poprzednia
strona ------------- następna
strona From: MI5-Victim[]mi5.gov.uk Subject: MI5-Persecution: Four Years of MI5 Persecution Posts on Internet Newsgroups (20914) Date: 16 Dec 2007 15:28:52 GMT
Four Years of "MI5 Persecution" Posts on Internet Newsgroups
For approximately the first three years of the MI5 persecution, from June
1990 until late 1992, I kept as quiet as possible, in the hope that by not
reacting, MI5s interest in me would decrease and they would simply go away
of their own accord. This is the sort of behaviour some people employ
against bullies; if the bullies arent getting a reaction, then they might
simply go away and victimize someone else.
Unfortunately, this tactic didnt work. The quieter I became, the more
shrill and hysterical the noise from the Security Service operatives. For
about two years I didnt watch TV news at all. Yet this only heightened
their obsessed fixation; they continued to follow me wherever I went, they
continued to induce harassment at work by managers and fellow workers, and
they continued to encourage me to commit suicide. They seemed to regard my
refusal to react as a crime which they would have to "put right" by ever
more extreme forms of abuse.
Finally, in 1995, I changed tactics radically. Since late 1994 I had had
accounts with internet providers in Ontario, Canada. I discovered the
cornucopia of internet newsgroups, on every topic from consumer
electronics, to politics and legal topics, and I discovered online
services such as Compuserve and AOL. In May 1995, I made the first posting
to the conspiracy newsgroup, on the subject of "BBCs Hidden Shame".
BBC's Hidden Shame
The internet newsgroup discussion, which has now reached its fourth
anniversary, started with an article in alt.conspiracy, which I reproduce
here.
Remember the two-way televisions in George Orwell's 1984? The ones which watched you
back? Which you could never get rid of, only the sound could be turned down?
Well the country which brought Orwell into the world has made his nightmare follow into
the world after him. Since 1990 the British have been waging war against one of their
own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy and a campaign of abuse in the
transmitted media in their efforts to humiliate their "victim".
And the most remarkable thing about it is that what they do is not even illegal - the
UK has no laws to protect the privacy of its citizens, nor does it proscribe harassment
or abuse except in the case of racial abuse.
A lot of people in England know this to be going on, yet so far they have maintained
perfect "omerta"; not a sound, not a squeak has escaped into the English press, and for
all the covert harassment absolutely nothing has come out into the public domain.
Have the British gone mad? I think we should be told
At this point, I did not name MI5 as my persecutors. I was still unsure
that they were the ones responsible for the "psychological terrorism". In
followup posts however I did name them; and the persecutors have never
denied the claim; so I think my guess is valid. (The Security Service
Tribunal in 1997 have said "no determination in your favour was made", but
it is a well established fact that MI5 lies routinely to the Tribunal
which has never found in favour of a plaintiff, so no conclusions can be
drawn from this.)
This first post was made to alt.conspiracy, but further posts were made to
the UK-local newsgroups, in particular uk.misc but also uk.legal and
uk.politics (which is now called uk.politics.misc). Some time ago I tried
to take the battle to the Compuserve forums, UKPOLITICS (which is now
called UKCURRENT - current affairs), but my articles were censored by the
forum operators. Such censorship is impossible on the internet newsgroups.
Police Refuse to Act
I have complained several times to the Metropolitan Police, who have each
time refused to help.
From: Green
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: Why Aren't the British Police Doing Their
Job?
Reply-To: Green@guidion.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun Apr 7 21:13:30 1996
In article
bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>Last Easter (1995) I went into the local police station in London and spoke to
>an officer about the harassment against me. But I couldn't provide tangible
>evidence; what people said, in many cases years ago, is beyond proof, and
>without something to support my statements I cannot expect a police officer to
>take the complaint seriously.
This in itself dos not suggest that the police have it in for you. The old bill
operates on extremely tight spending limits forced on them by that pillock Michael
Howard, and without evidence, they often have higher priorities than chasing something
that cannot go to court.
I doubt that the police are actually being leant on, but they probably realise that if
they looked into this, they would be leant on hard. The met always stays away from
anything that looks like it has Defence, Security or secret service interest already,
because they realise that they are below these government agencies in the general
pecking order.
