On 31 Dec 2007 08:58:28 GMT, mfvef@yahoo.com wrote:   
      
   >   
   >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. -   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)