|
|
Posted by Bob on 12/09/07 01:04
again wrong newsgroup
<MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk> wrote in message news:m07110112444620@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>
> 7138
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|