Newsgroup: it.arti.musica.metal
Titolo: MI5-Persecution: BBC Newscasters Spying on my Home (10341)

MI5 Persecution Update: Friday 13 November, 1998
If You Intend To Reply, Please Read This
If you have any questions or observations you would like to share with me,
then you are very welcome to reply to my fax number 0171-681-1190. But
please.... keep your response to one page if you can! I have had several
people faxing my article back to me, including one MP faxing back twenty
pages. I do not know if he had anything intelligent to say in his 20-page
fax because I applied judicious use of the "Delete" key on my
computer. Faxes over a page or two will be deleted without being read.
MI5 Resume Hostilities in Response to these Faxes
When I wrote last weeks "MI5 Persecution Update" I remarked how quiet my
life had become. No longer! MI5 have restarted hostilities with a
vengeance the past week, in response I believe to the faxes I have been
sending to members of the House of Commons.
On Saturday 7 November I went to Clapham Picture House cinema to see the
film "Antz" (a very enjoyable film). At the cinema, I was verbally
assaulted by a group of teenagers with the words "still crazy", repeated
about ten times. There was a film with that name showing at the cinema,
but it was clear their abuse was directed at me. I do not look ill, so why
would they pick on me? answer, the incident was set-up by the
persecutors. One of the teenagers also said to another, "I don't know what
we're laughing at".
The following day, Sunday 8/11/98, I was on my way to play squash when I
was verbally assaulted by a youth who said "it was so funny", without the
slightest trace of humour. What he meant by this phrase was that was
funny, and they were trying to humiliate me. I have heard this phrase "it
was so funny" used at me before many, many times over the last eight and
half years.
Please Encourage Keith Hill MP to Help Me
I live in a bugged house, bugged both for audio and video. My movements
are monitored by MI5. The Security Service have followed me to Canada, to
Poland and the Continent, to the States. I cannot work anywhere, not in
England, not in Canada, because MI5 will destroy whatever employment I am
able to obtain. I have asked Keith Hill MP to help me, and he has refused.
The situation is intolerable. It is Mr Hills job to help me out of this
mess. So, please, as I said in the last fax a week ago: Do not waste your
time returning multiple copies of my faxes to my fax mailbox, as some of
you have done. Instead;
Please encourage Keith Hill M.P. to help me.
I am sorry to be using this device to encourage Mr Hill to help, but I
think eight and half years are quite enough and it is time something was
done to bring this matter to a close.
MI5 Persecution : BBC Newscasters Spying on my Home
This week's topic is the quite extraordinary claim that BBC newscasters
such as Martyn Lewis and Michael Buerk have spied on my living room while
they read the news. I currently have an advert running for the next six
months in Private Eye's "Eye Say" column (at a cost of over #200) which
says,"MI5 Persecution - BBC Newscasters Spying on my Home"; the story of
my campaign in the Eye is on my Website
at; 
http://www.pair.com/spook/evidence/plaint/priveye.htm
BBCs staff magazine Ariel also ran my advert "BBC Newsreaders Spying on my
home" for one issue in the Personal category on 8/July/1997 before it was
spotted and axed by editor Robin Reynolds; please see
webpage; 
http://www.pair.com/spook/evidence/plaint/ariel.htm
Beginnings
The very first incident in the "MI5/BBC Persecution" occurred in June of
1990, when a newsreader reacted to what she saw in my living room at home
as she read the news. My mother had brought an apple for me into the room,
whereupon the newsreader smirked and giggled, apparently finding this
funny. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I carried on watching news
and other television programmes to see if presenters would show signs of
"interactive watching"; to my surprise, this happened again and
again. Unfortunately, I did not have my wits sufficiently about me to
videotape these programmes, and it is now almost impossible to obtain
recordings dating back to 1990.
Most of the "TV watching" has occurred on the news, and most of it in
summer 1990, although some as late as autumn 1993. My website has a few
extracts of what might be politicians "getting at" me, in particular John
Major and interviewer Dimbleby sharing a joke about the "Knutsford
Guardian" which is almost certainly about me.
I sold my portable TV in autumn 1990 and stopped watching television
regularly. I realise now that this may have been a mistake. What I should
have done was to watch TV and listen to the radio, but tape-record
everything and make a note of what each excerpt meant to me. I would then
be in a much stronger position as regards to evidence that I am now. That
is what I am trying to do now, but unsurprisingly the TV/radio presenters
have stopped getting at me, now they know they are being recorded.
