Do not spam the newsgroups.
<iefvm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:da0711310856325548@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> MI5 are. Afraid to Admit They're Behind the Persecution
>
> MI5 have issued a formal denial of any involvement in my life. to the
> Security Service Tribunal, as you might. expect them to; but, more
> im****tantly, the persecutors have never. denied that theyre from the
> Security Service, despite several years of accusations from my corner.
on
> usenet and in faxed articles. I am. not surprised that the Security
> Service
> Tribunal found "no determination in your favour". I am however. a little
> surprised that the persecutors have refused. to confirm my
identification
> of them;. by doing so, they implicitly admit that my guess was right.
>
> "No determination. in your favour" says the Security Service Tribunal
>
> In 1997, I made a complaint to the. Security Service Tribunal, giving
only
> the bare outlines of my case. I do. not think it would have made very
much
> difference if Id made a. much more detailed complaint, since the
Tribunal
> has no ability. to perform investigatory functions. It can only ask MI5
if
> they have an interest. in a subject, to which MI5 are of course free to
be
> "economical with the. truth". A couple of months after my complaint the
> Tribunal replied. that;
>
> The Security Service Tribunal have now investigated. your complaint and
> have asked me to inform you that no determination. in your favour has
been
> made on. your complaint.
>
> Needless to say this reply didnt surprise me in the slightest. It. is a
> well established fact that the secret service. are a den of liars and
the
> Tribunal a toothless watchdog,. so to see them conforming to these
> stereotypes might be. disappointing but unsurprising.
>
> It is noteworthy that. the Tribunal never gives the plaintiff
information
> on whether the. "no determination in your favour" is because MI5 claims
to
> have no interest in him, or whether they claim their. interest is
> "justified".. In the 1997 re****t of the Security Service Commissioner he
> writes that "The ambiguity of the. terms in which the notification of
the
> Tribunals decision is expressed is. intentional", since a less ambiguous
> answer would indicate to the plaintiff whether he were indeed. under MI5
> surveillance. But I note that. the ambiguity also allows MI5 to get away
> with lying to the question of. their interest in me; they can claim to
the
> Tribunal that they have no. interest, but at a future date, when it
> becomes
> clear that they did indeed place me under surveillance and. harassment,
> they can claim their interest was "justified" - and. the Tribunal will
> presumably not admit that in their previous reply MI5 claimed. to have
no
> interest.
>
> "He doesnt. know who we are"
>
> In early January 1996 I. flew on a British Airways jet from London to
> Montreal; also present on the. plane, about three or four rows behind
me,
> were two young men,. one of them fat and voluble, the other silent. It
was
> quite clear that these two had been planted on the. aircraft to "wind me
> up". The fat youth described the town in Poland where I had. spent
> Christmas, and made some unpleasant personal slurs. against me. Most
> interestingly, he. said the words, "he doesnt know who we are".
>
> Now I find this particular form of words very interesting,. because
while
> it is not. a clear admission, it is only a half-hearted attempt at
denial
> of my guess that "they" = "MI5". Had my. guess been wrong, the fat youth
> would surely have said. so more clearly. What he was trying to do was to
> half-deny something he. knew to be true, and he was limited to making
> statements which he knew to be not false;. so he made a lukewarm denial
> which on the face of it means nothing, but. in fact acts as a
confirmation
> of my guess of who "they". are.
>
> On. one of the other occasions when I saw the persecutors in person, on
> the
> BA flight to Toronto in June 1993, one of the. group of four men said,
"if
> he tries to run away well find him". But the other three. stayed totally
> quiet and avoided eye contact. They. did so to avoid being apprehended
and
> identified - since if they. were identified, their employers would have
> been revealed, and it would become known that. it was the secret
services
> who. were behind the persecution.
>
> Why are MI5 So Afraid to. admit their involvement?
>
> If you. think about it, what has been going on in Britain for the last
> nine
> years is. simply beyond belief. The British declare themselves to be
> "decent" by definition, so when they engage in indecent activities such.
> as
> the persecution. of a mentally ill person, their decency "because were
> British" is still in the forefront of their minds, and a. process of
> mental
> doublethink kicks in,. where their antisocial and indecent activities
are
> blamed on the victim "because its. his fault were persecuting him", and
> their self-regard and self-image of decency. remains untarnished. As
> remarked in another article some time ago, this process. is basically
the
> same as a large. number of Germans employed fifty years ago against
Slavic
> "untermenschen" and. the Jewish "threat" - the Germans declared,
"Germans
> are known to be decent and the minorities are. at fault for what we do
to
> them" -. so they were able to retain the view of themselves as being
> "decent".
