Statement: Nama allegations 

Immediate Release 

” There has been much commentary in recent days around the revelations that have surfaced in the media. 

” I wish to place on record that I was, in no shape or form, the leak of this back channel. I suspect there is a more sinister agenda behind that particular issue. 

” Nevertheless, I in no way regret my engagement in such communications and furthermore I believe that it benefitted me and assisted my preparations for my appearance before the committee which resulted in vital public interest evidence being aired. 

” I am as opposed to Sinn Fein as I ever was. My enemies enemy was never my friend, but rather a useful tool in my pursuit of a vital public interest story. If Sinn Fein were manipulated, as what is in the public domain appears to suggest, then that is a matter for Sinn Fein. 

” As for those who have read headlines and somehow convinced themselves I am in someway a friend of Sinn Fein, they display their own lack of political awareness and inability to see the wood for the trees. 

” Almost every political party, apart from Sinn Fein, have now claimed the DFP committee inquiry is tainted. Prior to this development Sinn Fein are on record calling for a public inquiry. 

” Accordingly, I have began the legal process of making an application to the Secretary of State under the inquiries act, asking for a full public inquiry into the Nama scandal. I would be astounded if all political parties would not also support such a public inquiry. 

” If the Secretary of State refuses to initiate such an inquiry the option to judicially review this decision will be open, and therefore the opportunity to air much of the Nama evidence in court will surface. 

” I stand over every piece of my evidence to the DFP committee. 

” On the foot of legal advice I will be making no further comment on the allegations carried in the media given that the entire Nama issue will now be subject to an application to the Secretary of State for a full public inquiry.”  

‘Leaks’ naming Sean Hughes as an informant designed to hide the real agent #Kingsmill 

The Sunday Independent yesterday reported that a British informant had been ‘outed’ in South Armagh. The finger was pointed, reputedly by security forces, at the OC of the South Armagh Brigade. 
This report in the Sunday Independent appears to jigsaw identify Sean ‘The Surgeon’ Hughes as the alleged informer. 
This report comes after months of this blog revealing details of the real agent in the South Armagh IRA, Co Louth republican Colm Murphy. 

The desire of security sources to leak details of the alleged outing of the South Armagh OC comes 48 hours after the arrest of Michael ‘Micksey’ Martin in relation to the Kingsmill massacre. He is a long time associate of the South Armagh based former IRA Chief of Staff- Thomas ‘Slab’ Murphy. 

The 59 year old republican served a prison sentence for explosives in the Republic of Ireland in 1975, was jailed for 16 months for weapon procurement in the USA in 1989 and was later held on remand in London’s Belmarsh prison in 1994. There are no forensics linking the veteran republican to the attack. His prints have been held on file for decades. 

PSNI legacy detectives were forced to re-open the investigation into Kingsmill after a bizarre development a number of months ago. 

Colm Murphy was named on this blog as being one of those responsible for the massacre in January 2016; this claim was followed up by a denial by Murphy in the Irish News the following day.  

Following this media coverage, a relatively low level forensic officer asked his superior if he could re-test the Kingsmill palm print held by the PSNI. 

The first set of prints the officer attempted to match were those of Omagh bomber Colm Murphy. This match had previously been buried at the insistence of MI5, who had recruited Murphy as an agent around 1985. 

However, a positive match was made and logged, which meant the PSNI had no option but to reveal the existence of the palm print forensic match, and thus a game of intrigue began with claims and counter claims. 

This blog once again named Colm Murphy as the owner of the palm print match. Following this, the Co Louth republican gave an extensive interview to the Irish News, which the PSNI sought to block via an attempt to obtain a court injunction against the Belfast based paper. 

The career killer did not deny that the print was his in his Irish News interview; but rather appeared to confirm his own knowledge of the print by questioning why it had only surfaced now. 

High-level meetings have taken place between the PSNI and MI5 in order to decide how to deal with the situation. The implications of Murphy’s outing run much further than the Kingsmill investigation. They stretch to the murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan, the Docklands bomb and the Omagh bombing. 

After Murphy was outed the Secretary of State requested a closed hearing during a Judicial review into the failure to hold a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb. It is believed this closed material concerns the existence of a key informant in the Omagh bomb team; Colm Murphy. 

It is understood the PSNI legacy team have devised a strategy to conduct a general ‘re-investigation’ of the Kingsmill case and this will involve interviewing, as a starting point, the main suspects initially identified by the RUC in 1976. This strategy is designed to string out the investigation and give breathing space for the security services to find a way to hide the Murphy palm print link. 

Colm Murphy was one of the RUC’s initial main suspects and was referred to as Suspect A in a 2011 HET report. 

