exposed are generally primer, initiator, detonator, igniter, tracer, incendiary, and pyrotechnic mixtures. In reality, the chances of explosions being caused by static electricity were very small. Similarly, the PsyOps unit pointed out that the use of nitro benzene in home-made explosives was potentially carcinogenic.  This claim is supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency who considered nitro benzene a likely human carcinogen. See “Nitrobenzene CASRN 98-95-3 – IRIS – US EPA, ORD”.  An excellent account of Wallace’s exploitation of fears about devil worship stories can be watched on the Man Who Knew Too Much documentary. THE INFORMATION RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (IRD) The Army’s IPU was not the only organisation engaged in PsyOps. The notorious Information Research Department (IRD) was too. The IRD was part of the Foreign Office and worked closely with the British Secret Service, MI6, which is also attached to the Foreign Office. The IRD operated from a building in London called Riverbank House. The IRD was a Cold War Intelligence organisation designed to counter Soviet expansion globally. Inevitably, its staff became involved in the propaganda war in Ireland. The department’s representative in NI was Hugh Mooney, a graduate from Trinity College with Irish roots who had once worked for The Irish

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The Artful Dodger: O’Malley nit-picks with RTE over timing trivia while still ignoring all the important questions about the Arms Crisis.

    by 0 Comments

    By Sean Brennan. I have just read the article in the Sunday Independent [20 June] concerning whether RTE contacted Des O’Malley first while the station was producing the GunPlot series. It is the second article which the Sunday Independent has produced about the issue. The earlier one – written by Des O’Malley – appeared on 13 June. The article in today’s Sunday Independent [20 June 2021] concerns RTE’s apology to O’Malley and his family over a statement it issued last week about who made the first move to establish contact. This is truly a case of a very minor issue being blown up out of all proportion. It hardly undermines the quality and brilliance of the GunPlot series. One thing is absolutely clear now: it is not correct to say – as Des O’Malley claimed on 13 June – that RTE “never attempted to contact” him. Even as he says himself, his son talked at length to the producers on his behalf. O’Malley seems upset that he was not approached before the GunPlot podcasts were broadcast. However, they were aired over nine weeks. Hence, there was plenty of time to make contact with O’Malley as they rolled out. Surely O’Malley does not think he can dictate when he should have been approached? Surely the producers should be able to dictate their own pace? I have spoken to David Burke, author of a recent book on the Arms Crisis. He featured heavily in episode 8 of the podcast series (about the two Arms Trials). He was not interviewed until after episode 6 had been broadcast. (Some quotes from him in the earlier podcasts were taken from a lengthy interview he gave for the TV version of GunPlot. The TV interview was recorded earlier in the year.) Overall, O’Malley’s complaints are bewildering. He has spent well over 40 years dodging questions about the Arms Crisis. So why does it matter how contact between him and RTE was established: he was never going to answer the hard questions which he has been ducking for decades. In December 1980 Vincent Browne, the editor of Magill magazine, raised a number of issues about the Arms Crisis which involved O’Malley. Browne wrote: “Magill attempted