MI6 & The Lying Game:
Rosa Monckton and the Oxbridge spooks...
I/Ops news-alliance.com
In December 2003, Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, with whom we have worked in
the past investigating the alleged ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly, quoted a source,
who insisted on remaining anonymous, saying that Diana went to a leading London
hospital to undergo a pregnancy scan, days before she joined Dodi on holiday.
The result is unknown and the test was conducted in the utmost secrecy.
But then Diana’s self-confessed ‘best friend’ Rosa Monckton, claims that Diana
menstruated only a week before the crash, while they were on holiday in Greece.
It is clear that Monckton believes she cannot be challenged on this issue but
former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Rosa’s husband, Dominic
Lawson, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine,
provided journalistic cover for MI6 officers while he was editor of The
Spectator.
Rosa’s brother, the Honourable Anthony Leopold Colyer Monckton, a diplomat, was
also an MI6 spy according to Tomlinson. It should be noted that Dominic Lawson
has never sued any publication or person for alleging he was an MI6 stringer.
Dominic Lawson, is of course, the son of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson and
brother of famous TV ‘kitchen goddess’ Nigella Lawson. The very same Nigel
Lawson who detested Mohamed Al Fayed for besmirching his beloved Tories.
Tomlinson alleges that Dominic Lawson provided cover for an agent named
ironically ‘Spencer’, who was put on the case of a young Russian diplomat,
Pluton Obukhov, in Tallin, capital city of Estonia. In an excerpt from
Tomlinson’s ‘banned’ book (The Big Breach) published in Pravda, it was revealed
that Spencer, returning from a visit to Information Operations (I/Ops), which
plants stories or propaganda in the British press, remarked, “Flippin’
outrageous. They’ve got the editor of the Spectator magazine on the books. He’s
called ‘smallbrow’. He’s agreed to le me go to Tallin undercover as a freelancer
for his magazine. The only condition is that I have to write an article which
he’ll publish if he likes it’, the cheeky bastard wants a story courtesy of the
taxpayer.”
The allegations that Dominic Lawson was a paid asset of MI6 have also been made
in parliament but he has always denied ever having been an agent. How likely is
it that he would admit it? Again, we reiterate that Lawson has brought no libel
action against any publication alleging he was an MI6 asset, or a ‘stringer’
planted on newspapers by the spooks to further their covert propagandist agenda.
Other disturbing aspects of the unlikely ‘friendship’ between Diana and Rosa
were raised by Paris-based journalist Jane Tawbase in a EuroBusiness
investigation into Monckton and Lawson. She wrote: ‘Rosa Monckton, a generation
older, made an odd friend for the often unhappy princess. A svelte sophisticate
and a wealthy working woman, her first relationships and loyalties lay, almost
from when she was born, with the Queen. She was a regular visitor to the royal
household all her life and was, for that reason, more given to loyalty to the
crown than to an unhappy and disruptive outsider, one who was seriously damaging
the public image of the royal family.’
On closer inspection, the relationship between Monckton and the ‘disruptive’
Diana, is somewhat inexplicable, perhaps just very odd. Diana was a fashion
goddess and fitness fanatic who delighted in shopping and modern music.
Monckton, by contrast, is a highly cerebral woman of the world, married to a man
with links to MI6 that no journalist or newspaper editor should ever have.
Jane Tawbase also raises two further questions on this murky subject and throws
more light on the matter than most before or after her. She wrote: ‘Whether Rosa
Monckton introduced her brother to the princess and whether he was part of the
MI6 operation. It was almost unthinkable that he was not.’ In her second point
she wrote: ‘Did MI6 ask Rosa Monckton to do the key job of moving into the
princess’s inner circle and become her confidante? It would certainly have made
the job easier.’
