Wednesday, 2 December 2015



1. The crucial question that needs to be faced is can we trust the official account of the recent Paris terrorist outrage, or is it, in whole or part, a lie? Is it conceivable that it, or elements of it, could have been staged by person or persons unknown, to make it appear something it is not? The purpose could be to create the necessary moral outrage to facilitate otherwise impossible domestic and foreign policy objectives by the French Government or even our own?

2. Often but not always the technique is employed to provide the necessary justification and moral outrage in its population to support military action, as has been the case after the French outrage. In political/military parlance this is often referred to by the latin expression Casus belli meaning "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war". In a recent embarrassing example, Turkish government officials were recorded discussing how they might do just that! In this case to provide an excuse to invade Syria. Turkey is of course an important member of NATO that historically has worked closely with America and Israel. The text of the conversation can be located here: REF.1. and comment on it here: REF. 2.

3. We do not need to be reminded that it was through, and with the cooperation of Turkey, that the majority of 'ISIS' mercenaries originally arrived in the area and that it continues to support it whilst claiming to be part of the NATO alliance fighting it. Or that Turkey, presumably with NATO approval shot down a Russian plane that facilitated the murder of its pilot by 'moderate' anti-Assad forces. Could there be more conclusive proof of the utter deceit that runs like a seam of lead through this whole rocky topic?

4. Indeed according to George Galloway and the Turkish President, Russia was 'playing with fire' targeting oil trucks heading out of ISIS controlled territory. Hurriyet Daily News reports he denied, “allegations that Turkey has been purchasing oil from ISIL, Erdoğan said the oil trade between ISIL, Russia and the Syrian regime had been documented by the United States.” REF. 12. How reassuring do we find that?

5. Of course since then we have had a number of major incidents that have received greater or lesser attention in the western media, but cannot be viewed in isolation. Some may think they fit a pattern and even point to responsible parties and objectives other than those officially suggested. It can be no coincidence that the same word “WAR” has been declared by the leaders of France and Britain. REF. 3. In addition we learn that Russia is at war with ISIS and so is China. REF. 4. The US has a 'fake war' with ISIS, REF. 5. 'the Arab world is at war with itself', REF. 6. Even 'Anonymous is at war with ISIS. REF. 7.

6. It would appear despite virtually everybody being at war with ISIS, it remains undefeated and a bigger rather than a smaller threat. Should that not be a cause for concern and doubt regarding the official view of things? In fact we have all the makings of a confrontation that could conceivably lead to third World War, except that the word seem to have been used metaphorically, no formal war has been declared because the enemy defies all definitions of statehood. Some may consider this is an unprecedented 'shadow-boxing' 'war', carried out in a 'hall of mirrors'. No one appears to challenge what the intention of Britain really is, when only three years ago the rationale was to remove Assad, when now it is to fight his enemy!

7. But in this article we are considering the nature and purpose of the Paris attack that has been used by both French an British governments as justification for military action in a foreign land. It has been said to be proof that ISIS is not only a barbaric force in Iraq and Syria, but a real and present danger to us in Europe. Clearly if it were shown that it was not ISIS at all, but to someone/something else, not only would the whole argument be undermined but the governments in question would be proved to be treacherous and dangerous.

8. Recent Outrages that may have been False Flags or 'genuine' Terrorist Events

So as regards world events that may fall within the definition of provocative act designed to get a predictable outcome, we may cite the following:-

7.11.2015 Baghdad Multiple bombing and shooting. 12 killed.

10.11.2015 Ankara, Turkey. Peace Rally. 97 killed. REF. 8.

12.11.2015 Beirut, Lebanon. Twin explosions in the capital kill at least 43 people with ISIL claiming responsibility. REF. 9.

13.11.2015 Baghdad Suicide bombing 19 killed

13.11.2015 Paris, France. Suicide bombers and shooting in multiple locations with miraculous passports (again) 139 (mainly young adults) killed.

17.11.2015 Yola, Nigeria. Farmer's market. 34 killed.

20.11.2015 Mali. REF. 10.

21.7.2015 Suruc, Turkey. 33 killed 'Socialist Party of the Oppressed Youth Wing'. REF. 11. (It may be interesting to note yet again a miraculous ID card on a suicide bomber! Well would you believe it? “On 22 July, some Turkish media reports indicated the suspected perpetrator, Şeyh Abdurrahman Alagöz, whose ID card was found at the scene, was a 20-year-old Turkish Kurd from Adıyaman who had been recruited by ISIL six months earlier.”