to have Mr. O’Malley explain his side of this story for the July [1980] issue but he declined to speak to us. The offer of space to state his case is still available.” O’Malley’s silence in the interim has been deafening. In his Sunday Independent article of 13 June, O’Malley gave the impression that he has always been open about his knowledge of the scandalous series of events that surround the Arms Crisis; moreover, that he was ever willing to share it if only asked. Further, that there was a malign conspiracy at RTE to censor him. Will he now agree to do a fullscale interview for an additional episode of the GunPlot podcast? Is he now finally prepared to answer any and all questions? Will he answer the questions Magill raised over 40 years ago? Will he now agree to do a fullscale interview for an additional episode of the GunPlot podcast? Is he now finally prepared to answer any and all questions? Will he answer the questions Magill raised over 40 years ago? Des O’Malley declined to be interviewed by RTE in 2021 on the grounds of ill health. (It has presumably passed because he is now capable of writing at length for the Sunday Independent.) Yet, while in good health, he spent decades avoiding the hard questions about the Arms Crisis. The process began in earnest in 1980 after Magill magazine described two meetings he had had: one with Charles Haughey and a second one, after it, with Peter Berry of the Department of Justice. They will be examined in detail later in this article. O’Malley has failed to answer questions raised by Vincent Browne in that edition for over 40 years. In the meantime, other questions have arisen for O’Malley to answer. None of them have been addressed by him. O’Malley failed to raise and answer the difficult Arms Crisis questions in 2001 during a four-part TV series broadcast on RTE which was dedicated to his life. He also had an opportunity to put what he knew about these events in his 2014 memoirs. Instead of a thorough analysis, his book was a huge disappointment to historians who attacked it for its lack of real content. Now, he is jumping on utter trivia about who rang whom first instead of answering the really important issues about this monumental scandal. Now, he is jumping on utter trivia about who rang who first instead of answering the really important issues about this monumental scandal. Village has published a number of articles concerning Des O’ Malley’s role in the events in 1970. These articles included a number of matters which Village believes have not been addressed and satisfactorily answered by O’Malley concerning his role and actions in 1970. See: Ducking all the hard questions. Des O’Malley has vilified an array of decent men and refuses to answer obvious questions about the Arms Crisis and the manner in which the Provisional IRA was let flourish while he was minister for justice. See also: The ‘Last Man Alive’ is still saying nothing. Des O’Malley’s silence about his role in the Arms Trials and Arms Crises of 1970 has become thunderous. And: Vilification Once More For the sake of clarity,  I will summarise some of the more important questions which Des O’Malley needs to answer, starting in the next section. Please also note that extracts from the December 1980 edition of Magill which addressed the O’Malley-Haughey and O’Malley-Berry meetings are reproduced at the end of this article. A letter by author Michael Heney to the Sunday Independent is also reproduced towards the end of this piece. Mr Heney was replying to O’Malley’s article of 13 June last. Army Directive dated 6 February 1970. This directive documented an order which was given by the Minister for Defence,

