> > 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 > importantly,. 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 report 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 sexual 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 report the > fact; and the persecutors support 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 report. 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 > supported 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. > > 3096 > > > -- > Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service > ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem