>"Harv" <hdayejr2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:4aee1671-d10a-4f9e-af50->a80c8ddc4251@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Dec 31 2007, 12:44 am, 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
>>
>> 2016
>>
>> --
>> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
>> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
>
>ping
Oh look, another oddly- and pointlessly-crossposted "tl;dr" post...not to
mention the suspiciously-spaced-as-if-to-evade-spam-fliters subject
line...
--
Rhainor
DC2.D~ Gm L~ W~ T~ Pvfwlt Sks,wk Cre Bfl A N~ M- O H--- $~ Fc/f/j R+++ Ac+
J(r~v+) S~ U* I# V Tc~[networking] E~
|