Dissident MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, who has been harassed for years by the
French and British authorities, is certain that Monckton’s brother is a spy. It
should be noted that Anthony and Rosa’s grandfather worked for Edward VIII and
kept a close watch on him for the security services throughout the abdication
and beyond. Like Diana, the British Establishment were determined to rid
themselves of Edward VIII. The Queen Mother, however, said that Diana was a
greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson and Edward VIII put
together. Tawbase concludes that, ‘It would indeed be ironic if history had
repeated itself and Rosa Monckton performed the same role for MI6 with regard to
Princess Diana.’
In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that Rosa Monckton declared
that Diana was not pregnant. It must also be noted that no one else can give
witness to Monckton’s suggestion that Diana menstruated while they holidayed in
Greece, nor should her statement be regarded as fact, it is opinion. Monckton
simply expects everyone to believe her version of events because she was Diana’s
‘friend’. And again, it must be stated that Diana abhorred everything to do with
the State and was convinced that hired assassins were trying to kill her. It is
puzzling why Diana formed a friendship with Monckton.
We must turn to the testimony of Richard Tomlinson, who has been deliberately
ignored by the French authorities. His affidavit to judge Herve Stephan was
dismissed. Stephan showed no interest in Tomlinson’s affidavit but the British
certainly did and MI6 led a campaign of arrests and harassment against its
dissident officer across the world to disrupt his life and attempt to silence
him….
Tomlinson also revealed that during his time with MI6, he discovered that there
was an informal but direct link between certain MI6 officers of senior rank and
royal courtiers. St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace are easy access points
for the spooks through the back-channel process. Many of these ‘men’ share an
Oxbridge background with royal courtiers and the relationship continues for
life. They would all have known of the CIA eavesdropping operation against Diana
and certainly shared the intel ‘product’.
In the Paget Report, Sir John Stevens alleges that MI6 and MI5 were not aware of
the CIA operation. Indeed, he salaciously goes as far to say that the CIA were
only interested in Diana’s ‘contacts’ and prime among which were Mohamed Al
Fayed and his murdered son Dodi Fayed. By definition, if the CIA were watching
Diana’s contacts, then Diana was also being watched. Obviously, Sir John
Stevens, the faithful Establishment plod, knows this but at the same time, he
must presume the general public to be completely stupid. His tale is defeated
with elementary logic.
British Intelligence certainly would have been told of the surveillance
operation on Diana and her contacts and highly likely also, they would have been
given access to the product of the eavesdropping. It is also perfectly clear to
anyone with experience of modern surveillance that Diana would have been tracked
through the signal from her mobile phone. Such signals allow the target to be
pinpointed to within a metre of their location. The same is also true of Dodi
Fayed, Wingfield, Rees-Jones and Henri Paul etc.
As a ‘reward’ for his indiscretions, Tomlinson was arrested at gunpoint by the
French DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) at his home. He suffered
a broken rib in the operation against him despite the fact that he has no record
of violence. The DST agents were ordered to go in hard to teach him a lesson.
The whole arrest was designed to shake him to the core and think better of
opening his mouth in future. And this is an interesting point which requires
further analysis.
By their very nature, ‘fantasists’ or people who make things up, are ignored,
not arrested at gunpoint and violently assaulted. Again, if Tomlinson was at
least mistaken, or indeed lying about the matters he revealed, there would have
been no need to arrest him and he could simply have been dismissed as a former
employee with a furtive imagination. The fact he was arrested in such brutal
fashion, proves conclusively that Tomlinson has revealed too many truths that
powerful people would prefer to remain buried. It is also noteworthy that
Tomlinson has not been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by his
detractors.
In the event, Tomlinson was questioned for over eighteen hours at the Paris HQ
of the DST to discourage him from giving evidence to the Stephan inquiry. But he
did appear before Stephan and told him, “As long as they [MI6] can get away with
doing something then that’s their only limit about what they will do. This
includes assassination.”