Suspect A was believed to have been one of the gunmen in the Kingsmill attack, as well as one of those who hi-jacked the getaway minibus in the Republic of Ireland. 

It is understood that Murphy was not masked whilst hi-jacking the vehicle.

It is now clear that the ‘game’ is on. The leak in the Sunday Independent, attempting to point the finger of suspicion at Sean ‘The Surgeon’ Hughes, is an attempt to create a smokescreen around Colm Murphy. 

The senior IRA terrorist  questioned over Kingsmill revealed 

The high profile Provisional IRA terrorist arrested in connection with the Kingsmill massacre can be revealed here, for the first time, as Michael ‘Micksey’ Martin.
The 59 year old republican has been released from custody pending a report to the Public Prosecution Service. The career terrorist was one of the main 7 suspects initially identified by the RUC following the brutal attack on a bus carrying Protestant workmen. The one Catholic on the bus was ordered away form the scene by the IRA gunmen.

Martin previously worked as a lorry driver for his long time associate, Tom ‘Slab’ Murphy- who is currently serving a prison sentence in the Republic of Ireland for criminal charges. 

‘Micksey’ Martin has long been suspected of involvement in the deaths of over 100 people. He is believed to have organised the Bishopgate bombing on 23 April 1993, along with South Armagh IRA terror boss and current senior member of Sinn Fein, Sean ‘The Surgeon’ Hughes. Martin was also implicated in the Docklands bombing, which at the time broke the fledging IRA ceasefire. 

The South Armagh terrorist previously served prison sentences in the Republic of Ireland in 1975 for explosives offences and was jailed in the USA for arms procurement in 1989. Martin was also arrested and held on remand in Belmarsh prison in 1994. His fingerprints have been on the security forces system for decades. 

Contrary to some media reports, the arrest of Martin is not linked to the recent forensic match of a palm print, which was found on the Kingsmill getaway vehicle. That fingerprint belongs to long-time MI5 informant, Co Louth republican Colm Murphy. 

The PSNI are currently said to be exploring various legal options in relation to securing an extradition warrant for Murphy, who lives in Dundalk and never crosses the border into Northern Ireland. 

Murphy, who is 63, hi-jacked the getaway vehicle used in the Kingsmill attack. The republican gunman was also involved in the Narrow Watter attack in 1979. It was after a period of imprisonment in the United States that Murphy was recruited by MI5 around 1985. 

Following his recruitment as an MI5 asset, Murphy took part in the 1989 murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan and provided the mobile telephones to the Omagh bombing team in 1998. 

It is believed the arrest of ‘Micksey’ Martin is to be the first of a number of arrests of those identified by the RUC in 1976 as initial suspects, following the re-opening of the investigation. 

Don’t shoot the messenger- NUJ row is down to their own criteria 

The debate around my membership of the NUJ has rumbled on for almost a week now. 

The controversy around the issue first arose when the Belfast and District branch, entirely unprompted, intervened and claimed I wasn’t a member- further to this, they stated I wasn’t a journalist (ironically, I agree) in an attempt to give the impression that I would not be welcome in their union. This is despite the fact that the NUJ definition of a journalist captures me under that category. 

The Belfast branch also claimed, in a statement to the Nolan show, that I would have to earn ‘my living’ from journalism. Clearly, if one assesses the temporary freelance membership criteria, quite the opposite is the case. Once again, this comical error demonstrates the ham-fisted nature of this ludicrous intervention. 

Given the apparent rebellion by the Belfast branch, against the rules and criteria of the NUJ, in jest I questioned whether they were staging some form of breakaway NUJ faction. I termed this the Continuity NUJ. 

In an utterly transparent attempt to deflect from their woeful handling of the situation, a particular NUJ office bearer, Bob Miller, took to social media to claim I was calling Belfast NUJ officials ‘terrorists’, by virtue of the use of the word continuity. Bizarre, I know. 

Given this is, quite obviously, an intelligent man; I can only conclude that he was cynically trying to turn the tide. 

Mr Miller’s assertion that I likened NUJ officials to ‘terrorists’ is utterly false, baseless and defamatory. It is, quite simply in my view, a malicious lie. I will be seeking him to urgently clarify his remarks and apologise. 

I also pointed out, rightly, that many of the Belfast NUJ officials are no more ‘journalists’ than I am. If, as is apparently the case, they are going to rebel over me meeting the criteria for membership, then some of them should asses their own journalistic circumstances. 

There must be, and I have long argued this point, a mechanism to recognise the difference between professional journalists and self-appointed journalists. At the moment, there isn’t such a mechanism. That isn’t my fault; if anything my membership of the NUJ has highlighted this enormous flaw and, quite clearly, there is a need for reform. 