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    RTE’s ‘Gun Plot’: Why has it taken so long for the true narrative of the Arms Crisis 1970 to emerge?

    by 0 Comments

    By Sean Brennan. The documentary titled ‘Gun Plot’ which was shown on RTE 1 last night  was fascinating television. The RTE production team should be commended for this brilliant documentary on a very important and significant political and legal event which occurred 50 years ago but has not been properly addressed by the media up until now. These events in 1969 and 1970 shaped politics in Ireland forever and also had a huge impact on how the troubles in Northern Ireland unfolded after 1970. What was very compelling was the fact that the documentary included the actual tape recordings of the second trial. This was the first time that an Irish court hearing was tape recorded. It was the judge, Mr. Justice Henchy, who ordered the hearings to be recorded. It is important to remember that the actual transcripts of the trial have been lost. The fact that the transcripts of the most important criminal trial in the history of the state are lost is incredible and some might even say sinister. In summary, RTE have performed a great service to the citizens of this country and historians in that they have finally portrayed much of what really happened in 1969 and 1970 but was previously hidden, concerning the events that are commonly referred to as the Arms Crisis and the Arms Trials in 1970. The documentary highlighted certain facts that suggest that Taoiseach Jack Lynch and Jim Gibbons, the then Minister for Defence, had a much greater knowledge and involvement in the plan to import arms for a possible distribution to Nationalists in Derry and Belfast in extreme circumstances than was ever admitted by Lynch and Gibbons. The programme refers to the Army Directive of 6th February 1970. This directive was issued by the Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons to the Army Chief of Staff, General Sean McEoin, in the presence of Colonel Michael Hefferon, the Head of Military Intelligence on 6th February 1970. The directive stated that the Minister had been instructed by the Government to direct the Chief of Staff to prepare the army for incursions into Northern Ireland and to make surplus arms available for distribution to Nationalist in Northern Ireland for defensive purposes. The documentary also covers the events on 2nd April 1970 when it was feared that the Nationalist population in Ballymurphy in Belfast would be left defenceless against armed and arson attacks by loyalist mobs and B Specials and would be slaughtered. Arising out of the instructions which were given to the Minister for Defence which resulted in the Army Directive dated 6th February 1970 mentioned in the last paragraph, the Minister issued an order for the army to transport army weapons from an army barracks in Dublin to the army barracks in Dundalk so as to ensure that these weapons could be distributed in a short space of time to the defenceless Nationalists in Belfast in the event of them being subject to murderous assault and arsonist attacks. A total of 500 Irish Army rifles were transported in Irish Army lorries to Dundalk. This was exactly the type of situation which was envisaged in the Army Directive dated 6th February 1970. As it transpired, the expected loyalist attacks on the Nationalists in Ballymurphy did not materialise. Of the 500 rifles transported to Dundalk, only 350 were immediately returned to the barracks in Dublin. The remaining 150 rifles were kept in Dundalk pending the arrival of arms to be imported from the Continent. Unlike the army rifles which were sent to Dundalk, these imported arms could not be indentifiable and traced back to the Irish Army. The purpose of importing unidentifiable arms was to avoid or at least mitigate the possibility of damage to our diplomatic relations with the UK. After all it was part of the Government’s emergency plans to supply arms to UK citizens in Northern Ireland which was part of the UK. This could be regarded as an act of war. Secrecy was therefore critically important.  Only Jim Gibbons could have ordered the Army to deposit 150 rifles in Dundalk after the rest of the arms were returned to Dublin. This was hidden from the jury at the Arms Trials. Only Jim Gibbons could have ordered the Army to deposit 150 rifles in Dundalk after the rest of the arms were returned to Dublin. This was hidden from the jury at the Arms Trials. The documentary also dealt with the army training camp in Fort Dunree , Co. Donegal. Men from Derry were inducted into the FCA and trained in the use of arms in Fort Dunree. This training was called off temporarily when the media got word of it. It was obvious that the people who were being trained into the use of arms might be supplied with arms to use in extreme circumstances as otherwise the training would have been pointless. It was obvious that the people who were being trained into the use of arms might be supplied with arms to use in extreme circumstances as otherwise the training would have been pointless. The documentary also mentions the meeting in Mount Carmel Hospital in October 1969 when the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Peter Berry informed the Taoiseach Jack Lynch that Captain Kelly met Northerners in Bailieboro, Co Cavan to discuss the importation of arms. Berry had been briefed by the Special Branch about the Bailieboro meeting and regarded it of such importance that he asked Jack Lynch to come to visit him in Mount Carmel so that he could tell Lynch face to face about what he had been told about the Bailieboro meeting. Lynch always denied that Berry told him about the Bailieboro meeting and the discussions concerning the importation of arms. The documentary was measured and overall it suggests that Captain Kelly and John Kelly believed that they were participants in a legal government sanctioned plan to import arms for the defence of Nationalist in Northern Ireland in the event of a