Diana’s decision to embrace Islam and highly likely produce a mixed-race brother
or sister to the heirs to the throne of England, and her anti-landmines campaign
were enough to warrant her elimination. But there is more still in the shape of
the ‘secrets’ she held in her little box of treasures at Kensington Palace.
Paul Burrell, often referred to as ‘Diana’s rock’ was aware of the box and most,
if not all of its contents. Following his arrest on the grounds that he
unlawfully took over 300 items from Kensington Palace, after the princess’s
funeral, he was interrogated again and again by Scotland Yard detectives, who
shook him up quite badly but failed to break him.
In his book A Royal Duty, he relates his experience of the arrest and what the
political police were looking for: ‘Then DS Milburn asked me two bizarre
questions: “Do you have a manuscript of the memoirs you are writing?” If there
was one moment when I knew the officers were stabbing in the dark, that was it.
No such manuscript existed.’
Burrell then explains the events of the following morning: ‘The next morning, DS
Roger Milburn returned. On instructions from Andrew Shaw, I said nothing to his
volley of questions. Again, his curiosity seemed to focus more on the contents
of a box, sensitive paperwork and a manuscript.’
Burrell’s trial was a landmine for the monarchy and the Queen could not risk her
former butler, revealing some of what he saw. In open court, just before the
trial collapsed, a truly revealing encounter took place that gave the world some
insight of what was in Diana’s box of treasures.
Burrell wrote: ‘The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland
Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt;
a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from
Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as
the Rape Tape.
It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed
former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after
a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff
who worked for Prince Charles. It all came to a head because George who had
worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares,
was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an
incident that he said he was bottling up.’
‘The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she
loathed him. “I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George,
and I will never forgive him for that,” she seethed, after her futile attempts
to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a
settlement [Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000.’
‘The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery
of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police
investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard
‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking
for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on
my home became clear.’
As the trial wore on it was obvious Burrell would have to take the stand. The
prospect of ‘Diana’s rock’ hurling highly explosive stones at the British
Establishment was enough to prompt the Queen to recall a conversation she had
with Burrell in December 1997 at Buckingham Palace in which Burrell told her
that he was taking a number of the princess’s items into safekeeping.
The exchange was a chilling encounter for Burrell. He wrote of it: ‘As the
meeting neared its end, the Queen said one more thing to me. Looking over her
half-rimmed spectacles, she said: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to
a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country
about which we have no knowledge,’ and she fixed me with a stare where her eyes
made clear the ‘do you understand?’.
‘She [Queen] might have been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5
because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and ‘darker
practices’ but she is aware of the power it is capable of wielding. Like the
royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in
whatever way is considered to be in the best interests of state and monarchy.’
‘At my December 1997 meeting with the Queen and as my statement had made clear:
‘I feared at the time of the princess’s death that there was a conspiracy to
change the course of history, and erase certain parts of her life from it. Mrs
Frances Shand Kydd spent two weeks shredding personal correspondence and
documents.’
Piers Morgan in his own memoir, The Insider, explains that he tried to help
Burrell and have the quasi-case against him dropped, he wrote: -
17 January 2001 – I rang Mark Bolland at the Palace.
‘You guys are mad, Mark. Burrell could say anything in the stand.’
‘I know, I know,’ he replied despondently.
‘It’s a mess.’
‘Well, end it now, before it’s too late.’
‘We can’t, the police are running the case now.’
A cornered Burrell could be a very dangerous beast. This will go on for weeks,
and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell
to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything,
and he knows the lot because he was there. There’s also no way he stole Diana’s
stuff, anyone who knows him knows that. He could make more money from what’s in
his mind than he ever could from a few of her trinkets.
The Establishment were again courting disaster by trying to silence Burrell. In
reality, the tactic worked in reverse, virtually ensuring that Burrell, facing
five years in prison if convicted, would open up before the glaring eyes of the
world to save his own skin.