24.11.2015 Tunis, Tunisia. Explosion on military bus. 12+ killed.

24.11.2015. Tripoli, Libya. Car bomb. 5 killed.

24.11.2015. al Arish, N. Sinai, Egypt. 7 killed incl. 2 judges.

9. The list is not comprehensive and many so called 'lone wolf' knife and vehicle attacks by Palestinians have not been included as these appear to be quite different in kind. They do not include explosives or firearms by and large and usually result in the attacker being either shot dead or taken into custody. They appear to me to be rather desperate acts of desperate people afforded no other recourse to protest their repression and mistreatment. To equate these acts with those listed above, although the Israeli government tries its best to do so, seems to me to be mistaken and perverse even.

10. Predominantly these violent events have been placed at the door of Muslims in general and ISIS or its sister organisations in Africa. (See: However the more we learn about this organisation (rather like Al Qaeda before it) the more it appears it is in fact the creation of Western, Israeli and Middle Eastern intelligence organisations.

11. However if true it means that not only was ISIS a creation of the West and Arab States, but it also be actively supported by a NATO member (Turkey) with the full knowledge and agreement of the United States. In such circumstances the West's claim to be fighting ISIS must be deeply hypocritical. Not only so, but if true, it must also mean that the West is implicated in all the terror attacks ascribed to ISIS and its Al Qaeda affiliates, some of which listed above, which in turn are used to justify what must be a fraudulent campaign of bombing and other military action.

Could Paris have been a False Flag Operation (FFO)?

12. In these circumstances, any suggestion that the Paris incident was either a hoax, a fraud or a false flag become far less difficult to envision. Nor should this possibility be ruled out on the grounds that respectable France would never do such a thing. From the Dreyfus Affair in the early part of the 20th Century (at least), the French Government has proved itself capable of treacherous behaviour. We have only to think of the Vichy Regime, Suez, of its activities in Algeria, Nuclear testing, of the Rainbow Warrior and even more recently the Chevaline Massacre, to prove dissembling and intrigue are not beyond its purvue.

13. So let us approach the topic of the Paris incident with all due respect for those that may have lost their lives in it, indeed with empathy and emotion, but not to such an extent that we are blinded to the factual evidence, even if it points to unreliability, error or even intentional misrepresentation. As always, the lives of the deceased are best honoured by seeking out and revealing the truth in such matters. It may also perhaps postpone or prevent many more lives being lost in foreign conflicts.

14. Of course if the event were fraudulent either in part or whole, the credibility of the French political leaders would be completely shattered, as would the policies based on the suggested risk. This would include the 'declaration of war against ISIS', the bombing of Syria and elsewhere and the extention of effectively marshall law throughout France allowing almost unlimited search and detention powers to the police. Its allies, and particularly Britain, which has siezed on Paris events to justify increased digital surveillance, an increase in military spending and bombing abroad, would similarly proved to be either gullible or duplicitous.

15. It therefore behoves all intelligent citizens to approach the subject calmly and rationally, to examine the Paris incident as reported for internal consistency and objective plausibility. Only if it passes this test can a fraudulent hoax or 'false flag' event be ruled out. Sadly since 9/11, we can no longer assume what governments tell us in such matters is reliable or honest.

16. One or more significant errors in the official narrative clearly undermine the whole thesis. It would force us to conclude that the event as described either in part or whole, was unreliable and some other fraudulent explanation must apply.

17. That is what, from an unbiased but questioning perspective, this article/video will attempt to address. You reader/viewer, will be the jury, charged with coming to your own free and fair judgement as to the truth or falsehood, guilt or innocence, embedded in the Government approved story.

Are 'False Flag' Events Real and Documented?

