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 they’re 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.

 

If you wish to reply to this article......

then please include your name and fax number! I provide the means for recipients to send me their thoughts on the topics discussed, but ask that you provide me with your fax number or email address if you require a response. Also would you please send not more than one or two pages, if by fax. Thank-you!

 

               Read about the MI5 Persecution on the Web at        www.five.org.uk

 

Reply to this artice by fax to   0171-681-1190             by email to   bu765@torfree.net

 

“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 I’d 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 didn’t 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 Tribunal’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 we’ll 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 we’re 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 it’s his fault we’re 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 let’s 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 they’re 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 they’re 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 didn’t 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 sort of legal framework through the “Security Service Act 1989” which defined their role as protecting national security against “threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from activities of agents of foreign powers, and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means”. Allowing newscasters to spy on their audience is not included in the 1989 Act - and such an activity would surely be denied by any Home Secretary, if MI5 made clear the purpose of a requested warrant. Either MI5 have asked for a warrant and lied about its purpose, or they’ve been carrying on their harassment of me without any legal basis whatsoever.

 

Conversations with Anthony and his MI5 contact

For two or three years I was in regular contact on the intenet newsgroups with a person who was known to all by the pen name Anthony. He was friendly with police types and claimed to personally know a man who “has access to people inside MI5”. In 1996, he sent me the following email;

 

My man said earlier this week words to the effect that there is always a bit of truth in everything. His remark confused me. If you have any idea why MI5 or any other organisation should be interested in you then publish those facts loudly and publicly on the Internet.  Then they would have no further purpose in targeting you because your information was out in the public domain.

 

I have published the facts of newscasters “watching” me loudly and publicly - yet MI5 continue to harass me.

 

“Always a bit of truth in everything”? Well, the MI5 man said it! Truth, in Everything I have said! An unusual moment of veracity for an MI5 operative - they’re not usually given to very much veracity.

 

Home Office representative is “delighted”

My former employers at what used to be Oxford Computer Group, and is now ARIS/Oxford, knew all about the persecution, and indeed some of them took part in the harassment against me. The following email was posted by technical directory Ian C. to all employees in February 1992.

 

Date: February 11, 1992

From: IAN

Subject: Police 5

 

Said Pc Hayle "we were delighted to take advantage of the excellent training

[...snip...]

said to be "delighted". A delighted home office representative was unavailable for comment but said "unofficially we are delighted".

 

My interpretation of the final line of this email is that the Home Office “representative” was “delighted” because the security service were very happy that I was “incarcerated” in a job where they knew I was being abused by other employees, at the instigation of MI5. And the MI5/Home Office representative’s delight was well founded, because as covered in previous articles, I was indeed abused by co-workers and OCG managers for almost a year until I was forced to take time off sick. Obviously these OCG managers and fellow workers knew who was behing the persecution - hence Ian C.’s description of the “home office” source of the harassment campaign.

 

A year later I tried to challenge OCG managing director Hugh S.-W. over what had happened in 1992. He, maintaining eye contact and his usual expression of sincerity, told total and utter lies about OCG managers’ abuse of me in 1992. Plainly OCG-ARIS/Oxford fear their activities against me in 1992 being made public; they fear the truth, and they fear their cooperation with the instigators being identified.

 

Could this harassment be by Private Detectives or other MI5 proxies?

It is a matter of record that the Security Service frequently uses for its “work” semi-independent agencies such as private detective agencies staffed by former police officers or former MI5 operatives. Gary Murray in his 1993 book “Enemies of the State” describes in detail his many years working for the secret state. The main purpose of employing freelancers is to be able to disclaim them if they are caught.

 

Could this sub-contracting be how the current harassment campaign against me is conducted? On balance, I don’t think so. Certainly MI5 are employing members of the public and presumably paying them to take part in the victimisation, but I do not believe the management of the campaign is done at any level other than from within MI5 themselves. The technical resources, the “bugging and burgling” is clearly done at a level higher than even good private detectives could achieve. And the access to the media and broadcast journalists is something that could only be done by people with a plethora of media contacts, ie. only by MI5 themselves.

 

And the BBC and media deny they’re being used by MI5.....

You might expect the secret services to lie when challenged with the truth of what they are doing. After all, spies by their nature lie about their doings, and British spies are just as shabby and dirty liars as spies from any country. And you might expect British spies to systematically harass their own citizens - it happens in many other countries, British people aren’t special in any way although some of them seem to think they are, and suppression of domestic dissidents goes on in the United Kingdom just the same as everywhere else.

 

But 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 BBC’s 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 BBC’s 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 BBC’s 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!

 

Conclusion

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.