The journalists who have offered me their support in relation to joining the Belfast branch agree with me that there is a woeful equivalence being made between professional journalists and those of us who aren’t. 

Bloggers, and self published public platform contributors, aren’t journalists. Yet, the NUJ criteria is so wide that all public platform contributors, whether they be professional or otherwise, fall under the same umbrella. That is utterly abhorrent and demeaning to professional journalists. 

Professional journalists are supporting me for one reason only; because I meet the criteria. It isn’t my fault the criteria is flawed, therefore I shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because I am me. 

This is not an argument around whether I am a journalist or whether I should have equivalence with a professional journalist, I shouldn’t. But the NUJ criteria and the trend of society says otherwise. 

There is only one issue upon which I should be treated equally to a professional journalist, and that is on the protection of sources. And, when such a matter eventually comes before a court, it will be at that stage a legal precedent will be set upon what actually constitutes a journalist. I will argue that my public interest publications fall under the category of journalistic practices, and will point to the criteria outlined by the NUJ to justify such an assertion. 

The NUJ, on the very day their Belfast branch was launching their ill-conceived intervention, once again debited my monthly dues payment to the union. The insanity of the Belfast NUJ’s ‘campaign’ to keep me out is highlighted by the fact that whilst they were busy trying to devise a way, any way, to block my membership- the NUJ central organisation was collecting my membership dues. 

It is clear there is a need for reform, but that’s going to be extraordinarily messy. That, however, is not my fault. I merely highlighted the point. Don’t shoot the messenger. 

Response to the Belfast branch of the NUJ 

At lunchtime yesterday the Belfast Branch for the NUJ issued a statement to the Stephen Nolan show claiming I was not a member of the Union. 

It appears this morning, by virtue of a public tweet, the Belfast branch have now somewhat rowed back from this position and claimed I was not a member of the ‘Belfast branch’. I am amazed at their need to do this, I never claimed to be a member of their Belfast branch. 

The intervention by the Belfast branch of the NUJ is a surprising one; more so given that they appear to be taking a completely different view on the criteria for NUJ membership, than that of the parent organisation itself. 

I applied for membership of the NUJ and was informed that within 60 days a branch would be suggested for me to join. This choice of branch, I was informed, was a matter of choice for myself. 

I have spoken to established professional journalists who have recently joined the NUJ and who consider themselves, and are treated as, members. These journalists went through exactly the same process as me, and no one has sought to challenge their status as a member. 

Since the time of my application the National Union of Journalists have taken monthly direct debits from my bank account. Copies of bank statements verifying this have been provided, in confidence, to the Nolan show. 

I have also been in receipt of the monthly NUJ newsletter, which reads in its first line “Dear NUJ member…”. 

I wonder what kind of union the Belfast NUJ believe they are part of; in their mind it appears to be one that takes monthly money from someone, and addresses them as an NUJ member in correspondence, but then denies that the individual-who is paying into the union- is in fact a member.

The NUJ in their statement have also stated that before they would accept me into their branch they would have to be satisfied I earn a living from journalism. This criteria is entirely at odds with the NUJ’s own published membership criteria, which states as the criteria for my membership- temporary freelance member- the following; 

” If you are trying to establish or re-establish yourself as a full-time journalist, yet do not yet earn half of your income from freelance journalism and you don’t have another full-time job you can apply to join the NUJ as a temporary freelance member.” 

Far from earning a living from journalism, the criteria stipulates that for this type of membership you must not earn anymore than half your income from journalism. This could mean anything from 10p to £100,000. 

Further to this, the NUJ rules state; 

 “[t]he union shall consist of journalists, including photographers, creative artists working editorially in newspapers, magazines, books, broadcasting, public relations and information, and electronic media; as advertising and fashion photographers, advertising copywriters, editorial computer systems workers…”

At no point in the criteria for joining does it stipulate you must earn your living from journalism. The type of journalism you are engaged in and the amount you earn from it is only relevant in relation to the kind of membership band you are eligible for. It is not a condition of membership per se. 

On the NUJ website the union also states; 

” The National Union of Journalists is the voice for journalism and for journalists across the UK and Ireland working at home and abroad in all sectors of the media as freelances, casuals and staff in newspapers, news agencies, broadcasting, magazines, online, book publishing, in public relations, communications, and as photographers.” 

As someone who has published books, written columns online for established media outlets and published my own work online, I clearly fall under that criteria. 

Ironically I think the criteria is far too broad and is demeaning to qualified professional journalists, but that is a matter for the NUJ itself, it is not my fault for joining and, it seems, highlighting a major fault-line.

I question how many times the Belfast NUJ have got themselves so exercised about an individual becoming a member of the union? 

There appears to be no objections when all sorts of individuals, who, unlike me, actually think they are journalists because they write a blog, join the NUJ. It appears the NUJ welcome such journalistic imposters with open arms, yet due to my controversial profile they feel the need to take issue with me. 

I am glad this issue has come to the fore. At the very least it will expose the woeful equivalence being made between professionally qualified journalists and those who aren’t. 

I have been contacted by a number of journalists who have stated they would happily propose me for branch membership. Not because they agree that non-qualified journalists should be in the union, they don’t, but because they accept that as flawed as the membership criteria may be; I meet it, and therefore should not be excluded simply because some people may object to me as a personality. 

I point out the NUJ previously accepted former IRA prisoner Danny Morrison as a member and currently have convicted IRA life sentence prisoner Anthony McIntyre as member. I do not object to former IRA men being in the union, they are every bit as entitled to freedom of expression as I am, but I would be somewhat concerned if the NUJ were taking an unbalanced approach along sectarian lines. 

I look forward to the NUJ as a body clarifying this issue. As an individual paying into a union, I believe I am in the union. Should the NUJ take a different approach then we are heading for the High Court. 

Freedom of expression for all- why I joined the National Union of Jounalists

I read, with interest, Jim McDowell’s piece in the Sunday World this week musing about my recent decision to join the NUJ. 
Firstly, let me state that I am not a journalist; nor do I wish to be solely defined as a ‘blogger’ . I have long held the view that real journalists are those who work for publications and on traditional radio/television platforms. Real journalists are people who, for them, journalism is a career and pursuing the established principles of the profession is their foremost objective. 

‘Bloggers’ are people hopelessly devoted to that platform and who, quite often, believe themselves to be on a professional level with traditional journalists. I don’t for one minute put myself in that category. I am broadly speaking a ‘blogger’ at this point in time simply because it is an effective political tool and suits my purposes. If a better tool for publishing comes along I will use that as eagerly as I use ‘citizen journalism’, ‘blogging’ or ‘communications’. 

I am not impartial in the slightest. As I have already pointed out, most of my writings are done with a political agenda and purpose. 

Would I relentlessly pursue a story, in the purest form of journalism, if it damaged those on the same political page as me? Of course I wouldn’t! But then again, how many traditional journalists also allow their own views to seep into their pursuit of stories? That is not a criticism, but rather an appreciation that everyone has their own personal prejudices and views, rightly or wrongly. 

I decided to join the NUJ because, as I outlined, the tools I use in pursuit of my political aims, namely writing and blogging and publishing stories that I feel are in the public interest; fall under the membership rules of the Union. 

The NUJ rules state that “[t]he union shall consist of journalists, including photographers, creative artists working editorially in newspapers, magazines, books, broadcasting, public relations and information, and electronic media; as advertising and fashion photographers, advertising copywriters, editorial computer systems workers…”

I have written two books, occasionally written columns for established media outlets and also broke more stories, via my blog, than many mainstream media outlets. That means that membership of the NUJ is open to me. 

NUJ membership was also previously extended to Danny Morrison, the former Sinn Fein propagandist and editor of An Phoblacht. Danny’s writings for the republican movement were political propaganda to opponents, such as myself, but to supporters his writings and work were of important public interest. Whether one subscribes to the propaganda or public interest narrative; Danny’s work was carried out within the context of his right to freedom of expression. The key point here is that there are many competing narratives within the NUJ of what journalism, writing or communicating actually is. People join together not to support one and others work, or promote another’s agenda; but to support the wider principle of the right to freedom of expression. 

I view membership of the NUJ more as a means of protecting freedom of expression for all. Everyone should have the right to publish their writings and pursue- without fear- stories that are in the public interest. The ability to write and publish is available to almost everyone in the age of social media and digital platforms. 

Of course, there are both criminal law restrictions to freedom of expression and there are civil remedies for anyone libelled or defamed by another’s speech or writings.

This brings me on to another point Mr McDowell made in his column. He stated the following in the context of my blogging on the Nama scandal; 

“What he has put in the public domain- whether right or wrong- over the Nama affair would have the rest of us hacks hung out to dry by the courts by now.” 

And here lies the challenge for mainstream media. Would they have been “hung out to dry” for publishing much of what I put into the public domain over Nama? Quite often the mainstream media followed up my stories in the days afterwards. 

Anyone I named in regards to the Nama scandals, whether online or in my book, had a legal avenue for redress open to them. They chose not to pursue it. I say that is because what I said was true, and indeed the vast majority of what I alleged has been since independently verified. Others will say it is because there is no money in it for them; but I don’t accept that. Surely the core principle, in such a scenario as he Nama scandal, is about clearing your name? 