18. So perhaps we should begin by establishing the fact that duplicitous actions by states designed to give a false impression of an adversary are far from uncommon. The phenomenum is both real and documented. At the following web site REF. 13. no less than forty examples are listed in which many countries are represented and democracies are not excluded. In fact to their shame they figure large. For an intelligent discussion around the subject by Ole Dammegard

19. Indeed, if the Intelligence Community regard deception as a given, why should it be so difficult for the public to do likewise? Is it because two realities are projected by Government, the official story and the truth. The official story must be credible and play to all the well understood popular prejudices and emotions. It must appeal to the best moral imperatives. It must be truthful. However if the true reality is none of these things, it must be protected at all cost by secrecy and deception to ensure that should the real reasons or objectives ever get out, they can be distanced from those that made them. This is the so-called 'plausible deniability'.

20. Note how post 9/11 and the Iraq invasion in respectively 2001 and 2003, all the main American political players distanced themselves from their earlier statements connecting Saddam Husein with the American attacks. At least to his credit, Tony Blair stuck to his line that he 'believed it was right' to do what he did. Proving that his claims were not 'sexed up' or that he had not agreed he would support an American plan well before he pretended to, has likely been more difficult to hold. Because the survival of all is interdependent with the survival of any, and all the important players know they are in some small way responsible, it is unlikely that any will 'spill the beans'.

21. Not only are governments therefore capable and proven of engaging in deception, the lengths to which they are prepared to go to achieve some defined end, know no bounds, and indeed appear to be extending to an acceptance of huge events involving the mass deaths of its own citizens! (I do not say this lightly) This is the unavoidable conclusion of the events of 9/11 and others. We are now considering the possibility of Paris being one of them!

22. It is also feasible that there may be 'hybrid events' in which more than one method may be incorporated. In other words part of the event may be as described and involve real deaths and injury, whilst another may be complete hoax, in which everything is fabricated including the use of so called 'crisis actors' and fabricated sets. As we have noted the actual event is often mirrored by a mock event that may openly involve 'actors' playing the part of the injured and other roles. This is not even denied by government. In fact it is usually organised by them.

23. Not only is deception common amongst Governments, a failure to detect such disasters is too. A successful 'terrorist event' is by definition an 'Intelligence Failure'. This is usually the excuse that is wheeled out on each occasion but rather strangely no Intelligence Chief or Agency is ever respectively sacked or criticised. Indeed as in 9/11 and 7/7 and other major failures, they appear if anything to be defended and promoted. Some would say this is highly suspicious and actually indicates that the agency in question was either permissive or complicit in the act. These questions are certainly raised in the Paris case.

24. Douglas Nicoll (Times obituary 20.11.15) who was a war time code breaker and later Deputy Director of GCHQ, was appointed in the early 80's to examine Intelligence failures, such as the failure to predict the Egypian invasion of Israel in 1973, of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 or Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982. He wrote a report that is still secret. His work informed the Franks Report that many contrast in efficiency with that of Chilcot's into Iraq. (Perhaps to avoid delay, the forthcoming 'Syrian Inquiry' should be set in motion well in advance of the actual invasion?)

25. He put the failures of the 60's, 70's and 80's down to the Intelligence community making its mind up and not being able to change it in time. He even invented a word for it – 'perseveration'! Rather obviously for a spy, some might think, another cause of British Intelligence getting it wrong, in fact not being very clever at all, was that of 'deception', the fact that the opposition might hide their true intentions. Well I never did! Fancy that! The intelligence community being stuck in its ways and not considering the opposition might not always tell the truth or reveal all.

26. Of course his report called for more resources and more people to do the listening and the analysis. Despite this, and unprecidented technical advances it still disastrously failed to predict 9/11 and 7/7, or even get any inkling of the two recent Paris attacks.

27. The one possibility Nicoll did not include in his possible list of reasons for such abysmal failure was that Government DID know in advance, but declined to act on it. We certainly knew about Suez in advance because we were the ones that organised it. It is very possible that in the other three mentioned we knew far more about what was planned than was admitted. Could it be in the recent Paris attack both the British and French Intelligence agencies knew far more about it than they are letting on, allowing it to take place, or even being responsible for it? The possibility is undeniable.

Tell-Tale Signs of False Flags

28. False flag operation as we have noted originally related to times of war but it has been extended to apply to operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, if they seek to hide the real organization behind an it.

