MI5 Persecution: MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign (6172)

[MI5Victim@xxxxxxxxxx]

MI5 Persecution Update: Friday 30 April, 1999

If You Intend To Reply, Please Read This
Please.... keep your response to one page!. Faxes over a page or two will
be deleted without being read.

Somewhere between 0 and 100%

The last few days there have been no clear recordable instances of
abuse. However, while travelling on the Underground, while walking around
near my home and going to friends homes, I am constantly troubled by
thoughts that those people over there might be about to get at me; that
the couple sitting in the opposite seats laughing are in fact laughing at
me; et cetera, et cetera.

A comment by a scientist to the BSE inquiry sticks in my mind. He
described the possible scale of the epidemic as "between 0% and 100%". It
might not be happening, it might not happen at all, to any discernable
degree.... or it might be total. Without clear recording, which seems to
have become impossible the last couple of weeks, there is no way of
knowing whether the harassment really is continuing, whether we have
entered a temporary hiatus, or whether perhaps it has perhaps stopped for
now.

But for the time being I think there arent any reasons to dicontinue these
faxes. I only re-started them six weeks ago in response to a resumption of
MI5 harassment; and I think I will need to be more convinced of absence of
persecution before I discontinue my complaints.

The Newscasters are still watching

In the last few weeks there have been at least a couple of fairly overt
instances of "interactive watching" by newscasters. I reported this in a
previous "MI5 Persecution Update".

These instances are really very rare compared to 1990-91, when there were
many dozens of such occurrences. Undoubtedly the reduction is due to my
practice of videotaping everything I see. Recently I had the opportunity
of showing this years "happenings" (Jon Snow/Nicholas Witchell) to my
psychiatrist, and he agreed that in both cases the newscasters were
expressing merriment without visible cause, and that objectively it might
be possible for my claims to be true - although of course other people
reported similar thoughts to him, and this thinking is usually a symptom
of illness.

Read About the MI5 Persecution on the World Wide Web

The March 1998 issue (number 42) of .net Magazine reviews the website
describing it as an "excellent site". Since August 11, 1996 over 50,000
people have browsed this website.

You are encouraged to read the web pages which include

a FAQ (frequently asked questions) section outlining the nature of the
persecutors, their methods of harassment through the media, people at work
and among the general public

an evidence section, which carries audio and video clips of media and
workplace harassment, rated according to how directly I think they refer to me

objective descriptions of the state security agencies involved

scanned texts of the complaints I have made to media and state security
agencies involved

posts which have been made to netnews over the last four years on this topic

Keith Hill MP (Labour - Streatham), my elected representative, as ever
refuses to help.

MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign

Recently I was talking to an independent observer about the nature and
purpose of the perceived campaign of persecution against me. The person I
spoke to, a highly intelligent man, said he was struck by the utter
pointlessness of the perceived campaign against me. He also said that, if
my theories were in fact true, many people would have to be involved, in
the surveillance itself, and in the technical side of the delivery of
information from my home to TV studios for example, if the "interactive
watching" were happening as described. He voiced these thoughts without
any prompting from me; but both I and other observers had arrived at
pretty much the same conclusions, some years ago.

I saw a team of four men at Toronto Airport in 1993

To carry out the surveillance alone, full-time, would employ four or five
men, or their equivalent in terms of man-hours. Each man would "work" an
eight-hour shift, so you would need at least three men doing the
surveillance, plus a connecting link / manager. An indicator that this
estimate is correct arrived in 1993, when I was accosted by one of a group
of four men at Toronto Airport; he said, laughing, "if he tries to run
away well find him". Plainly these were the men who had been involved in
the intrusive surveillance of me for the preceding three years.

On other occasions, I have seen the same man on two or three occasions. On
one such occasion, at Ottawas Civic Hospital in November 1996; he gave his
name to the doctor as "Alan Holdsworth" or some such; my hearing is not
very good sometimes and I am not sure of the surname, although I am sure
"Alan" was his first name. I saw exactly the same man again in Ottawa, at
the airport, in July 1998. Obviously, other people must be "working" with
this person; he would not be the sole agent employed in this case.

Usenet readers views on the Cost to MI5 of Running the Campaign

Here's what a couple of other people on internet newsgroups / Usenet
(uk.misc) had to say regarding the cost of running such an operation...

PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking about
PO: >would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of
PO: >people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You
PO: >must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.

and......

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?

Those are pretty much the sort of calculations that went through my head
once I stopped to consider what it must be costing them to run this
operation. At the very least, a quarter million a year - and probably much
more, given the intrusive and human-resource-intensive methods
employed. Times nine years. Equals well over two million pounds - and
probably much, much more.