Examples of Media Harassment
Here are a few examples which I can still remember of media harassment;
In early 1992 I was watching the BBC news with Martyn Lewis on a small
black-and-white portable television at my then home in Oxford. I threw a
term of abuse at Lewis; he flinched, then gave a grin and made a comment
from which I understood that he had been on my side, but might have
changed his mind as a result of what Id just said to him.
Victor Lewis Smith in his TV (BBC2?) program at the end of 1993, had a
taxi-driver saying, "theyre all out to get me", to which VLS replied, "but
you're quite intelligent aren't you?" (what a nice chap VLS is,
compliments no less!)
Paul Daniels the TV magician, sometime in 1990-92 (sorry I can't be more
precise but it was so long ago), made a "crying face" and put his face in
his hands, which was his way of expressing that I was frequently crying in
1990-92, and that he and other media people found my crying funny.
Kenny Everett (deceased) on some talk show, compared me to a "huge
ape" who "scratches himself"; he made some other remarks about what the
"ape" got up to which unfortunately I cant remember. (I remember that
Everetts comments were quite sympathetic and human, but were obviously
about me.)
Stephen Fry on another talkshow (Wogan I think) talking about
"masturbatory fantasies", he then referred to me with the words "you
prat"; I wonder if the studio audience knew what he was talking about and
to whom his comments were directed?
Griff Rhys Jones on Clive James' TV show, made a "lunatic face" (wide
fixed grin) to which I said to the TV that he had a "face like a horse's
arse", to which Clive James said to GRJ "did you hear that?"
Crimestoppers summer 1990, remarks by a Midlands police officer on the
programme, while Nick Ross was presenter (as far as I can remember). The
officer talked about "in car entertainment". Nick Ross said to officer,
"why don't you stop doing it?" to which he replied, "we can't while he's
like this".
BBC2 Newsnight in autumn 1993 had a piece on football hooliganism. A black
interviewee said apparently of the hooligans, but in fact of me; "they're
just idiots, carry on with the surveillance".
There was an incident with Jonathan Ross which I remember clearly; he was
on both BBC and ITV television at the same time, one (ITV I think) was
recorded, the other channel was live. Ross has a speech impediment which
causes him to pronounce his "r"s as "w". I sarcastically said something
about "Mr Woss" to the recorded channel, then turned over to where he was
live, and he repeated "Woss" with heavy emphasis and sarcasm.
On the radio, in spring 1994, Chris Tarrant made a sarcastic remark in his
morning show, saying "he says were trying to kill him, we should be done
for attempted manslaughter", to which another of the studio staff said,
"oh no, dont say that". His comment was in reply to a comparison Id made
the previous evening between my persecutors and the Polish secret police
who murdered dissidents.
Martyn Lewis Denies & Lies, But Wont in Writing
In February 1997 I wrote to BBC Viewer & Listener Correspondence and asked
them to investigate the claim that their newscasters had engaged in
"interactive watching". They replied that they had asked Martyn Lewis and
Michael Buerk whether they had engaged in such practices, and that they
had both made verbal denials to VLC, but were refusing to put their
denials in writing.
I can understand that they might think that if they were to make written
denials to me, then many other people with my condition might write to
them with similar questions. But Ive asked a couple of journalists if
theyve been writing about me, theyve made written denials, Ive believed
them, and I have not put their denials on my website because, since I
believe their denials, it would not be relevant to publish them.
To me it looks as if Lewis and Buerk are happy to lie verbally but not in
writing, because written falsehoods would place them unambiguously in the
wrong, whereas they can try to talk their way out of verbal lies if they
are ever caught, or perhaps even deny the verbal lies completely? If they
lie without shame, then why would they have any shame about future lies
about lying?
One of the strangest aspects of "TV watching" is that Buerk and Lewis have
convinced themselves that their "interactive spying" is reasonable
behaviour. Martyn Lewis thinks of himself as a "gentleman". He expressed
in 1992 that he was "on my side". If this matter ever comes out into the
open, I wonder what these newscasters will have to say for themselves, and
what the British public will make of their behaviour?