If I walked into my local nick and complained that MI5 were snooping on me, they would
show me the door without even looking at my evidence, because that bored desk seargant
with only five years to go before he retires doesn't want to start fucking about with
somebody who has incurred the wrath of Stella Rimington. He would rather deal with the
lost dogs and driving licence producers, eat his cheese and pickle sandwiches and piss
off home at the end of his shift than have some high ranking spook having a go at his
boss and getting him a bollocking.
In short, you have earned much sympathy but little surprise. Just remember that saying
about the enemy of your enemies.
Most recently, I wrote in March 1999 to Charing Cross Police Station
CID. They did not acknowledge or reply to my letter. When I phoned them
up, the detective Id written to treated me to a sadly not unusual display
of police bigotry, with an uneducated rant about "your paranoid rubbish".
It would be nice to think that such uneducated bigotry is something other
than wholly typical of police behaviour, but unfortunately that is an
illusion that is rapidly dispelled.
Uncorruptible Jon Snow of Channel Four News
From previous articles the reader will know what I think Jon Snow has
recently been watching me while he reads Channel Four News in the
evening. Recently I digitized a few moments of one such broadcast, where
his face twists into a smile, without there being anything in the news
broadcast to cause merriment. Here is a usenet post from some time ago on
MI5s "bought and paid for" tools in the so-called "free" press.
Peter Harding (harding@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: I was at speakers' corner on Sunday. There was one chap who was bellowing
: about something or other, I don't know what, but one thing he said to
: someone caught my ear:
: "BBC, MI5, same thing."
Can't disagree with that sentiment.
Wasn't it documented that MI5 sometimes "bought" journalists and broadcasters?
I remember reading a report by some jouralist who had been offered an extra
tax-free income by MI5 to become their covert mouthpiece, and had refused.
..............................................................................
> : >mouthpiece, and had refused.
> :
> : It was Jon Snow of Channel 4.
>
> Was it reported in any of the papers?
It has been reported several times. The most recent was in Private Eye,
a few months back. As I recall they also wanted information from him;
journalists would be a natural choice for members of the Security Service
and the Secret Intelligence Service for information sources.
> It might be interesting to see what he had to say regarding their
> attempt to recruit him.
He was most concerned that many others would have accepted such an
offer. However, we can probably make an educated guess as to some of
those who accepted: Nigel West (Rupert Allason, MP) and Chapman Pincher
would come near to the top of the list.
--
/ David Boothroyd. Socialist and election analyst. Omne ignotum pro
magnifico.
British Elections and Politics at
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 272, L Dem 25, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4. Government majority = 1. Telephone Tate 6125.
Corrupt Security Service agents steal millions from taxpayers
Money is of course a factor in the grand equation which is the MI5
persecution. It costs money for the Security Service to "buy" people in
the media etc. But that is only a small part of their expenditure of
taxpayers resources. Most of the expenditure is directly on the salaries
if the agents involved; and in this post I put forward the theory that MI5
are trying to draw out their involvement for as long as possible, very
cynically, to maximise their income and line their own pockets.
At each stage they have tried to pretend that I am something out of the ordinary.
Either I was very stupid ("he's an idiot") or very clever ("he's like a genius").
Either I was a threat to Western civilization (Levin once referred to me as the next
Hitler) or I was completely defenceless ("a soft toy").
Now, it should be obvious to any person with common-sense that I am not out of the
ordinary in any way. I have an IQ which is average for the Web, I am racially white
European, and there are plenty of other people with schizophrenia or epilepsy out there
who haven't been targeted for MI5 attention, so why me?
I think the answer is that the MI5 agents who harass me have cynically exploited the
situation by painting me as extraordinary in order to assure themselves of well-paid
employment funded by the ordinary British taxpayer. To put it bluntly, they are
stealing millions of pounds from the taxpayer to feed their own pockets.
This assertion is supported by the observation that it's the same agents who are doing
the harassment. Six months ago in a local hospital I was harassed by someone whose face
I had seen (he had stared straight at me aggressively, at the time I just thought it
was some nutter but it turns out he was one of "them") aboard a KLM flight a couple of
years ago. It's presumably been the same people most of the time. I've seen the way
contractors act when they don't want their positions terminated. Would these agents
really want to lose their well-paid employment harassing me? Presumably they are
promising their bosses a "breakthrough" (ie my demise) real-soon-now and have been for
the last seven years, while all the while these MI5 agents skim millions
off the taxpayer.
