XPost: alt.buttered.scones, alt.ham-radio.hf, alt.nurse   
   XPost: sci.electronics   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)