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The ‘Last Man Alive’ is still saying nothing. Des O’Malley’s silence about his role in the Arms Trials and Arms Crises of 1970 has become thunderous.

    by 0 Comments

    By Sean Brennan The purpose of this article is to examine Des O’ Malley’s Role in the events which are commonly known as The Arms Crisis and The Arms Trials 1970. The Arms Crisis erupted during the early hours of 6 May 1970, when a press release issued by the Government Information Service announced that the Taoiseach Jack Lynch had sacked his two most powerful Ministers, Neil Blaney and Charles Haughey, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance respectively. The Minister for Local Government, Kevin Boland had also resigned in protest at the manner in which his colleagues, Blaney and Haughey had been dismissed from Government. I should state at the outset that I am the son of Paudge Brennan, Fianna Fáil TD for Wicklow for 25 years, who resigned his position as a junior Minister reporting to Boland in sympathy with these other resignations. The reason for the sackings was allegations that Blaney and Haughey had been involved in a conspiracy, carried out behind the Taoiseach’s back and without his knowledge, to illegally import guns and ammunition. It was also rumoured that the guns were for the IRA. There were also imputations that the purpose of arming the IRA was to abolish partition, by force. The IRA hardly existed at this stage and was mocked by Northern nationalists with the taunt “IRA equals I Ran Away”. It was further suggested that Blaney and Haughey were involved in some sort of coup d’etat, whereby it was their intention to overthrow Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. I will prove in this article that this, conventional, narrative of the Arms Crisis was a deliberately fabricated lie. This lie was concocted by Jack Lynch in order to protect his own position. It turns out that Lynch was an inveterate liar. In fact, the author Michael Heney has shown that Jack Lynch lied on more than 30 occasions in matters pertaining to the Arms Crisis and Arms Trials. Lynch was aided and abetted in his lies and deceit by his Ministerial colleague Jim Gibbons who perjured himself while giving evidence at the Arms Trials. It has been commented on by colleagues and friends of Gibbons that he was never the same man again after giving the perjured evidence that he gave at the Arms Trials. Some friends even went as far as saying that Gibbons was a broken man after the arms trials. Gibbons was a practising catholic and it would appear that he suffered severe bouts of guilt and remorse for his dishonest actions during the arms trial. Lynch on the other hand continued to perpetuate the lie about the arms crisis and appeared to be quite comfortable in doing so. However, all may not have been as it seemed. Maybe Lynch was not as comfortable with this big lie as it appears. To be fair to Jim Gibbons, while his behaviour in perjuring himself at the two trials can never be excused nor forgiven, he too may have been a victim of Lynch’s deceit. It might appear that Lynch was protecting Gibbons when he did not sack him together with Blaney and Haughey on 6 May 1970. But this was not the case. Lynch was protecting himself. Lynch could not sack Gibbons as this would risk Gibbons declaring Lynch’s knowledge of the approved arms plan and Lynch’s position would be exposed. By ‘protecting Gibbons’, Lynch was effectively setting Gibbons up and manipulating him into a position where he would be ‘pressurised’ into perjuring himself while being cross-examined by the top lawyers in the country a total of eight times. This must have been humiliating for Jim Gibbons and would have had a devastating impact on him emotionally and psychologically. When Gibbons was promoted to Agriculture and not sacked on 6 May 1970 nobody told him that he would have to perjure himself. If he had known that that was going to be the price of holding on to his position in Cabinet he might very well have taken a different position and the course of Irish history would have been a lot different. Gibbons did Jack’s dirty work, paid the price for doing that and Jack kept his hands clean. Jack always kept his hands clean. Lynch was also aided and abetted in the continuation of his lies and deceit by the media and lazy journalism. The only journalist who contested Lynch’s dishonest narrative was Vincent Browne, who wrote about the Arms Crisis and Arms Trials in Magill Magazine in 1980 using as his source the diaries of Peter Berry, the former Secretary of the Department of Justice, who was a key player in the events. Browne found it impossible to get an Irish printer to print these editions of Magill as printers were fearful of crossing the government and the consequences that this might have for their business and future printing contracts. So these issues of the magazine had to be printed in the UK. It has been suggested that the reason for the media acting in concert with Lynch’s lies is that the media, particularly RTE and the Irish Times had been infiltrated by Official/IRA, Official Sinn Féin and Workers Party members such as Dick Walsh, who reviled FF and in particular Charles Haughey. Last Year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Arms Crisis/Trials. Such Anniversaries normally involve acknowledging the relevant events or occasions, celebrating them and then moving on. However, the fiftieth anniversary of the Arms Crisis was different to the extent that it marked a complete change and correction of the false received narrative of the events that had been promulgated for the previous fifty years. This revision was as a direct result of two brilliantly researched books on the Arms Crisis written by two experts on the subject. The books, ‘The Arms Crisis of 1970 – The Plot That Never Was’ and ‘Deception and Lies – The Hidden History of The Arm Crisis 1970’ written by Michael Heney and David Burke respectively are based on

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Paudge Brennan, the forgotten man of the Arms Crisis

