> > 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. > > 28077 > > > -- > Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service > ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------ > Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access