On 24 Nov 2007 08:05:50 GMT, MI5Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>Why do you think MI5 are responsible?
>
>The question of who is ultimately responsible for this eight-year
>harassment is one which is very difficult to answer, as the persecutors
>have never clearly made their identities known to the persecutee.
However,
>I believe I am correct in attributing the continuing victimisation to
>elements of the British Security Service MI5, and in this article, I will
>try to explain the reasons for this belief.
>
>The British internet magazine ".net" featured my website on page 17 of
>their March 1998 issue (number 42). Their review kindly describes it as
an
>"excellent site" and gives some details of what the net surfer will find
>there. Should you wish to reply to this article you can do so;
>
>"When did you first suspect MI5 were responsible?"
>
>Over Easter 1995 I went to see a local solicitor in London with a view to
>talking to the police about the harassment. Soon afterwards I did go to
my
>local police station in Clapham and spoke to an officer there. The
>solicitor made a comment which suggested to me that the persecution I had
>been experiencing may have been organised by an intelligence service.
>
>Up to this point, I did not have any clear idea as to who was behind the
>harassment. Only their agents were visible, in the media, on television
>news programmes, and on the radio; in the workplace, where things said at
>my home were repeated verbatim; and in some cases abuse in public and
>during travel, for example on the trip to Poland in June 1992 which I
have
>already described.
>
>Both from the fact that widely disparate individuals and organisations
>were employed as agents in the campaign against me, and from the fact
that
>an entity would be required to marshal their resources in the areas of
>spying on my home and giving gathered information to their agents, it was
>clear to me that a single entity was responsible for carrying out the
>campaign. Yet from June 1990 until Easter 1995 I did not have a clear
idea
>of who might be responsible. I guessed that perhaps some private
>individual or group of persons who saw themselves as my enemies had
>perhaps paid private detectives to organise the harassment.
Alternatively,
>since the campaign had started in the media, I made a far-fetched
>supposition that perhaps it was an ad-hoc group of media people who had
>set themselves up in opposition to me. After Easter 1995 I saw that these
>guesses were wrong, and I made an I believe much more accurate estimate
as
>to who my enemies really are.
>
>"Why couldn't a private group be behind the persecution?"
>
>There are several reasons why a private individual or group would not be
>behind this campaign.
>
>Quantity of resources / Money. Here is what one Usenet (internet
>newsgroup) participant had to say (several years ago) on the topic of how
>much money it would cost just to keep the surveillance going.
>
>PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
>PM: >one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
>PM: >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
>PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two men,
>PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in ****fts -- so it
would
>PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more
>like
>PM: >#30,000 to the employer.)
>PM: >
>PM: >So, we're talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
>PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved. And
>PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big Boss'
>PM: >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
>PM: >
>PM: >So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than
>PM: >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that
>makes
>PM: >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter
>million
>PM: >on you?
>
>A private individual or group would not spend over a million pounds to
>verbally torture a victim without some financial motive or gain. Private
>industry is driven by the profit motive, and there is no financial profit
>to be had from carrying out a campaign in this way. If a private
>enterprise were behind it then they would have taken direct physical
>action a long time ago.
>
>State enterprises, on the other hand, can afford to be wasteful, since
>they are funded by the taxpayer. They do not have to show a money
>profit. The employees or contractors employed by a state organisation
such
>as MI5 are driven by their own personal profit motives, to make the most
>money out of their employers for the longest period of time. MI5 is
funded
>to the tune of #150M p.a.; even a few hundred thousand a year would to
>them be affordable if their managers could convince themselves of the
>necessity of what they were doing.
>
>Quality of resources / Technical resources - electronic and other
>surveillance. In summer 1994 a reputable and competent private detective
>agency was employed to conduct a counter-surveillance sweep of my home in
>London. They charged us over #400 for this, conducted a thorough search
>for radio transmitting devices, hard-wired "probe" microphones and also
>tested the telephone line. They found nothing. This was not altogether
>surprising, since it had been made very clear to me that there were bugs
>in my home; the "buggers" would not have made this clear unless they had
>felt their bugs were of sufficient sophistication as to be safe from
>detection.
