Excerpts – MI6

MI6

Dearlove initially disagreed; he took this book’s view that “it couldn’t have been rogue agents without the approval of the Service; that was impossible”. He later suggested under examination, however, that it would be “difficult but possible” for agents to act without knowledge of the Service hierarchy – what a contradiction.

This ridiculous and banal reversal of ‘evidence’ assisted MI6 by offering them an escape route. But there was a large contingent of senior MI6 in Paris that weekend, including Dearlove and Richard Spearman who was the MI6 SAS liaison officer, according to the ex SAS and MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson. Add Tomlinson’s statement that ‘something big was going down’ and credulity swiftly evaporated.

But the court didn’t pursue rogue officers at all. Instead, and despite being set up to finally settle this matter, the court expressed its gratitude to MI6 for their attendance and exculpated them before the Inquests even began. If Dearlove truly believed there was a possibility that rogue officers could have carried out this attack, you must first consider why he initially stated, unambiguously and intuitively, that this was impossible. Then you must also try to understand why he didn’t immediately seek their identities if he was convinced they might be responsible and he genuinely sought justice.

But Dearlove’s unexpected proclamation and utterly banal contradiction that it would be ‘difficult but possible’ for rogue officers to have committed this crime, though gifting MI6 an escape route, placed the pressure squarely on the shoulders of the judge who now needed to establish exactly what Dearlove did to discover these rogue officers’ identities. If Scott Baker truly believed this new ‘evidence’, then he needed to ask Dearlove this crucial question. So you might wonder why Dearlove was never asked this question.

A central issue was whether MI6 have a remit to kill people when it is considered apposite – and, if so, who makes that call and under which criteria? One of Dearlove’s first questionable statements at the Inquests was delivered when he stated that MI6 don’t kill people. He then later admitted that there are occasions when Section 7 of the ISB (Intelligence Services Bill) 1994 needed to be invoked but that ‘all these proposals’ (which clearly refer to more than one intended assassination) went through him as operations director during the period which covers 1997.

Section 7 is now confirmed by Dearlove as where lethal force is allowed but this apparently requires the approval of either the British Foreign Secretary (a post held by a man of principle at this time, Robin Cook, who was also MI6’s political boss. Cook mysteriously died at the age of 58 on 15th May 2006, not long before the Inquests began, on land owned by a Ministry of Defence official), or another minister, such as for example, the Minister of State for the Armed Services (a post held until May 1997 by Nicholas Soames (Sir Winston Churchill’s grandson), a close personal friend of the Prince of Wales, who severely criticised Diana on British television and whom Diana accused of making threatening calls to her at Kensington Palace, with witness support at the Inquests).

Further examination of Dearlove revealed that Section 7 is only invoked when ‘great damage could be done to Britain or her citizens’. This book endeavours to show that the principal reason Diana was murdered was because she was about to attack the monarchy, specifically Charles, Prince of Wales, and would be enabled once married to Dodi. So in effect we have confirmation from a former MI6 boss of both a reason for murdering Diana, and the fact that it’s permissible under their code. Following Dearlove’s confirmation that any such attack could only have been carried out by serving agents, whether or not they were acting independently, he then refused to comment on whether MI6 use a team known as ‘The Increment’; no denial of their existence.

This secret paramilitary organisation comprises troops from the SAS and SBS military for the purposes of carrying out lethal operations abroad, as described by Richard Tomlinson.

Dearlove was then asked whether any MI6 officer had deliberately lied to a court of law, thus perverting the course of justice. ‘Not that I am aware,’ he replied. He was then confronted with evidence regarding a money laundering trial in the Cayman Islands in 2002, known as the ‘Euro Bank Case’. This trial took place while Dearlove was still ‘C’, chief of MI6 so responsible for their activities. Four former bank employees were accused of money laundering, but the trial collapsed when it came to light that an MI6 agent had infiltrated the bank to gather intelligence and had subsequently been ordered to destroy evidence to cover up the agency’s link with the investigation.

The final judgment from the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands criticised MI6 for even considering putting together an operation that ‘relied upon a plan that depended on the court being misled’. This so-called ‘London Plan’, it transpired, had been specifically conceived to pervert the course of justice. Put on the spot, Dearlove immediately spluttered that, ‘This was a one-off.’ This acknowledgement clearly shows what MI6 are capable of, and reveals how even a former MI6 boss is prepared to behave in a court of law; his memory certainly didn’t need jogging when confronted with this truth.