As we have seen recently in relation to Jim Wells; ‘bloggers’ and individuals can be pursued as readily as mainstream media outlets for what they publish. Digital contributors do not operate in a legal vacuum. 

I, by writing blogs, can throw caution to the wind in publishing public interest stories. I only have myself to account for; not an entire media organisation or fellow employees. I understand why some editors have to take a more cautious approach; but could this leave mainstream media constantly following up on ‘scoops’ that have already been published by individuals writing on digital platforms? 

Is there a challenge for mainstream media to push the boat out slightly, to resist the threat of legal action more often and go for it? Or would throwing such caution to the wind erode the professional standards of professional journalism? I don’t know, but I think it’s a relevant debate.

I try and maintain a level of professionalism in what I publish. I also, as a personal principle, always protect my sources of information at all costs. I do the former because the credibility of what I publish rests upon not publishing false stories, but rather factual stories that can be independently verified. I do the latter because in life, trust is everything. If I breach the trust of a single person that tells me something in confidence, then how could anyone ever trust me again? 

I consistently, whether I agree with their stories or not, argue that journalists and individuals have the right to publish their writings unhindered and without fear of threat, coercion or violence. Such publications can then be subject to challenges under the law if they can be proven to be false. All published works are also, quite rightly, open to critique and assessment in the court of public opinion. That’s a cornerstone of freedom of expression within a democracy. 

I support the principle of freedom of expression for everyone. I use broadly defined ‘journalistic’ tools within a political context. I publish many of my writings in the public domain. I, therefore, agree with the aims and objectives of the NUJ. That is why I am a member. 

Agents, Assets and False Flags- The true story of the intelligence failures behind the Omagh bomb 

MI5’s ‘hired gun’ informant, a CID handler moonlighting for MI5 and his asset Kevin Fulton. A potent mix. 

Unknown to Judge Smithwick, corroboration of Kevin Fulton’s testimony at the Dublin based tribunal, came from the man who had handled him at the time of the Omagh bomb, Alan Mains. 

Approaching 18 years on from the dreadful bombing, the families of Omagh are still denied truth and justice. Despite relentless campaigning and a landmark civil case, those responsible have still not been made to pay for their vile acts on that day. 

Approximately one year ago, I named Omagh bomber Colm Murphy as a state agent. I have been told that rather than being a ‘tout’, Murphy was more of a ‘hired gun’ for MI5. 

Mr Murphy is also the owner of a ‘palm print’ recovered from the Kingsmill massacre, and yet neither the HET nor the PSNI’s legacy branch have yet arrested the Co Louth republican. 

Also on Murphy’s terrorist CV is involvement in the murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan in Dundalk, 1989. Murphy was the gunman that inexplicably opened fire on the officers, despite the PIRA operation being designed to kidnap and interrogate the RUC officers. 

When asked during the Smithwick tribunal why the PIRA opened fire, if the plan was to kidnap and interrogate the officers, the IRA representatives- one of whom was IRA killer Sean ‘the Surgeon’ Hughes- became flustered and asked for a recess. They were unable to provide any satisfactory answer to that question. 

It is now known that Murphy was ordered to open fire by his MI5 handlers in order to protect another agent at the heart of the Loughall ambush, as well as the British security force’s “jewel in the crown”- Freddie Scappaticci. 

During the Dublin based tribunal two individuals give similar accounts- which couldn’t be verified-, all focusing on Owen Corrigan, who was- incidentally- actually passing low level information to the PIRA. On the day of the murders, however, Corrigan was not the informant that set up the two RUC officers. 

Alan Mains- a CID officer that moonlighted for MI5- and Kevin Fulton, corroborated each others stories.

It can now be revealed here for the first time; Judge Smithwick was unaware that far from being unconnected witnesses, Alan Mains had handled Fulton on behalf of CID from 1996 until 2000. 

Alan Mains had been jointly handling Kevin Fulton at the time of his role in a high profile fraud case. Luigi Marotta, 64, was sentenced to five years in jail in 2000 for conspiracy to defraud the Londonderry-based St Brendan’s Liqueur Company.

Mr Marotta’s conviction was later overturned in 2013 amidst allegations that Kevin Fulton had been used to entrap the Italian businessman. This case, according to a former RUC detective, is one of the reasons Mains took early retirement in 2007. 

Following the Omagh bomb Kevin Fulton claimed- correctly- that he had passed intelligence, that could have possibly prevented the bomb, to his CID handlers. At this time Fulton was being handled by Alan Mains, as well as being in contact with MI5. As previously revealed, Alan Mains was also an MI5 link man and asset from the 1980’s. 

