XPost: it.tlc.hardware.nokia, alt.sex.fetish.white-mommas, alt.smokers. 
 cigars 
 XPost: rec.aviation.ultralight 
  
 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. theyre 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. 
  
 "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. Id 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. didnt 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 
 Tribunals 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 well 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 were 
 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 its his fault were 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 lets 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 theyre 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 theyre 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 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)