A Contrasting View Of Combat 18

My contemporary reading of the internal situation in C18 was radically different to Searchlight's. Way back in April 1993, I wrote that MI5 was seeking to operationally influence C18 [43] and as already stated predicted in October 1993 before seeing Searchlight's written parliamentary evidence that they would seek to justify and [Page 22] facilitate this. [44] A more detailed treatment published in 'Turning Up The Heat: MI5 After The Cold War' (hereafter TUTH) [45] developed the argument. I outlined allegations Covington was an FBI asset, something never mentioned by Searchlight until after my publicising that possibility. [46] I also drew a distinction between 'Mark I' C18, most of whom I take to be genuine 'Nazi thugs', and Mark II state assets. It was (and is) my contention that the gameplan of MI5 involves supplanting this leadership by Mark II controlled assets, in order to "turn it in practice (as opposed to rhetoric)" in a "terrorist direction." [47] As intimated above, I viewed Searchlight's call for MI5 to 'investigate' C18 as an errand run on MI5's behalf, aimed at job creation for the agency and legitimisation of illegal activity already in progress. When, in March 1995, Searchlight printed my illegally taken photograph, work and home details, as the culmination of a set of linked lies implying I (a Catholic) was setting up meetings for the purpose of drug deals between C18 and Ulster Loyalists, I was rather perturbed. [48] I seized the opportunity to attend a meeting addressed by number 2 in the Searchlight 'team', office manager Tony Robson, and put these points forcefully to him. He had no satisfactory reply, and was still peddling the line that "we have called for MI5 to take over surveillance of extreme right wing groups because that is what they should have been doing all along." [49]