After Fulton had publicly revealed he had passed on this information, he was branded a “Walter Mitty” by then RUC Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.

 One retired former senior cop described Flanagan’s  intervention as a “blatant attempt” to cover the back of Alan Mains. Flanagan and Mains remain close friends. 

MI5 had three assets close to the Omagh bombing team. One was Colm Murphy who was working strictly for MI5, the second is widely known to be Dave Rupert who also worked jointly with the FBI and finally MI5 remained in sporadic contact with Kevin Fulton- despite the fact he was being primarily used by Alan Mains and CID on smuggling and fraud cases. 

The information provided by Fulton to his CID handler, Alan Mains, fingered prominent republican Mooch Blair and claimed Blair was mixing explosives in the days prior to the attack. 

MI5 had instructed Colm Murphy to provide mobile telephones to the bombing team in order that they could track their movements. 

It is understood that MI5 were attempting to track the bomb with a GPRS signal from one of the mobile phones. It is claimed that the car being monitored was not, in itself, bugged, but rather the intelligence services were tracking the mobile telephone being carried inside it. 

It is claimed, by another source close to the Omagh investigation- who alleges that the investigation was hampered- that MI5 had planned to let a bomb get through in order to protect ‘assets’ and discredit the RIRA, but did not intend Omagh to be the target, or for the bomb to actually go off. 

This retired RUC officer claims MI5 ‘cocked up’ and then attempted to shift the blame onto the RUC for a failure to properly disseminate intelligence. The officer said; 

 “MI5 cocked up, they wanted to let the bomb through initially and then intercept it in an area where it would have caused big damage had it went off, but there was an intelligence gap and it ended up going off in Omagh with tragic consequences. 

” The bit about them not wanting the bomb to go off is my interpretation of it, because I just could not fathom or comprehend the awful alternative; that MI5 always planned to allow the bomb to go off. 

” I remind myself of the mobile telephones. If MI5 had of just wanted the bombing to proceed unhampered, then why would they have risked Colm Murphy being exposed by providing the mobile phones that they could track?”

The senior officer, who once worked on a high level policing and security joint intelligence task force, further gave some insight into the involvement of Kevin Fulton. 

” Ronnie (Flanagan) was furious when Fulton, assisted by Mains I suspect, tried to blame the RUC. He done this on behalf of MI5, of that there is no doubt. It was a diversion.” 

He continued “Ronnie (Flanagan) hit the roof with Mains, but Mains put all the blame onto Fulton and Ronnie went out in the media and called Fulton a ‘Walter Mitty’ to try and cover Mainsey’s back. He had to backtrack shortly afterwards.” 

It is also claimed that there was security ‘tension’ between MI5 and the Garda following the charging of Colm Murphy for a role in the attack. 

In February 2016 the British Government made an application for a landmark closed hearing- on grounds of National Security- as part of a judicial review application by Michael Gallagher, the father of one of the victims of the Omagh bombing. 

The identity of one British intelligence asset involved in the Omagh bombing, Dave Rupert, is already known. He was a FBI/MI5 agent who had infiltrated the RIRA. 

It is also known that the Garda had an informant within the ranks of the RIRA, Paddy Dixon. 

It is also accepted that Kevin Fulton, whilst not being involved in the bombing team, was providing terrorist related intelligence to his CID handler and remained in contact with MI5. There are questions, and criticisms, over how the terrorist related intelligence being provided to CID was disseminated. 

It is the third British intelligence informer within the RIRA that the closed hearing is designed to protect. This man is ‘palm print’ killer and life long terrorist Colm Murphy, a Co Louth republican working for MI5 from 1986. 

Kevin Fulton remains a MI5 asset. He has secretly recorded compromising conversations with former CID and Customs officers in his flat in London. 

The former senior RUC man says of him; 

“When MI5 need misinformation spread, when they need a counter narrative, they always have Kevin Fulton and (Alan) Mains, just like in the Smithwick tribunal, is there to corroborate it. 

” Fulton has also been known to disseminate dodgy files to politicians, sending them on a false trail. These are MI5 inspired lies designed to build a smokescreen around the truth.  

“Kingsmill, Omagh, Smithwick. Who provided the false flags and why? Colm Murphy was involved in all three, and there lies the key to the dirtiest and filthiest secret.”

Colm Murphy remains at large, operating a public house in Dundalk. He has yet to be arrested on the basis of his palm print. 

The families of Omagh are, to this very day, starved of truth, and justice. As is so often the case with the so called peace ‘process’- the victims are sacrificed for the warped definition of the ‘greater good’. 