    by 0 Comments

    A note from the editor:  This article is about the late Paudge Brennan, the Fianna Fáil Minister who resigned a little over 50 years ago after the eruption of the Arms Crisis. It is written by his son, Sean. Not surprisingly, it is partisan. It does, nevertheless, yield an insight into a perspective on Irish politics that has been shielded by the mainstream media, especially The Irish Times  and RTE.   Not a word of it has been changed. Introduction Shortly before Neil Blaney died, he went for a meal with some very close friends.  Blaney reminisced about his political career. When it came to the period of the Arms Crises 1970 Blaney told the others that as far as he was concerned the unsung heroes of that period were “Kevin and Paudge”. He was of course referring to his two closest political friends and colleagues, Kevin Boland and Paudge Brennan. Paudge Brennan was my father. When the events of the 1970 Arms Crises are discussed, the name Paudge Brennan is rarely mentioned. However, Paudge’s political career was hugely influenced by these events. Shortly after Neil Blaney was sacked on 6 May 1970, Paudge tendered his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. At the time, the media generally reported that my father resigned out of loyalty to Neil Blaney. This was not the case. While my father was always a very loyal colleague and friend, he did not resign out of loyalty to Blaney or Haughey but rather out of loyalty to his own principles and high personal standards. He did not wish to be part of a set-up which was riddled with deception, lies, treachery and betrayal. He knew that Jack Lynch’s actions in sacking Blaney and Haughey for their involvement in the government-approved plan to import arms was  treacherous and dishonest and motivated by the then Taoiseach’s desire to preserve his own position at all costs. It was a huge act of betrayal by Lynch of his cabinet colleagues.     Because of Paudge Brennan’s very close relationship with Neil Blaney and Kevin Boland, who were key players in the events leading up to the ministerial sackings, I believe that he was very much aware of the arms importation plan. He would also have been aware of the pivotal role played by the Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, in the events surrounding the arms importation plan.  My father also believed that Lynch was aware of the plan to bring in the arms but then, when the plan was in danger of being uncovered, Lynch denied all knowledge of it in order to preserve his own position – and betrayed his ministerial colleagues, Blaney, Haughey and Micheál O’Moráin.   Paudge Brennan did not want to be part of that deceit. Not only did he sacrifice his position as Parliamentary Secretary but due to the fact that there were now four ministerial vacancies and only six Parliamentary Secretaries of which he was one of the most senior, there was a very strong probability that he would have been appointed a minister in May 1970. After Fianna Fáil won the 1969 General Election there was much speculation by political commentators that Paudge Brennan was going to be appointed the Minister for Defence. This did not happen, however – and Jim Gibbons got this job. If Paudge Brennan had been appointed the Minister for Defence in 1969, then history would have been very different and there might not have been an arms trial. Lynch would not have been able to manipulate my father into colluding with him in telling lies and covering up Lynch’s role in the arms plan.  My father was far too honourable to behave in such a deceitful manner. TOM BRENNAN Paudge Brennan’s father, Tom Brennan, was the Commandant of the 4th Battalion of the North Wexford Brigade of the IRA during the War of Independence.  He took the anti-treaty side in the civil war. When my father was a baby his mother brought him by pony and trap to Enniscorthy so that his father, who was in prison, could see his young son. However, the prison guard on duty refused to allow my grandmother and my father in to see my grandfather. Tom Brennan was interned in Tintown Prison Camp at the Curragh.  During his time there he went on a three- week hunger and thirst strike. One of his fellow internees in Tintown was Niall Blaney whose son Neil became a great friend and political colleague of Tom’s son Paudge  many year’s later. Paudge was one of 10 children and grew up in the village of Carnew in south County Wicklow. The village population consisted mainly of pro-Free State supporters, with the result that my father, being a son of a Republican, would have been an outsider in political terms. However, he was well able to stand his ground and look after himself and was hugely proud of and loyal to his father. My grandfather Tom Brennan was asked to stand for Fianna Fáil in the 1927 General Election in the constituency of Wicklow. As he was originally from Wexford, he felt that he was in some way a blow-in in Wicklow and he was therefore not comfortable standing for election in that constituency. By 1943, however, he agreed to be a candidate for Fianna Fáil in Wicklow in that year’s General Election. Kevin Boland’s first time in Carnew was when he accompanied his father Gerry Boland to Carnew to persuade Tom Brennan to stand for Fianna Fáil in the 1943 General Election. While Tom failed to get elected in 1943, he was elected in the general election in 1944. My father was a very good footballer and played corner forward for Wickow for many years during the 1940s and 1950s. Wicklow had some very good players during that period. My father took over the family’s successful building-contracting business when his father was elected a TD in 1944. The contracting business specialised in

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Captain James Kelly’s family phone was tapped

