XPost: alt.sex.stories.cuckold, alt.support.skin-diseases.psoriasis,   
   alt.travel.uk.air   
   XPost: gay-net.sprachen   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)