Defining Features

29. Their defining characteristics are that they are deceptive operations, which by their nature and intent have to be kept secret. It means they are organised and implimented by covert elements of government or other criminal or terrorist organisations and are always denied. Their main purpose is to blame an opposing force that is not really responsible. The deception must be sophisticated to be believable for which it is highly desireable to make identifiable people responsible, even if they are not. Such persons are called 'patsies' of which perhaps the most famous was Lee Harvey Oswald. It is often necessary for the organisation supposedly behind the 'event' whether real or staged, to admit 'responsibility'. This can be achieved by faking the admission of guilt or even actually controlling the 'terrorist' organisation itself.

The 'Patsy'

30. The Patsy may be unaware of his/her true role until it is too late, and is often disposed of by a third person or agents of the state, to avoid the danger that the truth may escape. It should be noted the death/disappearance of the alleged perpetrator is common to 9/11, 7/7, Boston, Charlie Hebdo, and Paris 13/11, so as to make the contention that this is now standard practice, difficult to refute. Indeed even Mr Cameron has given notice that the rules of police engagement have been modified, so that confrontations will no longer set out to negotiate and arrest suspects, but that SAS troops will be dispatched with orders to kill.

31. This might arguably and unfortunately necessary if other innocent lives are at stake, as was the case at the Libyan Embassy siege, but it gives a form of carte blanche excuse it would appear to any situation, even where the targets have been set up or are innocent. We all clearly recall the inexcusable Menendes shooting where no one has even been reprimanded as far as we can tell. 'Shoot to kill' which has been with us for some time, has now been strengthened it seems – on the back of Paris of course.

32. Despite the fact that Intelligence agencies claim ignorance, the alleged perpetrators are often immediately identified, located and often killed by the 'forces of law and order'. Not only does this raise fundamental questions about how much the government actually knew, but many believe that the decision to kill is an intentional one to remove all trace of the conspiracy.

33. In the Paris case virtually all the individuals were known to the police, allowed to pass through police check-points after the event and even between countries without being challenged. This close connection between alleged terrorists is strangely a common factor in all the recent 'terrorist' events.

Failure of Intelligence

34. A failure of intelligence then, is one of the most obvious implications of false flag events. It may also be an indicator of them. In the case of both Paris attacks, apparently neither France's or any other ally had any hint or indication that an attack was to take place – the who, where, when and how of the operation, despite a heightened state of awareness, cooperation between numerous agencies (the so called Five Eyes Plus group) and a huge listening/intelligence system of unprecedented sophistication and scope. Not only does the event take place in the same city, it is only a few yards (or metres) from the first and involves similar tactics. This has not been explained.

35. Strangely AFTER the event information on perpetrators, the movements and hide-out of the perpetrators becomes immediately known to the police and made available to the press. This it should be noted was not a difficult to predict 'lone wolf' event, but a multi person, multi location event that must have required considerable communication and planning not to mention heavy weapons (apparently abandoned) and explosives.


36. FFO are often marked by major international publicity in contrast to other equally barbaric events where no propaganda or other psychological objectives are sought. They tend to be targeted on (western) countries that require 'encouragement' towards actions that would otherwise not be supported. Frequently and inexplicably, information detailing the attack or the attackers reaches media outlets prior to the event, whilst incredible detail of the attack appears almost immediately on Wikipedia sites which can only indicate pre-knowledge.

37. On the opposite side of the equation, it is also important to gain maximum coverage of the government leader, either at the event, or soon after at the locations, dominating the national media and leading subsequent awards or memorials, all of which designed specifically to reinforce the official narrative and named enemy as sequel to the proposed action. The so called, 'problem, solution, action' that is common to all such events.

38. Not only did President Hollande take a leading role throughout the Paris incident, he was rather conveniently some might think actually at one of the locations – the Stade de Paris – though never in immediate danger. He could be filmed and be very visible when the news was whispered in his ear, with absolutely no sign of surprise or urgency. The parallel with the news of 9/11 to President George Bush, also highly questionable, cannot be avoided.

39. Of course in the case of France this included a further extension of the state of emergency that suspends legal protections, more money for the military and failed intelligence service and significantly increased foreign war making. There have been numerous reports of how these police powers have been abused.

'Lock Down'

40. A common theme in these attacks has been the way in which the Government response has been so identical, whether it be Boston or Paris.'Lock-down' has become a familiar phrase to instill more fear than it has results. This appears to be a calculated attempt to test methods and get the public used to extreme measures of control.

