XPost: cam.misc, cam.transport, can.community.military 
 XPost: can.consumers 
  
 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 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)