Media Persecution Evidence on my Website
You may directly access the Evidence section on my website at URL;
The category currently contains four video segments, a number of audio
files and three published articles. The first video of ITN's John Suchet
is unfortunately a mistake - after looking at it again it is obviously not
about me. The two Ken Clarke excerpts may or may not be about me; it is
funny that he should keep on harping about "paranoia" and "madness", but I
have given these ratings of only 30% certainty, as it is more likely that
they are not about me in particular, and Clarke is simply displaying the
normal prejudices against the mentally ill found in much of society.
The piece I find most interesting is the Dimbleby/John Major interview
from April 1997. I have assigned this a 90% rating. Dimbleby starts by
emphasising a report from the "Knutsford Guardian". Major recognizes
what's going on and joins in with a falsely apologetic "heaven
forfend". The emphasis is on the first syllable pronounced "nuts" in
"Knutsford", which is repeated three times. Of course this is hardly
anywhere near convincing evidence; the really clear items were all in
1990-92, and they are basically unobtainable now.
If you're reading the website, have a look at the two files from David
Hepworth's programme on GLR radio. The first one from 21/Feb/1997 has him
talking about an "embarassment" of prizes and "absolute obscene", in
reference I believe to the verbal sexual abuse that was being used against
me at the time (and which unfortunately is still current). In the second
file dated 9/May/1997 he again talks about "absolute embarrassment" of
prizes, followed by laughter. To my mind he knows I am listening to his
programme, and deliberately makes these remarks for my benefit, with very
little attempt to disguise their purpose.
Bernard Levin - "Fanatic's Fare for the Common Man"
On 21 September 1991 this article by Bernard Levin appeared in The
Times. It is reproduced in the Evidence section of the website, or may be
accessed directly at URL;
To my mind, Levin's article described the situation at the time and in
particular a recent meeting with a friend, during which I for the first
time admitted to someone other than my GP that I had been subjected to a
conspiracy of harassment over the previous year and a half.
Levin writes about a "madman running loose about London" who "bursts into
tears, and swears it is all true. And it is." I am pleased to agree with
his assertion that "it is all true" because the truth is what I presented
to my friend in September 1991 and it is what is being presented to the
readership of these articles now.
Conclusion
The harassment, in particular media persecution, was at its strongest in
1990-92. Today, I am recording everything I watch, read and listen, and
the media have pretty much given up. It is now incidents "in public" which
make up what there is of MI5s persecution. But much of the material from
1990-92 still exists in archives, although the organisations which have
those archives generally wont make the material available to the public,
for copyright and other reasons.
MI5 can no longer employ the media to persecute me, partly because
journalists now know who is behind the persecution, and also because I
would publish any instances. My mistake during 1990-92 was to not record
instances as they happened; Ive learned from that mistake, and know better
now.
10341
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ------->>>>>>
http://www.NewsDemon.com
<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

because we have had them already. But
when tradition is no longer minded; when the Pope alone is offered to us;
when he has been imposed upon; and when the true source of truth, which is
tradition, is thus excluded; and the Pope, who is its guardian, is biased;
the truth is no longer free to appear. Then, as men speak no longer of
truth, truth itself must speak to men. This is what happened in the time of
Arius. (Miracles under Diocletian and under Arius.)
833. Miracle.--The people concluded this of themselves; but if the reason of
it must be given to you...
It is unfortunate to be in exception to the rule. The same must be strict,
and opposed to exception. But yet, as it is certain that there are
exceptions to a rule, our judgment must though strict, be just.
834. John 6:26: Non quia vidisti signum, sed quia saturati estis.188
Those who follow Jesus Christ because of His miracles honour His power in
all the miracles which it produces. But those who, making profession to
follow Him because of His miracles, follow Him in fact only because He
comforts them and satisfies them with worldly blessings, discredit His
miracles, when they are opposed to their own comforts.
John 9: Non est hic homo a Deo, quia sabbatum non custodit. Alii: Quomodo
potest homo peccator haec signa facere?189
Which is the most clear?
This house is not of God; for they do not there believe that the five
propositions are in Jansenius. Others: This house is of God; for in it there
are wrought strange miracles.
Which is the most clear?
Tu quid dicis? Dico quia propheta est. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat
facere quidquam.[190]
835. In the Old Testament, when they will turn y