Continuity Mistakes

41. However much thought goes into the planning of the FFO, mistakes akin to continuity ones in the making of films often occur. Such a one for example was the use of two slightly different models of car in the Charlie Hebdo attack that cannot be rationally explained especially when the French Government continues to hold to the deception.

Miraculous Documents

42. The almost miraculous appearance/survival of important documents that ties the identity of the accused to the event, is another. Perhaps the iconic examples were provided both by 9/11 when quite impossibly the passport of Satam Al Suqami which was said to have survived from the plane that crashed into the twin tower, (REF. 15) or indeed the driving licences said to link one of the alleged five to the 7/7 suicide bomber, when he didn't even drive! Or that the same document was said to appear in five different locations! REF. 16. Yet again in that instance, paper documents all survived the suicide explosions.

43. We see this phenomenon repeated in both Charlie Hebdo and the 13/11 Paris attack, when the identity documents of TWO suicide bombers were found after their owners were apparently blown to bits, and an incriminating parking ticket for another car and person, was found in the parked car, used it is alleged in the attacks.

44. These claims are simply preposterous, for first what terrorist would carry such documents or make such mistakes in such a meticulously planned operation, let alone the physical impossibility of paper documents surviving unimpaired and free of body material, after a suicide explosion. These facts alone forcefully point to implicit fraud in the police/government claims.

Training Exercises

45. Then we have the repeat of the parallel 'training exercises' that amazingly appear on 9/11, 7/7, Boston, and Paris at least. The coincidence of this is mathematically unlikely to the point of impossibility. It also links, with all the other similarities, to a common methodology or 'modus operandi' more appropriately. How could the whole world be so easily taken in by it?

Impossible Witness Statements

46. Examples of literally incredible witnesses and their statements often emerge in FFO, the only rational explanation being they are false. These often also get wide coverage by the media. The suspicion is strong that these are actors put up by government agencies to create atmosphere and support the agreed narrative. There are at least two examples in the Paris case that will be provided.

Product Placement

47. Almost unbelievably opportunities are often seized, even in the midst of desolation and tragedy to advertise products that can even demonstrate a sick humour. This was true to the 7/7 bus, vehicles and other products at Charlie Hebdo and at the second Paris event. Sceptics will probably argue this is just co-incidence – yet another one.

Problems with Timing and other Evidential Features

48. These will be discussed in relation to the different crime sites. Prof Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled Important Events Leading Up to the November 13 Paris Terrorist Attacks. Sheer Coincidence? REF. 14. says, 

We are bringing to the attention of our readers four important events which preceded the Paris attacks:
1. The French media had already predicted a terrorist attack more than a month before the actual occurrence.
2.  The head of France’s external intelligence was in Washington for consultations with CIA Chief John Brennan two weeks before the attacks.
3.  On November 5 (one week before the Paris terrorist attacks), the Council of Ministers announced its decision to send France’s aircraft carrier group Charles de Gaulle to the Middle East, with a mandate to “fight against the Islamic state”.
4.  On the morning of November 13, an emergency scenario of a multi-site terrorist attack is conducted in Paris, involving first responders, medical personnel, police and firemen.
5. French President Hollande has declared a state of emergency and is taking on additional powers; in effect, suspending the constitution. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron announced (at the Lord Mayor's banquet in the City of London - the seat of unaccountable power and wealth) a dramatic increase in "intelligence" personnel and measures to counter "extremist ideology". Judging by Cameron's comments to the UN and elsewhere, he's referring to people like us - those who challenge official narratives. Control the narrative and you control the world.”

The Official Narrative of the Paris Event

49. The official story as reported by the French authorities, faithfully transmitted by news media around the world and generally accepted by other governments goes something like this:

Here is the British ITV version from the next day

51. This it was said was a multi-site attack in the centre of Paris, conceived, initiated and carried out by operatives of French and foreign nationality at the behest of an undisclosed power structure embedded in an organisation, of only relatively recent existence, variously called IS, ISIL, ISIS or Daesh based in Iraq/Syrian territory.

52. That 'eight' operatives were involved who were variously either shot dead subsequently in confrontations with the police, blew themselves up or in the alleged leader's case, went on the run and to date (26.11.2015) hasn't been located, despite a huge man-hunt and 'lock-down' in Brussels where he was thought to have retreated.

