On Dec 31 2007, 12:44=A0am, ifife...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
Servic=
e
> 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
become=
s
> 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" =3D "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
th=
e
> 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
nin=
e
> years is. simply beyond belief. The British declare themselves to be
> "decent" by definition, so when they. engage in indecent activities such
a=
s
> the persecution. of a mentally ill person, their decency "because were
> British" is. still in the forefront of their minds, and a process of
menta=
l
> 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 =A0to 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
i=
n
> 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
woul=
d
> 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
a=
s
> 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
interne=
t
> 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
warran=
t
> 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.
signe=
d
> 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
othe=
r
> 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
thei=
r
> 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,
Buer=
k
> 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
themselve=
s
> - 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.
>
> 2016
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> =A0 =A0 =A0 ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
ping
|
