XPost: hk.forsale, man.forsale, nyc.forsale 
 XPost: sk.forsale 
  
 Why do you think MI5 are responsible? 
  
 The question of who is ultimately responsible for this eight-year 
 harassment is one which is very difficult to answer, as the persecutors 
 have never clearly made their identities known to the persecutee. However, 
 I believe I am correct in attributing the continuing victimisation to 
 elements of the British Security Service MI5, and in this article, I will 
 try to explain the reasons for this belief. 
  
 The British internet magazine ".net" featured my website on page 17 of 
 their March 1998 issue (number 42). Their review kindly describes it as an 
 "excellent site" and gives some details of what the net surfer will find 
 there. Should you wish to reply to this article you can do so; 
  
 "When did you first suspect MI5 were responsible?" 
  
 Over Easter 1995 I went to see a local solicitor in London with a view to 
 talking to the police about the harassment. Soon afterwards I did go to my 
 local police station in Clapham and spoke to an officer there. The 
 solicitor made a comment which suggested to me that the persecution I had 
 been experiencing may have been organised by an intelligence service. 
  
 Up to this point, I did not have any clear idea as to who was behind the 
 harassment. Only their agents were visible, in the media, on television 
 news programmes, and on the radio; in the workplace, where things said at 
 my home were repeated verbatim; and in some cases abuse in public and 
 during travel, for example on the trip to Poland in June 1992 which I have 
 already described. 
  
 Both from the fact that widely disparate individuals and organisations 
 were employed as agents in the campaign against me, and from the fact that 
 an entity would be required to marshal their resources in the areas of 
 spying on my home and giving gathered information to their agents, it was 
 clear to me that a single entity was responsible for carrying out the 
 campaign. Yet from June 1990 until Easter 1995 I did not have a clear idea 
 of who might be responsible. I guessed that perhaps some private 
 individual or group of persons who saw themselves as my enemies had 
 perhaps paid private detectives to organise the harassment. Alternatively, 
 since the campaign had started in the media, I made a far-fetched 
 supposition that perhaps it was an ad-hoc group of media people who had 
 set themselves up in opposition to me. After Easter 1995 I saw that these 
 guesses were wrong, and I made an I believe much more accurate estimate as 
 to who my enemies really are. 
  
 "Why couldn't a private group be behind the persecution?" 
  
 There are several reasons why a private individual or group would not be 
 behind this campaign. 
  
 Quantity of resources / Money. Here is what one Usenet (internet 
 newsgroup) participant had to say (several years ago) on the topic of how 
 much money it would cost just to keep the surveillance going. 
  
 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? 
  
 A private individual or group would not spend over a million pounds to 
 verbally torture a victim without some financial motive or gain. Private 
 industry is driven by the profit motive, and there is no financial profit 
 to be had from carrying out a campaign in this way. If a private 
 enterprise were behind it then they would have taken direct physical 
 action a long time ago. 
  
 State enterprises, on the other hand, can afford to be wasteful, since 
 they are funded by the taxpayer. They do not have to show a money 
 profit. The employees or contractors employed by a state organisation such 
 as MI5 are driven by their own personal profit motives, to make the most 
 money out of their employers for the longest period of time. MI5 is funded 
 to the tune of #150M p.a.; even a few hundred thousand a year would to 
 them be affordable if their managers could convince themselves of the 
 necessity of what they were doing. 
  
 Quality of resources / Technical resources - electronic and other 
 surveillance. In summer 1994 a reputable and competent private detective 
 agency was employed to conduct a counter-surveillance sweep of my home in 
 London. They charged us over #400 for this, conducted a thorough search 
 for radio transmitting devices, hard-wired "probe" microphones and also 
 tested the telephone line. They found nothing. This was not altogether 
 surprising, since it had been made very clear to me that there were bugs 
 in my home; the "buggers" would not have made this clear unless they had 
 felt their bugs were of sufficient sophistication as to be safe from 
 detection. 
  
 But there is another lesson to be gained from the failure of the private 
 detectives to find anything. The agency employed was one of the most 
 reputable in London. They were employed on the principle of "setting a 
 thief to catch a thief", for if the harassment were being carried out by 
 private detectives, as I then believed, then surely another set of private 
 detectives would be able to find the bugs that they had planted. That 
 these "private eyes" were unable to find anything, and that the harassers 
 were confident that they would not be able to find any bugs, points to the 
 harassers being an order of sophistication above a private agency, and 
 leads me again to believe that a state intelligence service is responsible 
 for the surveillance and harassment. 
  
 Quality of resources / Technical resources - Interception of Postal 
 service. In summer 1994 when I emigrated to Canada to try to escape the 
 harassment, I wrote letters home to my family and friends in London. Quite 
 soon after my arrival in Canada, the harassers were able to find precisely 
 where I was staying. The only way I can see of "their" being able to find 
 out my new address was by interception of my letters to the UK. 
  
 Later in 1994, I conducted an experiment to see if my letters home were 
 indeed being read. In a letter home I wrote of being depressed and talked 
 in vague terms of suicide. I deliberately chose this topic, since I 
 believed it was the outcome my harassers were trying to achieve, and that 
 if they read the letter, they would "echo" its contents. Sure enough, soon 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)