53. Many of these individuals were known to the French security services (and presumably to other national agencies) yet none of these had any inkling that they were an imminent danger or were involved in a coordinated attack!

54. If so, it need not be mentioned that this was a huge failure of the international secret and highly sophisticated surveillance network, which we are told must be increased if we are to be protected from such events.

55. On one hand we are told that the attackers were fanatics fixated on killing themselves and others, yet appear to put up a considerable effort to resist arrest in gun fights, or even to go on the run. This at least should give pause for thought as to their objectives and psychological frame of mind.

56. It also follows hard on the heels of a very similar 'Charlie Hebdo' event in the preceding January 2015 with which it shares many parallels of method, location (many of the attacks were within yards of the CH offices), background of the terrorists and consequences.

57. Even if these are considered merely coincidences (and many unanswered questions remain around that first event) it is surely surprising that in the intervening period the government had not been more successful at tracking suspects or monitoring and bringing to justice people with evil intent. Quite the contrary it would seem with marked men allowed to pass through national borders to and from Syria with total impunity! This after Charlie Hebdo?

58. It literally beggars belief that French Intelligence could have been so lax and incompetent. Surprisingly even after two weeks, no information has been published as to what has been learned about the 'actors' and their conspiracy. Of course the alternative to complacency and incompetence is knowledge and facilitation. It is claimed 129 people were murdered and 415 injured 42 critically.(The figures are obviously subject to change)



  1. Behind the scenes in secret services in 1989:
    Published on 6 Jun 2013

    "Discussion of the unaccountability of the secret services, with former MI5 and MI6 officers. Live and open ended discussion programme. The official Secrets Act has received royal ascent and will become law shortly after the making of this programme. No one knows how this will work out. This programme might be the last time consequently that these participants are not bound to silence. The panel includes spys, a defence journalist, MI5 member, CIA founder, MPs and MI6 member. Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who had recently confessed in a book to assisting a prison escape by the spy George Blake, were dropped from this programme ('Out of Bounds', tx. 13/5/1989) after Channel Four was threatened with contempt of court proceedings.

    John Underwood, with;
    James Rusbridger
    Rt Hon Tony Benn MP
    Anthony Cavendish
    Miles Copeland
    Eddie Chapman
    Adela Gooch

    From Wikipedia;
    'The first programme of the third series was titled Out of Bounds: "1988 was the year of the tri-centenary of the Bill of Rights, yet in May 1989, in the shadowy studio of Channel 4's After Dark programme, a group of former British and US intelligence agents discussed the merits and evils of new legislation on official secrets. When this legislation completes its processes through Parliament such a gathering is likely to become illegal.

    The Financial Times wrote: "Channel 4's After Dark triumphantly broke all the rules from the beginning.... The first of the new series on Saturday proved that the formula is still working extremely well. The subject was official secrecy, and during the course of the night remarks included: 'I was in Egypt at the time, plotting the assassination of Nasser' and 'Wilson and Heath were destroyed in part by the action of intelligence agents' and (spoken with incredulity) 'You mean we shouldn't have got rid of Allende?' The hostility between just two of the participants, which often brings most life to the programme, occurred this time between Tony Benn and ex-CIA man Miles Copeland, and it was the fundamental difference in political outlook between these two which informed the entire discussion. Anyone who regarded Benn as a dangerous 'loony leftie' but watched right through until 2.00 may have been astonished at his thoroughly conservative British attitudes.

  2. (contd) Tony Benn wrote in his diary, later published as The End of an Era: "Saturday 13 May - In the evening I went to take part in this live television programme After Dark with John Underwood in the chair. It was an open-ended discussion which started at about midnight and went on till the early hours. The other participants were the historian Lord Dacre, Eddie Chapman, who had been a double agent during the war, Anthony Cavendish, who is a former MI6 and MI5 officer, Miles Copeland (an ex-CIA man), James Rusbridger, who has worked with MI5 at one stage, and Adela Gooch, a defence journalist from the Daily Telegraph. Every one of them made admissions or came out with most helpful information. I was terribly pleased with it.