By 16 September 1997, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones had opened his eyes. The worry
for the British Establishment was the strong possibility that he would remember
what happened in the moments before the Mercedes crashed. Rees-Jones can
certainly remember fastening his seatbelt just seconds before the car crashed
but claims that he cannot remember anything after that. But again, damning
further clarification comes in the shape of Piers Morgan and his memoir The
Insider.
Morgan wrote: ‘Tuesday, 16 September 1997 – I had a brief chat with Fayed today
and he said that Rees-Jones is awake, and having flashbacks of the crash. ‘Can
we have the first interview?’ Fayed was anxious. ‘He needs to tell us what
happened first, that is the most important thing. Then perhaps he can talk to
you. But we must be careful Piers, he is in a very bad way.’ To this day, Al
Fayed has not told the world what Rees-Jones said to him!
Naturally, Rees-Jones, who suffered terrible injuries, claims that he can
remember nothing. Can he remember coming round in the hospital in the presence
of Al Fayed and having ‘flashbacks of the crash’? We do not wish to be offensive
to Rees-Jones, particularly given the injuries he suffered, but we do not think
his story holds up in the slightest under examination. He can remember some
things but not others, selective memory loss not amnesia.
For instance, Rees-Jones can remember leaving the Ritz Hotel on the rue Cambon
and that a white Fiat Uno was tailing them. He then recounts that he saw a white
Fiat Uno again on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. He also recalls that he
fastened his seatbelt and encouraged the others to do the same moments before
impact. At the very moment he fastened his seatbelt, the white Fiat Uno was
careering into the path of the Mercedes but Rees-Jones does not remember
that....
His memory falls apart when it comes to events in the Alma Tunnel. He can
remember belting up, not verbally at that time, but cannot remember seeing the
white Fiat Uno in the tunnel nor a blinding white flash. If he can remember
fastening his seatbelt, he can remember what happened in the very next seconds
involving the white Fiat Uno and the blinding flash of light and the escaping
motorbike.
It is little wonder that the majority of people do not believe Rees-Jones. We
will go further and state that he is lying about not being able to remember the
juicy bits, the crucial events immediately before the Mercedes crashed. Either
that, or he has made it all up about seeing a white Fiat Uno and fastening his
seatbelt and encouraging the others to do the same. But then, why would he do
that? This man wants his cake and to eat it but the majority of people do not
swallow his 'sweetened' version of events.
Rumours are rife in the media world that Rees-Jones has been threatened by
British intelligence. If he opens his mouth and suddenly remembers what happened
in the crucial seconds to impact, he might not be so lucky a second time.
Rees-Jones is also still subject to the Official Secrets Act and government
lawyers can make that mean whatever they want it to mean. Theoretically, the OSA
should apply only to the period one was in service but the strictures of the Act
apply for the rest of one’s life and Rees-Jones knows this only too well.
There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland, Rees-Jones, a former
paratrooper with experience of putting enemy targets under surveillance, worked
closely at times with British Army Intelligence and he will know only too well
what the Force Research Unit, MI6 and The Increment are capable of. On his
testimony that he cannot remember the vital seconds before I impact, Rees-Jones
should not be believed. The claim is that he suffers from amnesia, only in part
mind you, and that we should have sympathy for him.
We genuinely sympathise with the fact that he suffered terrible injuries in the
crash but one must remain logical and rational and not succumb to emotional
impulses. In his book, The Bodyguard’s Story, he repeats the same old tale, over
and over again: he cannot remember the ‘juicy bits’ but has no problem dishing
out all the old crumbs of information he wants us to know. And we know people in
the media world, who are certain that Rees-Jones has been silenced by British
Intelligence.
An important note to end this article on comes in the form of a quote from
former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson: “There is an arrogant faction in MI6,
part of the Oxbridge clique, which doesn’t try to hide dedication to the royal
family and their self-appointment as defenders of the realm.” And spooks excel
at the lying game, as par for the course of their ‘training’ and ethics by
prerequisite, are irrelevant.…
http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html