Politics and football shouldn’t mix- Why the Milk Cup must resist calls to drop the National anthem 

In Monday’s Irish News a Co Antrim mother called for the removal of the British National anthem from the Milk Cup (SuperCup NI) opening ceremony. 

This parent stated that her son felt “unwanted” by virtue of the fact that the anthem is played at the opening ceremony. 

Sport and politics should always be separate. I played in the Milk Cup myself circa 11 years ago. I found the tournament to be genuinely cross community, multicultural and multi national. Nationalists from Short Strand played alongside me and we got on the very best and developed lasting friendships. 

I am quite sure that the organisers would not wish to make anyone, regardless of their political persuasion or status, feel unwelcome at the Milk Cup. To exclude anyone based on their politics, religion or nationality would run contrary to the ethos of the tournament and furthermore would cast a dark shadow over Northern Ireland football in general. 

It is disappointing that the Milk Cup has been drawn into a political debate and now finds itself in an almost impossible situation, stuck between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. 

In my personal opinion the calls for the removal of the anthem is little more than a contrived and malicious political agenda. Many of the online arguments made by Nationalists on this subject contained a familiar theme- that the Belfast agreement provides for dual nationality and their Irish identity should be held in parity with those of us who identify as British. 

This argument purposefully uses the ambiguous language of the Belfast agreement to conflate national identity with national sovereignty and territory. The right to dual nationality, copper fastened by section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, does not have any bearing upon the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. 

Therefore due to the principle of consent- agreed to by the majority of Nationalists- Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom. The right to dual nationality does not alter this. In this regard God Save the Queen remains the national anthem of Northern Ireland and the Union flag remains the sovereign flag. 

Some made the argument that the Irish anthem should also be played due to the dual nationality principle contained in the Belfast agreement. This fundamentally misunderstands the architecture of the agreement- which, ironically, I oppose- because to conflate dual nationality with national sovereignty and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, would actually undermine the principle of consent. The Irish anthem belongs to a foreign jurisdiction and has no more status than the Polish, American or Turkish anthem. 

This does not not stop Nationalists self identifying as Irish or British or both, nor does it stop all citizens- regardless of how they identify- being treated equally. 

In short, it is sad that football- especially as the Northern Ireland team have had such a successful Euro 2016- would be reduced to petty politics. Sport should always be free from politics. 

Dropping the national anthem would be a capitulation to such malicious politicking and cause gross offence to the majority of people within Northern Ireland. 

NI border has never been clearer- UK security is paramount following Leave vote 

The final ballots were hardly finished being counted when two big losers in the EU referendum, the SNP and Sinn Fein, began a rather transparent attempt to gain some political capital out of the result. 

The SNP argued that there should be a second Independence referendum in Scotland, whilst Sinn Fein demanded a border poll in Northern Ireland. 

The superficial arguments for these positions was that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted in greater numbers for Remain. 

This of course ignores the fact that this was a UK wide vote, and therefore every vote counts equally towards the final result. 

Sinn Fein’s most cherished possession is the Belfast Agreement. Hardly a political week goes by without Sinn Fein making some reference to ‘protecting the agreement’. 

On one hand Sinn Fein extol the virtues of the agreement, but on the other they wish to completely ignore the fact that the Belfast Agreement locks Sinn Fein and Irish Nationalism in a constitutional settlement underpinned by the principle of consent. 

Sinn Fein have accepted Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, yet they then point to the geographical break up of voter trends in a UK wide vote in order to claim justification for a border poll. 

The fact is that the border has never been more clearly defined than today. The Irish Republican project of ‘harmonisation’, which effectively slowly removed the border in people’s minds as a result of increased North/South co-operation, is in tatters. 

The border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in the eventual conclusion of Brexit is a border between the United Kingdom and the European Union. 

Given the constitutional responsibilities on the British Government to treat the citizens of Northern Ireland as equal citizens of the United Kingdom, it would be unacceptable to impose a border simply between the UK and the Island of Ireland. Instead the border must reflect the internationally recognised constitutional position and separate the United Kingdom jurisdiction of Northern Ireland from the foreign Irish Republic. 

The border creates a number of serious security issues for the British Government. There will undoubtedly be an increased terror threat from Irish Republican terrorists as well as an rapidly increasing threat of international terrorism emanating from within the open borders of the European Union. 

Given these increased threats, especially during the period of the UK’s negotiation as we move towards an eventual exit, there is a clear need for increased border security. 

The British Army are clearly best equipped to provide the required security for the UK’s border areas under an increased terrorist threat. 

Whilst Irish Nationalism may be up in arms at the prospect, they must recognise their commitment under the Belfast Agreement to recognise the principle of consent and therefore accept the British Army as the legitimate state force of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. 