Its wasteful for someone with my skills to be unemployed

The wastefulness of the MI5 campaign against me is not just that of futile
expenditure on their side. It is also extremely wasteful for someone with
my talents to be unemployed and on a disability pension. I am highly
qualified in numerate disciplines, yet am unable to work, specifically
because of the MI5 hate-campaign against me. It is a terrible waste of
resources for a supposedly efficient economy like that of the UK to be
squandering the talents of a skilled and capable worker.

I made every effort to remain in employment for as long as I could, but
ultimately I was defeated by MI5s employment of massive resources
specifically targeted on my workplaces with the sole aim of seeing me
evicted from those workplaces. You might expect this sort of behaviour
from the Stasi or some other secret police force in a communist country
where labour is cheap, and the governments aim on seeing its citizens
confined; but for a supposedly free and efficient economy like Britains,
the wastefulness resulting both directly and indirectly from the Security
Services activities is simply criminal, and should never be allowed.

The international dimension means the costs are multiplied many times
overoer had any sense, then they have surely taken leave of them over the
last nine years.

Four years of persecution in Canada

The persecution re-started within less than five minutes of my arrival in
Canada, as documented above, and in the "frequently asked
questions" article on the website. The words, "if he tries to run away
well find him" spoken by one of the harassers at Toronto Airport are now
imprinted on my mind.

A year later I emigrated to Canada, intending to find a job and settle
there, hoping that MI5s interest in me might dim with time. I did manage
to find work there, but my hopes of avoiding Security Service interest
were ground into dust. As detailed above, I saw the same man in November
1996 and July 1998, both times in Ottawa. Apart from these encounters,
there were numerous incidents between 1994 and 1998 of harassment, of an
identical nature and in most cases using identical words to what had
occurred in the UK. It became quite clear to me that the permanent
surveillance and harassment operation which MI5 had subjected me to in
England was being continued.

For a team of four or five men to be employed overseas must cost a lot
more than if they operate in their home country. And for MI5 to continue
the operation for a period of over four years, continuously, must cost
many hundreds of thousands of pounds. This confirms my belief that the
state is funding the campaign against mehat the Security Service receives
current annual funding of #160M. Divided by 1850 staff, works out at
#86,000. But the unit annual cost of each "watcher" must be much higher
than this, especially given the frequently mobile and overseas nature of
their actions of the last few years. A very conservative figure might be a
little over #100,000 pa for each of a team of five people, or half a
million pounds per year. For nine years, so far. So the most conservative
estimate of the surveillance element alone is perhaps four or five million
pounds since 1990.

This guesstimate is of course theoretical - I am not privy to inside
details of how MI5 split their funding. But to take some other examples,
the cost of a US counter-surveillance specialist per day is USD
5,000. Even if the agents permanently assigned to me are not of this
calibre - even if they employ specialists when difficult work planting
bugs etc is encountered - their salary and support costs must still be
very high. The individual agents are doing well for themselves as they are
well-paid to exercise psychopathic instincts which in any sane society
would see them in prison; but the taxpayers who must fund this terribly
wasteful exercise are being "done" out of hundreds of thousands of pounds
each year.

It must be emphasised that the above estimates are highly
conservative. Besides the surveillance operation, it must carry a high
cost in man-hours to propagate covert slanders through the population; to
setup and maintain the "interactive watching" links to TV and radio
stations, which these organisations continue desparately to "lie and
deny"; and to induce antipathy in co-workers which would not otherwise
exist.

Why they are wasting Millions of Pounds on a "Nobody from South London"

As remarked in the prologue to this article, it is really most
extraordinary that the Security Service spends a chunk of its budget,
every year for nine years so far, on a meaningless campaign against a
"nobody from South London". That they are spending such a large amount of
money has been confirmed to me on several occasions, usually by oblique
references to "its costing this country millions". The supposed
"logic" behind the persecution is that MI5 wish to avoid their harassment
of me, and the involvement of the UK media, to be made public; yet as the
reader will appreciate that is a circular argument, "theyre doing it
because they want to keep it secret and avoid humiliation for themselves
and their country" begs the question, "why did they start doing it in the
first place?", to which in truth I myself do not know the answer.

Plainly MI5 with its rich budget can afford half a million pounds a year
to waste on a "nobody from South London". Some time ago I was talking to a
British surveillance professional on Compuserve who told me "this work
costs a lot of money and is usally because the person I am following has
done something (usually criminal) to warrant all this money and time being
spent." Yet in this particular case it is plainly not the "victims
fault" that the harassment is taking place. The hate-campaign against me
is completely the creation of the obsessive psychologies of the MI5 agents
who have made themselves my persecutors; it is obviously a
"personal" campaign for them, and for  years they misuse taxpayer funding
to feed their insane, unnatural and fixated fantasies.

6172