>
> Now suppose this entire episode had happened in some other. country. The
> British have a poor view of the French, so lets say. it had all happened
> in
> France. Suppose there was. a Frenchman, of non-French extraction, who
was
> targeted by the. French internal security apparatus, for the dubious
> amusement of French television newscasters, and tortured for. 9 years
with
> various ***ual and other verbal abuse and taunts of. "suicide". Suppose
> this all came out into the open. Naturally, the. French authorities
would
> try hard to place the. blame on their victim - and in their own country,
> through the same state-controlled media which the authorities. employ as
> instruments. of torture, their view might prevail - but what on earth
> would
> people overseas make of. their actions? Where would their "decency" be
> then?
>
> This. is why MI5 are so afraid to admit theyre behind the
> persecution. Because. if they did admit responsibility, then they would
be
> admitting that there was an action against. me - and if the truth came
> out,
> then the walls would come tumbling. down. And if the persecutors were to
> admit they were from MI5, then you can be sure I. would re****t the
> fact; and the persecutors sup****t would fall away,. among the mass media
> as
> well as among the general. public. When I started identifying MI5 as the
> persecutors in 1995. and 1996 there was a sharp reduction in media
> harassment, since people read my internet. newsgroup posts and knew I
was
> telling the truth. The persecutors cannot. deny my claim that theyre
MI5,
> because then I would re****t their denial. and they would be seen as
> liars -
> but they. cannot admit it either, as that would puncture their campaign
> against me. So they are forced to. maintain a ridiculous silence on the
> issue of their identity, in the face of vociferous accusations on.
> internet
> newsgroups and. faxed articles.
>
> Have MI5 lied to. the Home Secretary?
>
> In order for. the Security Services to bug my home, they would either
have
> needed a warrant from the Home Secretary, or they. might have instituted
> the bugging without a warrant.. Personally I think it is more likely
that
> they didnt apply for a warrant - I. cannot see any Home Secretary giving
> MI5. authority to bug a residence to allow television newscasters to
> satisfy their rather voyeuristic needs vis-a-vis one of. their
> audience. But it is. possible that the Security Service presented a
> warrant
> in some. form before a home secretary at some point in the last nine
> years,
> for telephone tapping. or surveillance of my residence, or interception
of
> postal. service.
>
> So the possibility presents itself that a Home Secretary might have.
> signed
> a warrant. presented to him based on MI5 lies. Just as MI5 lie to the
> Security Service Tribunal, so they might have. lied to a Home Secretray
> himself.. MI5 and MI6 are naturally secretive services former home
> secretary Roy Jenkins said, they. have a "secretive atmosphere
> ... secretive vis-a-vis the government as well. as [enemies]". Jenkins
> also said he "did. not form a very high regard for how they discharged
> their. duties".
>
> It was only a few years ago. that MI5 was brought into any sot the
> extraordinary. thing is that British media organisations like the state-
> and taxpayer-funded BBC. take such an active part in the MI5-inspired
> campaign of harassment. We. have after all heard of MI5 trying to bribe
> broadcast journalists; but surely there must be a substantial. number
who
> are not bought or blackmailed by. the Security Services, and who take
part
> in the "abuse. by newscasters" of their own volition? The BBC is
supposed
> to be independent of the government of the day as well as. the
> Establishment in general. While perhaps it is childish to think. that
the
> BBC is anything other than effectively state-controlled,. the degree of
> collusion between the BBC and the British Secret. Police MI5 is
something
> you would not find in many countries. Individual tele-journalists in.
> other
> countries would have enough self-esteem not to. allow themselves to be
> controlled by their secret police - seemingly, BBC. broadcasters like
> Martyn Lewis and. Nicholas Witchell have such a low opinion of their
> employing organisation that they see no. wrong in dragging the BBCs
> no-longer-good name through yet more. mud, at the mere request (whether
> sup****ted by financial or other inducements) of the. British secret
> Police,
> MI5.
>
> And when challenged, these broadcasters. LIE about their involvement,
with
> just as little shame as. MI5 themselves. The BBCs Information dept have
> said. that;
>
> "I can. assure you that the BBC would never engage in any form of
> surveillance activity such as. you describe"
>
> which is an out-and-out lie. Buerk and Lewis have themselves lied to.
> their
> colleagues. in the BBCs Information department over the "newscaster
> watching", but unsurprisingly they refuse to. put these denials in
> writing. Doubtless if the "newscaster watching" ever. comes to light,
> Buerk
> and. Lewis will then continue to lie by lying about these denials. So
much
> for the. "impartial" BBC, a nest of liars bought and paid for by the
> Security. Services!
>
> It is obvious that the persecution is at the instigation of. MI5
> themselves
> - they have read my post, and only. they have the surveillance
technology
> and media/political access.. Yet they have lied outright to the Security
> Service Tribunal.. Similarly, BBC newscasters Michael Buerk and Martyn
> Lewis. have lied to members of their own organisation. The continuing
> harassment indicates they are all petrified of this business coming. out
> into. the open. I will continue to do everything possible to ensure that
> their wrongdoing. is exposed.
>
> 3132
>
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
|