I wouldn't mind a job like that. Perhaps if I persecute myself a little bit, like
standing in front of a mirror and shouting mindless obscenities, do you reckon I'd get
a slice of the caky Service Tribunal. This year Nick Brooks, current
Tribunal Secretary, confirmed to me that he could not think of a single
case where the Tribunal had found in favour of a complainant. Here is my
usenet post from two years ago.
Subject: MI5: "It wasn't us"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
"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."
Signed ER Wilson, Tribunal Secretary
Well that's a relief then. All that spamming for nothing eh. Gaw blimey, if
they say they're not doing it then it can't be them, can it?
In a recent letter to Mr Brooks I expressed the opinion that the Tribunal
were unable to fulfil their responsibilities in the face of MI5
falsehoods. Nevertheless, I do intend to make another complaint to the
Tribunal in the near future, despite the Tribunal appearing to be a
toothless watchdog.
Discrimination against a Unit Minority
MI5 have been very clear in their instructions as to what I should
do. They have openly shouted at me the word "suicide", and also from the
other abuse it is clear that they want my existence terminated.
This point is covered in more detail in a previous article. The following
post describes the xenophobic nature of MI5s campaign against me. They
have refined their bigotry down to a unit minority, yet they make use of
the discrimination against the mentally ill which is a feature of current
British society.
iain@hotch.demon.co.uk (Iain L M Hotchkies) wrote:
>Indeed. If you've ever had a 'conversation' with someone suffering
>from florid schizophrenia, you'll know how difficult it can be to
>'argue' with them.
I don't have florid symptoms. But I'm in a difficult situation, because those
people who don't know, aren't going to believe, and those who do, they just go
along with the crowd. It's never a good idea to go against the grain, and the
grain here is defined by interests in the establishment and the media. Even
people who could say out loud what was happening won't, because then there's a
risk that they'll be seen as traitors and ostracised.
Usually this type of 'hidden abuse' is racial and targetted at a racial
minority within a country. You keep the minorities out of the good jobs, but
you don't admit discrimination exists. It happens everywhere, not just in
Britain. The persecution that is going on now is in reality a refined form of
racism. Instead of "nigger" it's "nutter", and abusing the mentally ill is
still socially acceptable today. In 50 years it might not be, but today there
isn't any social or legal sanction against it.
So really they've refined racial harassment down to a minority of one. The
words may be different, but the methods are the same.
20914
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-----From: MI5-Victim[]mi5.gov.uk Subject: MI5-Persecution: MI5 are Afraid to Admit Theyre Behind the Persecution (27463) Date: 16 Dec 2007 16:59:05 GMT
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
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
supported 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.
27463
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-----From: "Jotte" <tjp3[]WONSPAMwp.pl> Subject: Re: Urlop Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:04:50 +0100
Jest tak.
Siostra uczy angielskiego w gimnazjum.. Posiada kwalifikacje do
nauczania przedmiotu z tytulu posiadania licencjatu z ang.
Studiuje teraz na studiach uzupelniajacych z dydaktyki j. obcych.
na filologii ang.(ostatni rok) jednakże od zawsze interesowala
sie dziennikarstwem oraz w tzw miedzyczasie ukonczyla wlasnie studia
magisterskie z tego kierunku. Nie wie w każdym razie czy zaniesc ten
dyplom "derekcji", bo nie ma pewnosci czy bedzie on podstawa do
zwiekszenia wynagrodzenia z tytulu uzyskanego magistra choc nie z
docelowego kierunku , ktory ukonczy dopiero za rok.
Jakas podstawa prawna lub inna solucja przyda sie w podjeciu
decyzji zaniesienia do szkoly tegoz dyplomu z dzienikarstwa, czy
tez lepiej odczekac ten rok do otrzymania "papieru" z filologii
ang ?
bardzo dziekuje z gory za pomoc oraz pozdrawiam
VomitroN From: "arek" <armar1000[]gazeta.pl> Subject: szablon do Vulcana Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:36:52 +0200
witam
poszukuję do Vulcana "świadectwa optivum"
szablonu świadectwa MENiS-I-46-2
który pozwoli na wykonanie nadruku na normalnym
druku świadectwa do LO
te które posiadam umożliwiają na kompletny nadruk
na groliszu