Just FYI, with your problems, you just might want to use Ubuntu.
Just FYI
<MI5-> wrote in message news:...
>
> 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.
>
> 28377
>
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
