MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5111)

[MI5Victim@xxxxxxxxxx]

>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.

<snip>

>>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"
>>which mirrored something I had said a day or two before.
>>Now that got broadcast to the whole of London - if any recordings
>>are kept of the shows then it'll be there.
>
>And this is supposed to mean... what? Chris Tarrant is in on this plot
>to kill you? It sure sounds like a joke to me. When you start to get
>ill, the mind often makes connections that seem logical and lucid to
>you, but do not to the rest of the world. This is one of those connections.
>They are usually known as delusions.

This is the problem, and there doesn't seem to be any way around it.
If a clearly sane person reported this persecution, you might believe
him, but probably you'd tell him to go see a doctor to "verify his
sanity". If someone with the illness of which you could argue these
things to be symptomatic says these things, again, you might believe
him, but it would be unlikely - the easiest route is the one you are
taking in the above paragraph. The only way I can convince you of what
I am saying is by giving precise details of what, when, how - and for
most of that stuff is based solely on memory.

To prove it would require an admission from somebody, or else hard
proof in the shape of physical evidence such as tape recordings.
Of course, I don't have that.

>The idea of a "pattern", and the notion that if anyone could look
>through your eyes they would see the same thing is very indicative of
>the onset of a psychiatric illness. Schizophrenia and manic depression
>have similar symptoms. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here.
>This may be an illness and it can be managed by the use of medication.
>If it _isn't_ treated, it can lead to terrible tragic consequences.

I'm quite aware what the symptoms would be, and that the reality
corresponds to those symptoms.

But if anything, that is an argument which could convince you of
the truth of what I'm saying. If they deliberately set out to
simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia - in other words, if they
know through observation that their target is either suffering
from the illness, or is on the borderline and could be pushed in
with an appropriate stimulus, then they can feel safe in what
they do, since once you are registered as suffering from the
illness, people will assign less credibility to assertions that
persecution is based in reality.

That this can happen, and people collude by silence, is absolutely
horrifying. It is all the more horrifying that it can happen in a
country such as Britain which has no history of repression.
Perhaps its happening in the UK is due to the arrogant assumption
of moral superiority on the part of those in the media and others
involved - we won the last war and we can keep harping on about
German and Japanese war crimes, so we can do whatever we like and
we'll be right, up to and including destroying the lives of our
citizens (as long as we're not caught doing it).

>>That is the level it's at - basically they show they're listening
>>to what you're saying at home, they show they're listening to you
>>listening to them
>
>But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
>one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
>all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
>supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, £30,000 a year. Two men,
>£20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in shifts -- so it would
>be six men at £20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more like
>£30,000 to the employer.)
>
>So, we're talking £30,000 x 6. £180,000. plus say, £40,000 for the
>supervisor. £220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved. And
>any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big Boss'
>would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
>
>So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than
>a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that makes
>it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter million
>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 little operation.

The partial answer is, there have been periods when the intensity has
been greater, and times when little has happened. In fact, for much
of 1993 and the first half of 1994, very little happened. Although
I don't think that was for reasons of money - if they can tap into
the taxpayer they're not going to be short of resources, are they?

The more complete answer is in the enormity of what they're doing.
When countries kill their own people, as a rule, they get found
out and all hell breaks loose. This isn't some para shooting
Irish teenagers in the back. This is something which permeates
English society, which they are ALL responsible for, and which
they cannot escape responsibility for.

Relative to the cost to British pride of seeing their country
humiliated for the persecution of their own defenceless citizens,
isn't is worth the cost of four or five people to try to bring
things to a close in the manner they would wish? To the
government a million or two is quite honestly nothing - if they
can convince themselves of the necessity of what they're doing,
money is not going to be the limiting factor.

>>What possible reason? I guess because they think it's amusing to do
>>so.
>
>What? Spend a quarter mil. a year to amuse themselves? And why not
>change every now and again? Why keep watching you? (Unless you _are_
>doing something, and I don't think you are, though you may have some
>deep, dark secret in your past.)

See the above.

=============================================================

>>I'm going to try to rationalise what you're telling us. I can think of three
>>possible explanations for what you are experiencing.

>>Another possibility is that you are developing some kind of paranoia. There's
>>no stigma attached to this; we're all paranoid to some extent, although
>>perhaps not to the extent that a doctor would call us paranoid. I think
>>paranoia is quite a straightforward explanation here - you really do believe
>>that all these things are aimed at you; you see people everywhere trying to
>>get at you. Logic suggests that this cannot really be the case.

>I think the evidence leans towards this explanation myself. Why not
>try soc.support.depression and see what some of the people there have
>to say about this? Just to get some more perspective on your perspective,
>so to speak?

Sure, it "leans" towards it. But please at least admit there is a
POSSIBILITY of it being very real. And once you've done that, can
you come up with some thoughts on methods of proof? I may be missing something
in my assessment - there may be a way of proving it, in the face of non-
cooperation from the "players".

5111


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com