The Shrimp’s been potted, but he’s not potty. He was right.

Oddball barrister Michael Shrimpton has been found guilty on two counts of ‘communicating false information’.

barrister faces jail for sparking security scare with claim that German spies were planning ’24-style’ nuclear attack on the Queen at London Olympics

  • Michael Shrimpton, 57, called Parliament over nuclear threat in April 2012
  • Said German spies had weapon in London and were going to attack Queen
  • Is facing jail after being found guilty of communicating false information
  • But sentencing delayed until next year while psychiatric test carried out 

Read more:

He doesn’t sound like he’s unhinged from his CV.  He must have been involved in some murky stuff, and maybe his only crime was to start revealing what he knows.  Then they do the usual thing of attacking his credibility with mental health accusations.

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983. He is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counterterrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. The late Generaloberst Markus Wolf, of the Stasi and DVD, was one of his contacts. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post-WWII covert operations against the West by the German DVD organization based in Dachau, near Munich, Germany, and its British, French and American client agencies. These continue to the present day, as politicians and the media are too nervous of standing up to them.

Michael was formerly an Adjunct Professor of Intelligence Studies in what was then the Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies at the American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and briefed in staffers on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9-11.

Strange that the same scrutiny is not applied to the BBC.

BBC News Caught Staging FAKE Chemical Attack In Syria!

Much of what Shrimpton has published appears dubious to say the least however re the nuclear issue in question the Editor of the website who gave him column space has this to say.source of the narrative involved the tale, at least part of it, that Michael Shrimpton is facing prison over.  My source, vetted and proven, says there was a bomb, that it was smuggled by submarine from Germany and that it was used to blackmail Britain.I was also told that the relationship between the United States and Britain was significantly damaged by this incident and that American NEST (Nuclear Emergency Support Teams) teams from the US secured the weapon from the vicinity of the Olympic stadium.The rest of the story involves high powered law firms, secret grand jury testimony, dead witnesses, attempts to discredit FBI agents and a Washington DC espionage ring supported by blackmail, human trafficking and worse.  It is all there and has been for a decade or more.  This is only a small percentage of it.  Key portions are published with “proofs” in the form of advanced formulas and designs.ends

If this conviction for ‘communicating false information’ is the new normal then surely the mainstream press are going to keep the courts very busy for some years.

Some of the issues raised by this case can be found here.

The Shrimp has been potted!

Was there ever any doubt that this would be the outcome ?

This is what happens when you make the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond look like a complete imbecile.

For background read my take on the trial here- Michael Shrimpton: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Is the Shrimp Potty ?

Well, they do say that ‘a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.’

But a fool isn’t necessarily mentally unstable, a fool may just be naive.

However, after the majority guilty verdict Judge McCreath went for broke. After all what better way to put someone away for an indefinite period and completely discredit them than to get them sectioned under the Mental Health Act ?

He told Mr Shrimpton;

‘The sentence that I pass upon you will have to reflect that gravity of the conduct of which you have been convicted.

‘But if, as may be the case, there is some underlying reason for it, then it seems to me important that I be informed of that underlying reason and I am therefore minded to order that you undergo psychiatric examination.’

Daily Mail

Above and beyond the ludicrousness of this entire trial there is one point the authorities should reflect on while they congratulate themselves on a job well done. For Mr Shrimpton did pass on the information believing that it was genuine and while the same authorities are criticising Facebook for not passing information on that might have saved Lee Rigby’s life, and while they encourage the public in general to share their suspicions and alert the authorities about possible terror threats, they’ve just convicted a man who did just that.

The fault was not with Mr Shrimpton for passing on information that he believed to be true but with the then Secretary of Defence Philip Hammond for being a complete twat and not checking Mr Shrimpton out before putting the police and security services on full alert.

Is the lesson that the public should take away from this that we are in danger of being convicted for ‘communicating false information’ if we pass on to the authorities any suspicions we believe to be well founded but turn out to be false ?

You can’t have it both ways


‘communicating false information’

What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About Media Experts

Many mainstream media websites helped a fake video go viral this month. The video showing a young Syrian boy running through sniper fire to save a little girl, was exposed as a fake when the Norwegian producer Lars Klevberg made the fact public. One of the stated aims of the Norwegian film makers was to “see how the media would respond to a fake video.” This article examines how that experiment went.The western press very quickly accepted the video as real and used it to support the US administration’s narrative on Syria. Many top US news sources began to spread the story. Even though the producer said he explicitly added big hints that the video was fake, like the children surviving multiple gun shots.

Propagating false stories on Syria, is nothing new for the western press. In the lead up to the conflict many stories were exposed as frauds, such as the Anti-government activist “Gay Girl in Damascus” which turned out to be a middle-aged American man in Scotland. Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem which was frequently interviewed by CNN was using fake gun fire and flames in his interviews.

The fake sniper video wasn’t enough to support US government narratives by itself, as the now deleted original upload didn’t suggest the identity of the snipers. So the west’s media suggested that it was Syrian military snipers that were targeting the children without any evidence. Journalists failed to mention how they reached the conclusion that an actor in Malta was shot by the Syrian military. It may be that the western press is quick to trust pro-rebel sources, as the video was uploaded by the pro-rebel Sham Times along with their own twist.

