XPost: fa.freebsd.cvs-all, alt.usenet.reposts, tw.bbs.comp.xml   
   XPost: soc.senior.issues   
      
   >Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone   
   >take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats   
   >babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?   
      
   Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would   
   appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't   
   happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity.   
      
   >>This is an agglomeration of articles and replies previously   
   >>posted to Usenet, so it's a bit hard to read. This posting   
   >>describes a campaign of character assassination initiated   
      
   >Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post.   
   >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook   
   >himself? He's certainly able to hold his own on the issue you cite.   
      
   Mine, mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top   
   of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one stone   
   at the Beck trial - they simultaneously put words into the mouth   
   of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and repeated exactly,   
   word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me.   
      
   That was the only occasion (the only one recognizable to me,   
   anyway) when they went after another target at the same time.   
   And it's quite lucky they did that - because it could give some   
   pointers to who they might be.   
      
   Presumably there are people still around who were involved in   
   that trial, and know what happened. Beck might be dead, but the   
   "witness" would still be around, as would Beck's solicitor.   
      
   >>by a group of people or agency within the UK. Although   
   >>they have never presented their identity, you can draw   
   >>your own conclusions on that point. There aren't many   
   >>people with the technical resources and contacts in   
   >>society to make feasible the sort of deliberate attack   
   >>on an individual which is described in this article.   
   >   
   >There aren't _any_ as far as I am aware.   
      
   I'm afraid there are.   
      
   >>The most disturbing part of the whole episode is the   
   >>participation of British institutions and their members, fully   
   >>comprehending what they do, in what is an act of attempted   
   >>murder against a British citizen.   
   >   
   >The whole society, in fact. From the top to the bottom. They   
   >wouldn't be trying to tell you to kill yourself by any chance,   
   >would they?   
      
   You got it. I'm a popular guy.   
      
   >>After the trial Janner said that "now he knew what it felt like   
   >>to be a victim of Beck's"; but, it wasn't Beck who set up the   
   >>attempted character assassination on Janner; the fact that they   
   >>took a side-swipe with their verbatim repetition shows   
   >>where the real source is to be found.   
   >   
   >The newspapers?   
      
   Well, your guess is as good as mine. But what newspaper would   
   send a team after someone for five years? I don't think so,   
   somehow. Of course they could, but it wouldn't be in their   
   commercial interest.   
      
   You'd have to look at a corporate entity which would indulge in   
   activity of this type, and the nature of the contacts they have   
   narrows down the search.   
      
   >>The goons behind the molestation are lower than the paedophiles   
   >>they use to convey their propaganda - they use the same   
   >>strategy of covert abuse, but there is nobody to check their   
   >>actions, or to bring these criminals to justice.   
   >   
   >Ummm.. Janner is a Barrister, a journalist who writes on a wide   
   >variety of issues, and a long-standing Labour MP. If he's unjustly   
   >smeared, he's more that capable of setting the record straight.   
      
   Janner blamed Beck for the invention. He didn't say anything about   
   it having any other origin. Even had he suspected any other source,   
   he could hardly have pointed the finger without some evidence.   
      
   >You say that the media is making similar allegations about you in   
   >relation to this issue? So, you're accused of child abuse, amd   
   >the allegation was reported in the media, I assume.   
      
   I've been accused of many things although that wasn't one of them.   
   Most of them have been yelled in my face by people on the street   
   in London at some time or other. Bit difficult to misinterpret   
   when that happens.   
      
   >What exact;y are they saying about you? (Respond here please. I'm   
   >leaving the UK tomorrow, so I can't read e-mail.)   
      
   It changes with time. Every so often, they sing a new song;   
   so at one point the allegation was homosexuality, at another   
   is was low intelligence, then it degenerated into sexual abuse.   
      
      
      
   >>They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I   
   >>was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it   
   >>was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not even communicate   
   >>what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC television,   
   >>our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital   
   >>Radio in London and on Radio 1.   
   >   
   >How do you know this? Just from what you hear on the radio?   
      
   I can't remember if this was mentioned in the "regular" posting,   
   but on a few occasions they set me up with people nearby to talk   
   about me, or more correctly, to talk about somebody who   
   (in their minds) "resembles" me, with actually naming me.   
      
   One such occasion was a coach trip to Europe in June 1992.   
   The "set up" comprised a guy talking to a vacant giggling female   
   about "this bloke", who was never named. Apparently "they"   
   (also never named) "found somebody from his school",   
   "they" "got" him at his house and at a neighbours, and at   
   a B&B where their target was for one night.   
      
   Apart from that, yeah, from "what I hear on the radio". And   
   from what I see on TV. (I wouldn't be doing my job as a   
   mentally ill person properly if the TV and radio weren't   
   talking to me, now, would I?)   
      
   >>Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united   
   >>effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit   
   >>round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones   
   >>house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and   
   >>shoving it out on the news everyday.   
   >   
   >But why would they do this? What possible reason would they have?   
      
   But why get at anybody? Victimisation is the pastime practised against   
   other people; as the scorpion said to the frog, "it's in my nature".   
      
   >Are you aware that what you describe is also a common symptom of people   
   >who are suffering from a psychiatric illness? Have you been to your   
   >doctor and told him about this?  Did he prescribe any medication?  Have   
   >you been taking it, or have you stopped?   
      
   Yes, Yes, and Yes respectively. Still taking it. Doing quite well actually.   
      
   >>This someone has nothing to do with   
   >>politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who   
   >>seems to be extremely paranoid.   
   >   
   >Usually a clinical symptom rather than proof of a conspiracy in such   
   >matters.   
      
   >>How did they do this? I'll give you an example. About a year ago,   
   >>I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other   
   >>pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking about   
   >>someone he didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're   
   >>trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)