Do the balls in your eyes interpretations of what slip out of thesockets several years jail if caught when your mother's tity falls off in many cases years ago. <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > > 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. > > 2717 > > > -- > Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service > ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

The latest posting, this time from [email protected], seems to confirm the whole thing arises from trojans in computers around the world (probably) and people on these various lists should simply set their junk filters accordingly and refrain from quoting.