    The Listener magazine described the programme: "The new Official Secrets Act has just received the Queen's assent. This may be the last time for some years that any disclosures can be made on such matters.... After Dark exists for mysterious reasons, probably something to do with a necessary safety-valve in a climate of increasing pressure on the media.... Its strength is that it has rescued that endangered species, genuinely spontaneous conversation, and presented it absolutely without frills. It does not have to rely on a presenter or on the glamour of its guests, as other talk shows do. Its force is its unique lack of inhibition in dealing with very controversial issues without invaluable programme.

    Richard Norton-Taylor reported on guests who did not appear because of concerns about contempt of court: "Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who admitted helping the spy, George Blake, escape from prison in 1966... have been dropped from the... programme... Mr Randle and Mr Pottle were arrested and released on police bail last week after admitting in a book that they had helped Blake escape.'"

  3. James Rusbridger (1928–1994) was a British author on international espionage during and after World War II. In May 1989 Rusbridger made an extended appearance on the Channel 4 discussion programme After Dark, alongside Tony Benn, Lord Dacre, Miles Copeland and others.
    In February 1994 Rusbridger was found dead of asphyxiation at a rented cottage in Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. His body was found hanged from a beam, wearing a black oilskin coat and a gas mask. His neck and ankles were connected via a series of pulleys to a rope. At the time he had recently suffered a heart attack, and was heavily in debt.

    Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014), originally known as Anthony Wedgwood Benn, but later as Tony Benn, was a British politician who was a Member of Parliament (MP) for 47 years between the 1950 and 2001 general elections and a Cabinet minister in the Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan in the 1960s and 1970s. Originally a 'moderate', he was identified as being on the party's hard left from the early 1980s, ideologically identifying as a democratic socialist.

    Anthony John Cavendish (20 July 1927 - 12 January 2013) was a British MI6 officer who served in Germany and Austria during the early years of the Cold War.
    Cavendish was born in London, but raised in Switzerland and grew up speaking English, German, Swiss-German and French.[1] He volunteered for the British Army in 1944 and served in Secret Intelligence Middle East (SIME) where he struck up a lifelong friendship with Maurice Oldfield, a future Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.[1][2] Following his demobilisation in 1948, he was recruited as the Secret Intelligence Service's youngest officer, aged 21, and worked in R5, the counterespionage section.

    Miles Axe Copeland, Jr. (July 16, 1916 – January 14, 1991) was an American musician, businessman, and CIA officer who was closely involved in major foreign-policy operations from the 1950s to the 1980s. Miles Copeland, 77, who had been a writer, journalist, management consultant, jazz trumpter, music arranger and spy, died Jan. 14 at a hospital in Oxfordshire, England, after a heart attack. He was stricken at his home near Oxford.

    He is probably best known to the general public as the author of such entertaining and provocative books as "The Game of Nations" and "Beyond Cloak and Dagger," that told of his years in the Middle East as a political action agent with the Central Intelligence Agency as a management consultant to the Egyptian government.

    Edward Arnold "Eddie" Chapman (16 November 1914 – 11 December 1997) was an English criminal and wartime spy. During the Second World War he offered his services to Nazi Germany as a spy and subsequently became a British double agent. His British Secret Service handlers codenamed him Zigzag in acknowledgement of his rather erratic personal history. He had a number of criminal aliases known by the British police, amongst them Edward Edwards, Arnold Thompson and Edward Simpson. His German codename was Fritz or, later, after endearing himself to his German contacts, its diminutive form of Fritzchen.

    Adela Gooch OBE
    International Affairs Specialist
    London, United KingdomInternational Affairs
    Wilton Park, Madrid Foreign Press Club, The Economist
    University of Cambridge

  4. Professor John Underwood

    Award-winning TV reporter and presenter (BBC, ITV and Channel 4), senior strategic communications advisor, former political journalist.

    John is a former political journalist and an award-winning TV reporter and presenter for the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. He is a highly-skilled media and crisis management trainer and has been delivering communication training for over 20 years. He has a wide network of contacts in the political and journalistic sectors.

    He is also:
    • Executive Director, Freshwater UK
    • Director of the Centre for Health Communications, Research & Excellence, Bucks New University
    • Honorary Professor, University of Glasgow (Glasgow Media Group)
    • Former Director of Communications for the Labour Party
    • Senior strategic communications adviser to a wide range of public and private sector clients
    • Former Chair of the Management Board of Catalyst, public policy think tank associated with Lord Hattersley


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.