    by 0 Comments

    By David Burke. The family phone of Captain James Kelly and his wife Sheila, in Terenure, Dublin, was tapped by the gardai in 1970. Captain Kelly was one of the Arms Trial defendants who went on trial 50 years ago this week. He was acquitted. It is inconceivable that Mícheál Ó Móráin, who served as minister for justice until early May 1970 would have permitted such an intrusion on an officer of military intelligence. Equally it is impossible to believe that Des O’Malley, who succeeded him, would have done any differently unless – as is sadly possible – the Garda presented him with compelling information from their valued ‘informer’ Seán MacStíofáin. Unfortunately, MacStíofáin was a peddler of deceit who spun the most amazing yarns which his gullible Garda handlers swallowed whole. Hence, if O’Malley signed a warrant, he did so in good faith. Perhaps O’Malley will clarify this issue should the State permit him to address the issue. It is more probable that there was no warrant and none of the politicians was aware of what was afoot. I will provide some additional details about the tap in ‘Deception and Lies, the Hidden History of the Arms Crisis’ next week. I will be able to show that tape recordings were made of an unhinged individual who set out to terrify the children who answered the phone. The tapes of the horrific things he said to them were reviewed by the gardaí in charge of the surveillance. To their credit, they admitted the tapping was taking place unofficially and helped identify the culprit. The Kelly family is entitled to know when the tap was placed (and possibly renewed) and if it was continued after their father was acquitted at the second Arms Trial of October 1970. If it transpires that there was no warrant it means that officers of the gardai were tapping phones illegally behind the back of their minister. The late James Downey described in his biography of Brian Lenihan how, after the Arms Crisis had erupted, ministers were placed under surveillance. “For the Lenihan family”, Downey wrote, “this was a terrible time. Anyone associated with Haughey and Blaney came under suspicion … Telephones were tapped…”. Downey’s source was a “senior official of the Department of Justice” who informed him that the Special Branch had “filled an entire room in Dublin Castle with tapes of tapped conversations, mostly involving ministers”. According to Downey, “Men, presumably from the intelligence services, lurked outside Lenihan’s house. He was ‘shadowed/ on his way to work and social functions”. A few years later, the dilapidated RIC toilets at Garda HQ at the Phoenix Park were packed with files which were burnt on the orders of the then Assistant Garda Commissioner Ned Garvey who was in overall charge of Garda Intelligence. This was in either 1974 or 1975. It is likely that the transcripts of the phone-tap targets were destroyed at this stage along with other records and files. However, there is no reason to suspect that the original warrant for any legal tap was destroyed in Garvey’s bonfire. The originals would have been kept in the Department of Justice. The Department should still hold any of the warrants issued to permit the tapping of the phones described by Downey. It is looking increasingly likely that the State will finally apologise to the family of Captain Kelly for the many wrongs occasioned to him. Whether the tap on his phone was legal or not, any such apology should include this invasion of the privacy of the entire family. The level of intrusion was so intense that – in a repeating vignette illustrative of the seamy side of Irish political life in the 1970s – Mrs Kelly often had to ask the Garda tappers who she could hear chatting to each other on the line to go away while she rang her mother. OTHER STORIES ABOUT THE ARMS CRISIS AND RELATED EVENTS ON THIS WEBSITE: Misrepresenting Haughey’s relationship with the Provos. The Irish Times promoted the Official IRA’s version of the Arms Crisis. The Official IRA planned the murders of journalists Ed Moloney and Vincent Browne. Dick Walsh’s covert committee monitored OIRA media enemies. Future Irish Times Assistant editor put colleagues on lists. Ducking all the hard questions. Des O’Malley has vilified an array of decent men and refuses to answer obvious questions about the Arms Crisis and the manner in which the Provisional IRA was let flourish while he was minister for justice. The ‘Last Man Alive’ is still saying nothing. Des O’Malley’s silence about his role in the Arms Trials and Arms Crises of 1970 has become thunderous. RTE’s ‘Gun Plot’: Why has it taken so long for the true narrative of the Arms Crisis 1970 to emerge? Vilification Once More British Secret Service Smear sheet: the document that proves Charles Haughey was the target of MI6 vilification after the Arms Trial. [Expanded] British Intelligence must have known that Seán MacStíofáin was a Garda ‘informer’. Vandalising history. How the truth about Ireland’s Arms Crisis was corrupted by a gang of NI paedophiles, a dissembling Taoiseach, Private Eye magazine in London, some British Intelligence black propagandists as well as an Irish Times reporter who was an ally of the Official IRA. The long shadow of the Arms Crisis: more to Haughey’s question than meets the eye Minister for Justice confirms existence of unreleased “sensitive” Garda files about Arms Crisis but fails to commit to their release after Seán Haughey TD describes Seán MacStíofáin of the IRA as mis-informer in Dáil Éireann. ‘Deception and Lies’: A thrilling history that confirms Lynch not Haughey as unprincipled and explains how a named IRA double agent deceived the nation and the record. Paudge Brennan, the forgotten man of the Arms Crisis The Forgotten Arms Crisis Scoop: how a London newspaper reported details of what became known as the Arms Crisis nearly seven months before it erupted in Ireland. Government must release Des O’Malley, the former Minister for Justice,

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The reason MI5 gave Putin a free hand to meddle with Brexit.