The Guardian’s headline for the video was “Syrian boy ‘saves girl from army sniper’” and the Telegraph delicately suggested the Syrian military was responsible for the fake bullets. The International Business (IB) times stated, “the snipers, who reportedly are said to be the government forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” IB Times never explicitly mentioned who reported this information. They then took it a step further and concluded the article with “the incident certainly is not the first time that Pro-Assad gunmen have targeted children”. Well it is at least not the first time the mainstream media has presented false reports as fact. In 2012, CNN claimed a bullet that killed a four year old girl in Aleppo was shot by government snipers even whilst admitting the bullet came from rebel held buildings.

Other journalists took to Twitter to make unfounded claims about army snipers targeting the boy. Vinnie O’Dowd who has done work for Channel 4 and Al Jazeera tweeted “Syrian Regime Targets kids. Liz Sly of the Washington Post tweeted incredulously that “Soldiers kept shooting” at children.

These tweets were inline with an official State Department Twitter account @ThinkAgain_DOS which blamed Assad for the fictitious bullets in the film. This casts doubt on how deeply the US administration scrutinizes information it bases it’s policy on. In 2013 they relied heavily on video footage provided by rebels to support its planned attack on Syria in the wake the Ghouta chemical attack.

Scrutinising the Scrutinisers (Experts)

1But it isn’t just the mainstream media that was easily duped by the convenient propaganda film. The video experts that were asked to scrutinise the video, failed to recognise that the video was a fraud. The Telegraph stated that upon enquiry ‘experts told them they had no reason to doubt that the video is real”. International Business Times went a step further spinning the statement to “experts told The Telegraph that they have no doubts on the authenticity of the footage.”

This is very strange since both children in the film walk away after being directly and repeatedly hit by bullets. The creators of the film said he purposely scripted this as a big hint that the video is fake. The lack of scrutiny the media experts employed suggests incompetence or the same level of bias as the media that employs them .

Heather Saul of the Independent wrote that one of the ‘Middle East experts” she showed the video to was from Human Rights Watch. Indeed, Human Rights Watch European Media Director Andrew Stroehlein, showed no doubt on the authenticity of the film when he tweeted it out to his followers. The New York based human rights organisation is not new at tweeting false information, last month they used an image of the Odessa fire, where US-backed militia’s burned thirty two people to death, as an example of ‘Putin’s repressive policies’. In 2008 Venezuela expelled two HRW staff members accused of “anti-state activities” after producing a report against the Chavez government. Guardian journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy accused HRW of using false and misleading information in the report, as well as pro-Washington bias. In 2009 HRW received financial donations from the Saudi government which may, in part, explain the anti-Syrian slant.

11HRW employed so called video expert Eliot Higgins and his colleague Daniel Kaszeta to investigate the August 21 chemical attack in Ghouta, and quickly reached the conclusion the Syrian government was behind the attack. Daniel Kaszeta was referred to as a fraud by prominent physicist and MIT Professor Theodore Postol. HRW’s CEO Kenneth Roth recently used a report by Eliot Higgins to make unfounded claims about Ukrainian rebels shooting down Malaysian flight MH17. Heather Saul did not respond to questions on whether Eliot Higgins was one of the expert she asked for advice. However the mainstream media’s most often quoted video expert, did not recognise that the video was a fraud, tweeting cautiously that he wasn’t sure if it was authentic but gave the video a reaction non the less.

However many viewers who aren’t referred to as video or Middle East experts, immediately recognised the video was a fraud and flooded social media sites Twitter and Youtube with doubts on its authenticity. If Heather Saul had used these individuals as experts rather than HRW, she would have reached the correct conclusion about the video. But perhaps it is this unbias eye that the mainstream media avoids. The vast majority of Higgin’s conclusions support US government narratives and agendas, and that’s the kind of bias the mainstream media prefers.

Blaming the Producer

Instead of humbly accepting blame for spreading disinformation, many western journalists and their experts reacted by blaming the producer of the film. The collective rage of the entire mainstream media forced the film’s producer to delete any trace of this 30,000 dollar experiment. Some journalists took to Twitter to express their rage at being exposed as easily duped by convenient propaganda.

The experts that were fooled by the video also strongly protested. HRW posted a complaint that the fake video “eroded the public trust in war reporting’, in other words blind trust in HRW analysis and war propaganda. Eliot Higgins posted an open letter to the producer of the film on his website Bellingcat, condemning the film.

GlobalPost referred to the film as ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ but not because it could be used to promote wars and make false accusations. What the real danger to the mainstream media and their experts seems to be, is that as a result of the films exposure as a fraud, future video claims may now have to be properly scrutinized and the public may not be so unquestioning in future. However it is the journalists’ lack of scrutiny that is truly what is irresponsible and dangerous. Had the director not admitted the film was fake, these journalists more than likely would have kept promoting the story as an example of Syrian Army war crimes.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:




2 Responses to “The Shrimp’s been potted, but he’s not potty. He was right.”

  1. norse kode says:

    Goto http://www.pinkindustry.wordpress and see “crackpot realist manque” for an interesting perspective on your man shrimpton a keen devotee of the israeli defence force etc and complete nutcase at best and complete rightwing disinfo extremist shill at worst.Surprised to find the Tap taking him seriously and some credible airtime.

  2. Tapestry says:

    I don’t think I’m asking anyone to take him seriously, norse code, but to ask what was going on at The Olympics. Was he warning of a real nuclear attack, or trying to create a scare of one? The fact he’s being nailed by the legal system and being assessed psychologically might suggest he was spilling truth. He’s clearly connected into the system, but he appears not to be meeting entirely with system approval. The post asks the question, not claiming to provide answers.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.