>
>But there is another lesson to be gained from the failure of the private
>detectives to find anything. The agency employed was one of the most
>reputable in London. They were employed on the principle of "setting a
>thief to catch a thief", for if the harassment were being carried out by
>private detectives, as I then believed, then surely another set of
private
>detectives would be able to find the bugs that they had planted. That
>these "private eyes" were unable to find anything, and that the harassers
>were confident that they would not be able to find any bugs, points to
the
>harassers being an order of sophistication above a private agency, and
>leads me again to believe that a state intelligence service is
responsible
>for the surveillance and harassment.
>
>Quality of resources / Technical resources - Interception of Postal
>service. In summer 1994 when I emigrated to Canada to try to escape the
>harassment, I wrote letters home to my family and friends in London.
Quite
>soon after my arrival in Canada, the harassers were able to find
precisely
>where I was staying. The only way I can see of "their" being able to find
>out my new address was by interception of my letters to the UK.
>
>Later in 1994, I conducted an experiment to see if my letters home were
>indeed being read. In a letter home I wrote of being depressed and talked
>in vague terms of suicide. I deliberately chose this topic, since I
>believed it was the outcome my harassers were trying to achieve, and that
>if they read the letter, they would "echo" its contents. Sure enough,
soon
>afterwards there were two incidents of people shouting "suicide" at me in
>public places in Canada.
>
>It is inconceivable for a private agency to have the ability to intercept
>postal mail. The state security service on the other hand is well known
to
>engage in these activities.
>
>Quality of resources / Access to Media. One of the strangest aspects of
>this case is the access "they" have to the broadcast and print media. I
>still do not understand what could persuade newscasters such as Martyn
>Lewis and Michael Buerk, who consider themselves "gentlemen", to behave
in
>an almost voyeuristic way by "peeking" into the living room of one of
>their viewers. A year ago I wrote to the BBC asking if these newscasters
>would confirm or deny the accusations made against them. The BBC replied
>that their newscasters had denied the accusations, but refused to do so
in
>writing.
>
>It is well known that MI5 have the ability to plant stories in certain
>newspapers, but convincing television newscasters to "watch" a viewer
>while they read the news would surely be very difficult for them to
>accomplish, unless they presented themselves to these journalists as
>being, for example, a group in the media who were seeing to it that I got
>my "deserved" treatment. MI5 has a history of manipulating the media, so
>it might not be too difficult for them to accomplish such a trick,
whereas
>a private group would not have this ability.
>
>"Have they ever denied that they are the Security Service?"
>
>No. Never. This is in fact the main reason why I believe "they" are MI5
>and not a privately funded group. If my guess had been wrong then I am
>sure that "they" would have crowed over my mistake, but they have never
>admitted nor denied that they are employees of MI5.
>
>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.
>
>"If MI5 were behind it, why would they wish to mask their involvement?"
>
>I have heard a number of times a belief from people in the media that it
>is they, the media people, who are behind the abuse. In spring 1994 Chris
>Tarrant the Capital Radio D.J. said sarcastically on his breakfast show,
>"You know this bloke? he says were trying to kill him. We should be done
>for attempted manslaughter". We, we, we. Tarrant thought it was a media
>conspiracy.
>
>Returning to the question of "interactive watching" by television
>newscasters, it would again be much easier for them to take part in that
>sort of activity if they convinced themselves that the surveillance and
>abuse were organised by "their own", by media people. It must be second
>nature to MI5 to mask their involvement in the matters they deal with; in
>this case, they pretend the campaign is organised by a group in the
media,
>and any journalists who suspect otherwise keep their silence.
>
>Conclusion
>
>Over the last three years I have stated with some force my belief that
MI5
>are responsible for my misfortunes. I have done so on Internet
newsgroups,
>in letters and faxes to people in politics and the media in the UK, and
in
>1997 I made a formal complaint to MI5 regarding their activities; the
>Security Service Tribunal replied in June 1997 that "no determination in
>your favour has been made on your complaint". (I believe the statement by
>the Security Service Tribunal can be disregarded, as they have never,
ever
>made a ruling in favour of a complainant.) In three years of naming MI5
as
>my oppressor "they" have never denied the charge. To me, their silence on
>this point indicates that my guess was accurate. I believe my persecutors
>stand identified. The question of why they should carry out this campaign
>is one I will try to answer in a future article.
>
>6734
Fantastic.
|
