Do not spam the newsgroups.
--
Teşekkürler,
Cüneyt
<mfivfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:ve0711310852495552@[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
> 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
> 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 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
> 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.
>
> 2757
>
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
|