Increasingly aggressive LGBT agenda reaches the absurd by trying to neutralise the sexes 

This mornings debate on the Stephen Nolan show, in relation to ‘guidance’ asking some girls schools not to refer to their pupils as girls, has sparked much debate. 

The Rainbow project’s John O’Doherty was on the program, aggressively supporting the idea and shouting down other contributors on the show that disagreed with his view. 

I tweeted that the idea was ‘perverse’ and was met by a barrage of angry tweets from pro- LGBT supporters. Naturally, as an emotional blackmail tactic they regularly deploy to aid their cause, they happily conflated ideals with the individual holding them. Suddenly rather than an idea being perverse, the individual holding such an idea was perverse. This irrational response isn’t some hap-hazard emotional reaction but rather a well developed tool used to emotionally railroad people into bending to their every whim and desire. 

This, ironically, demonstrated that those who preach tolerance are quite often themselves the most intolerant of different views. Much of the anger directed towards me appeared to be hate-filled rants which criticised me for daring to articulate a non-neutral viewpoint. 

Such relentless abuse has no effect on me, however I could see how it would bully some people into silence, especially in the left leaning world of social media where it is fashionable to be pro LGBT reform of legislation and natural societal norms. 

I should point out that I openly expressed my disgust that an undemocratic petition of concern was used to block a same sex marriage motion in the Assembly. I didn’t agree with the motion, but it was a democratic vote and should have been allowed to be carried as such. 

LGBT individuals are just as important as I, or anyone else. And for the avoidance of doubt, they are just as deserving of equality and fair treatment. But that does not mean that their ideals should, as of right, trump that of the majority or that society should bend to their every desire. 

The logical outcome of ‘neutralising’ the natural differences between boys and girls is that eventually children would come to know no difference between their sexes and would effectively be given the choice of whether they want to be a boy or girl. This doesn’t help confused children, but rather it confuses children that otherwise would be entirely comfortable with their natural sex. 

For the most part a man is born as a man and a woman is born as a woman. Nature makes that decision, therefore how you are born is ‘natural’, it cannot be influenced. 

It is in that context that I believe, and it may be offensive to some for me to dare to say it- but, in my view, changing your sex is ‘unnatural’ as it goes against the most basic principles of nature. 

Those children who are boys but want to be girls, or vice versa, should be treated as fairly and with as much dignity as every other human being. That does not mean that we should adapt society in order to force neutrality onto the majority of persons about their sex. We should not normalise an unnatural neutralising of the sexes. Such a perverse ‘normalisation’ would actually create an environment where such seeds of confusion would be planted in the minds of children who would ordinarily be comfortable with their boy or girl status, and their natural sex. 

There are many people in the LGBT community that are tolerant of opposing views and that simply seek equality of treatment. These are people such as Julie Anne Corr and Sophie Long, who I regard as friends. I disagree with them on issues such as how LGBT rights should be legislated, but they are tolerant of the right to express a different viewpoint and I would fight for their right, and the right of every human being, to be treated as an equal citizen. 

However, we increasingly see a far more aggressive agenda being pursued by the Rainbow group and their spokespersons, who aren’t fighting to be an equal part of society but rather to force society to a neutral position whereby we all must tolerate everything that anyone says makes them feel happy. And we dare not challenge lest we be called some ambiguous name with ‘phobic’ tagged on at the end of it. That’s not how democracy works and such a moral free-for-all would corrode and destroy every fibre of a cohesive society. 

Some of the ideas being put forward that are either creations of, or supported by, campaigners such as the Rainbow project are becoming increasingly more absurd and quite frankly offensive. 

The notion that when a child goes to school that they would be encouraged not to think of themselves as a boy or a girl, but rather as a neutral species that happened to be born with a penis or vagina, is- in my view- beyond the pale. 

The outrageous demands of the more aggressive LGBT campaigners and the attempted persecution of anyone who disagrees, such as the case of Asher’s bakery, is actually doing more harm than good to their cause. 

Many people will be afraid to speak out in the social media sphere due to a fear of being set upon by a mob of LGBT fanatics who would be aghast that anyone would dare challenge them. 

Given it is a daily feature of my life, such gang trolling directed at me is about as effective as firing a pea shooter at a brick wall. The left wing tilted world of social media in Northern Ireland is not reflective of the real world. If it was then NI21 would be in a Government coalition with the Alliance party. 
I, and others, have a right to challenge ideas that we find perverse. We are entitled to oppose such ideals and to say so, whether some people find it offensive or not. 

A society where we all must hug in a neutral environment and suppress our views so as not to offend would make us all clones and demolish free speech and thought.