TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


Forums >


Re: MI5-Persecution: Why do you think MI5 are responsible? (2429

Dave Onex

12/23/2007 9:03:00 AM

Have you considered prescription medications?

<MI5-Victim@mi5.gov.uk> wrote in message news:m07111611351740@4ax.com...
> 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 shifts -- 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.
> 2429
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<...
> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access