    by 0 Comments

    A report from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ICI) about Russian interference with British democracy has just been released. ‘In brief’, it declares:  “Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth”. Worse still:  “This level of integration… means that any measures now being taken by the government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation”. Significantly, the report reveals that the various intelligence and security ‘Agencies’ which include MI5, the UK’s internal intelligence service, felt the issue of Russian interference in British politics was too much of a “hot potato” to investigate. According to the report, the spies: “appeared determined to distance themselves from any suggestion that they might have a prominent role in relation to the democratic process itself, noting the caution which had to be applied in relation to intrusive powers in the context of democratic process.” The ‘Agencies’ then attempted to suggest that other government departments were responsible. According to the report they: “informed us that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) holds primary responsibility for disinformation campaigns, and that the Electoral Commission has responsibility for the overall security of democratic processes.” (Paragraph 31 page 18) This led to MI5 and the others to take “their eye off the ball”. In addition, they were allegedly too absorbed by monitoring Islamic militants to do anything about the threat from Moscow. There is a lot more – a hell of a lot more – to this than meets the eye. MI5 has actually perpetrated crimes against Britain which were far worse than anything the ICI report or the UK media is now placing at the feet of the Russians. Infamously, MI5 officers like Peter Wright tried to topple the Labour government of Harold Wilson. Moreover, MI5, MI6 and a little known – and now defunct – black propaganda department called the Information Research Department (IRD), spent decades meddling with British, European and Irish political affairs. See Her Majesty’s Smearmeisters: how MI5 and MI6 vilified Haughey, Hume and Paisley See also Licence to deceive.http://deceive Books have been written about the MI5 plots against Wilson. A useful summary of it can be found at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1 MI5 and to a lesser extent MI6 had to stomach years of harsh criticism in the 1980s as a result of ‘Spycatcher’, the book written by Peter Wright, a senior former MI5 officer, and revelations of Colin Wallace, a psychological operations officer with the British Army in Northern Ireland. Both of these men exposed intelligence agency treachery against the British government. Put simply, MI5’s treacherous history has made it reluctant to do its job in the present era in case it might put a foot wrong and attract criticism that it is following in Peter Wright’s cloven footsteps. Put simply, MI5’s treacherous history has made it reluctant to do its job in the present era in case it might put a foot wrong and attract criticism that it is following in Peter Wright’s cloven footsteps. If the Russians swung the Brexit vote, it would mean that the UK left the EU due – in part – to MI5 fears about it shameful past. But did the Russians actually swing the Brexit vote? It is certainly a possibility in circumstances where the Brexit victory was achieved by a whisker. Predictably, Boris Johnson rejects the notion. “Remainers have seized on this report to try to give the impression that the Russian interference was somehow responsible for Brexit. The people of this country didn’t vote to leave the EU because of pressure from Russia or Russian interference,” Johnson said. “They voted because they wanted to take back control of our money, of our trade policy, of our laws.” It is probably better to let the contentious issue of the victory for Brexit in the context of Russian interference as an issue for debate and focus instead on something more concrete: the failure of MI5 to even attempt to prevent it. Dame Stella Rimmington, a former director-general of MI5, is typical of those who have created this mess. Rather than face up to MI5’s perfidious past, condemn it and then consign it to the history books, she has denied all wrongdoing. But then Rimmington, now a successful spy fiction author, is a dab hand at transforming fact into fiction – whether at a conscious or sub-conscious level is best left to the experts. More specifically, she asserts that no one in MI5 ever lifted a finger to thwart the Labour PM Harold Wilson. This, despite the fact back that no less a figure than Lord John Hunt, the mighty and all-powerful Cabinet Secretary, 1973-79, acknowledged that it had indeed happened. In August 1996 Hunt told a Channel 4 documentary that, “There is no doubt at all that a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5, people who should not have been there in the first place, a lot of them like Peter Wright who were right-wing, malicious and had serious personal grudges, gave vent to these and spread damaging malicious stories about that Labour government.” See also Dial MI5 for Murder There are other lamentable reasons for MI5’s failure to protect British democracy during Brexit. MI5 is meant to devote all of its energies to legitimate purposes such as the protection of Britain from terrorism, hostile cyber punks (in tandem with the technoboffins at GCHQ) and other malefactors. Instead, MI5 has diverted some of its precious energy on reprehensible and entirely wasteful endeavours. MI5 routinely opens the post of whistle blowers like Fred Holroyd, a former military intelligence officer. Holroyd exposed a litany of MI5 dirty tricks in Ireland in the 1980s such as the control by MI5 of the loyalist gang which murdered hundreds of people including the 33 slaughtered during the Dublin and Monaghan bomb massacres in 1974. To date, MI5 interferes with

    Loading

    Read more