The Big Breach (56 page)

However, by that stage the printing in Moscow was nearing completion. Despite the inevitable delays attached to book publishing - and this was no exception - Kirill Chashin had a final proof copy in his hand by January 20. A few days later he received a telephone call from Nick Fielding at The Sunday Times in London. Telling Chashin that he was disappointed to hear of the delays he asked when the books would be on general sale in Moscow. His newspaper was seeking to lift a 1996 High Court injunction against publication by them of extracts from the book; but in order to succeed they had to show that the book was already being distributed and in the public domain. He ended by asking Chashin to contact the newspaper's representative in Moscow - Mark Franchetti.

Chashin did so, and The Sunday Times journalist then arranged to collect one of the 20 proof books; the freelance photographer working for Sunday Times, Dmitri Beliakov, then went to his nearest book store,
The English Book
at
18 Kuznetsky Most Street
, paid the owner to rent the window space, put the book on display, and took pictures of it. Two days later, on January 23, the photograph was produced at the London High Court as evidence that the book was in the public domain. The court ruled that the book could be published once ‘widely available elsewhere’ which was a slightly ‘inconvenient’ result. It meant that
The Sunday Times,
which was eager to serialise the book, had to request Chashin to also authorised relevant extracts from the book to be published on the Internet at www.thebigbreach.com.

In fact it was not until February 19, 2001, that published final copies were available for actual distribution in Moscow (though less that 140 in just 2 stores), though by then
Mainstream
, a British Company, had already printed and distributed a 12,000-run paperback version of the book.

This, however, remains the original and therefore the most interesting edition of a book which the British government has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress - and at the same time discredit as worthless. There is no doubt that had it not been published in Moscow as it was it would have been unlikely to have been published at all.

As for the KGB, the arts of 'black propaganda' are better illustrated in this instance by the British, not by the Russians. Maybe they are better at it.

POSTSCRIPT

By The Author

I
n view of the considerable press comment on this book I should like to reply to some of the points raised and make clear my own position in regard to them.

1. The Guardian newspaper did not, as they claimed on January 30, 2001, refuse to serialise the book for 'ethical reasons'. In fact, after a personal visit by their journalists they, together with
Fourth Estate publishers
, offered me £100,000 for rights. They only withdrew after receiving a letter from the Treasury Solicitors, and after
Fourth Estate
had a visit from Special Branch to confiscate their computer containing the manuscript.

2. As the Russian publishers assert, they did commission a US journalist living in Washington as editor. His task as with all editors was simply to improve the readability and to make it more enjoyable. Such changes and editing affected no more than 3% of the book and in no sense altered the content or meaning of the book. The book is otherwise exactly as I wrote it save for those editing changes which I approved at all stages.

3. There were no changes of any kind introduced 'by the KGB' and the only change to the original manuscript suggested by
Serge Korovin
- the name by which I have always known Kirill Chashin - was the inclusion of the death of Sarah. For personal reasons I was reluctant to do so but Serge Korovin felt that it added a human touch.

4. In order to minimise any risk to individuals, I have not used real names where it was appropriate to do so, and to avoid compromising MI6 I have also altered the details surrounding some events. For example the trip to Russia described in the book was in fact two trips; I have also omitted details which related to them and which I judged should not be revealed. It was not, and is not my intention to reveal MI6 secrets which could be damaging to national security.

5. Otherwise the events I have described are true to the best of my knowledge. I have sworn an affidavit to that effect and this can be viewed at
http://www.thebigbreach.com/tomlinson/statement.htm

.

6. I note that MI6 now claim that this book is untrue or written by the KGB while at the same time assert that they have copyright over it. This is clearly inconsistent. It is also inconsistent with the extreme measures which they have taken to prevent its publication - 13 arrests, injunctions in six countries, and a one-year prison term.

7. I have not described events in this book, which did not happen, during my service. The article by The Times, on February 15
, relating to Obukhov partly happened during my time at MI6; the later information included in the book was not provided by 'the KGB' - as has been claimed - but was published in the Guardian. A search of the Guardian website on Obukhov's name will confirm this.

8. It was true that I was forced under duress to sign an assignment of copyright to the Crown. However, I was not paid £60,000 as reported in The Daily Telegraph, on 21
^st
January 2001, but £15,000 - in the form of a down payment of £3,000 and then £1,000 per month for one year. Although the money was paid, the Crown breached the other terms of the Agreement relating to additional support and assistance (the full copyright assignment from 1997 can be viewed on the Internet at
http://www.thebigbreach.com/tomlinson/assignment.htm

). My dispute with MI6 stems from the failure of its personnel department, and to that extent is entirely personal. I am afraid that I was not prepared to go quietly.

9. I have never passed information over to any other intelligence agency but I admit that in anger I did once say to MI6 that I had done so. I regret that. It was not true and I said it only for effect. However, I was approached by the Swiss Secret service and the German Secret Service on two separate occasions and encouraged to pass secret information over to them. On both occasions I refused to do so. Under no circumstances would I ever cooperate with a foreign intelligence service. Accordingly my book does not tell them anything they did not know already, as MI6 knows full well - it is only the public which now knows more than they otherwise would have done.

10. I hope and believe that this book has made a difference to the way in which MI6 is administered - which is the main point of it - and that in future its loyal employees will receive better treatment than I have done. I shall, however, continue my attempts to obtain justice in my own case. This book is not, therefore, the end of the story.

- * -

p.s. Christopher Andrew, who actually wrote the
Mitrokhin Archives
, charged in a newspaper column that
The Big Breach
was not well written, so we challenge anyone to compare the two books and offer a prize for anyone who actually read the
Mitrokhin Archives
cover-to-cover without having been paid to do so!

- * -