Newsgroup: it.discussioni.auto
Titolo: MI5 Persecution: their methods and tactics

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= MI5: methods and tactics -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
They deliberately set out to harass in a way that would resemble the
symptoms of schizophrenia, so that any report of the harassment would be
taken as indicating mental illness and "treated" accordingly. They never
show their own faces; they only work through proxies, in the media, among
the public, and by manipulating people in the workplace. Since they do not
declare their identity there is no evidence to initiate legal action
against the security services or anyone else. The only people you can
prosecute are the proxies and they will deny knowledge of any conspiracy.
By repeatedly humiliating and abusing the victim, they induced mental
illness. This is the worst form of human rights violation: making any
statement of the harassment appear to be symptomatic of the illness which
they cause through the harassment. That this can happen, and people collude
by silence, is absolutely horrifying.
From the beginning in June 1990 they set a pattern of harassment which they
have followed without change for the last six years. They  paint me as a
"threat" to which people must "react" (shades of Nazi persecution methods),
while simultaneously portraying their hate campaign on which they have
spent over a million pounds of taxpayers’ money as a "joke".
The MI5 that breaks the law with the silent complicity of the police is the
same agency that is now seeking a role in the fight against crime. Perhaps
the real joke is the proposed involvement in the implementation of justice
of an organisation which commits criminal acts with secrecy and disinterest
for the legal process.
17
-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from 
http://www.teranews.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= why the security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You may ask, why do I think the "they" referred to are the security
services? Is there any evidence that there is a single source, as opposed
to a loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many people? Even if there
is a single source, is there any evidence that "they" are professional
"buggers" as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps people working for a privately
funded organization?
a) As to the question of a single source versus something more fragmented;
it is quite obvious that there is a single source from the way the campaign
has been carried out. Since things have been repeated verbatim which were
said in my home, there must be one group which does the watching and
listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel) people have
been planted in close proximity and rehearsed in what they were to say, it
follows that someone must have done the planning for that, and again a
single source is indicated.
b) So why couldn't it be amateurs? Why couldn't it be a private
organisation, for example a private detective agency paid to manage the
campaign and undertake the technical aspects? Some detective agencies are
unscrupulous as has been proved on the occasions in the past when they've
been exposed or caught; they too can have access to the bugging technology
deployed; and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private eyes to do
their dirty work (against peace campaigners and similar enemies of the
state) on the understanding that if they were caught then they could deny
all knowledge. Why couldn't that be the case?
The main factor pointing to direct security service involvement (as opposed
to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is the breadth of their access to the media in
particular, and the fact that the television companies are so involved in
the campaign. The BBC would not directly invade someone's home themselves,
since it would not be within their remit to allocate personnel or financial
resources to do so. An organisation of their stature would not take part in
a campaign set up by private sources. The only people they would take
material from would be the security services, presumably on the assumption
that if the cat ever flew out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who would
take the consequences.
State sponsorship for these acts of psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support for over six years for a team of three or
four people would be beyond the means and will of most private sources.
The viciousness of the slanders and personal denigration also points to
MI5; they traditionally "protect" the British state from politicians of the
wrong hue by character assassination, and in this case are using their
tried and tested methods to murder with words an enemy they have invented
for themselves.
And there are precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been filmed
"at it" by an Army intelligence team which had operated in Northern
Ireland, these allegations were made by someone called Jones who had been
on the team. His statements were denied by the defence establishment who
tried to character-assassinate by describing him as the "Jones twins".
Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be ill, isn't it? Thought
only communists behaved like that?
Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone in the army who
revealed the existence of videotapes of him and Diana, and that the tapes
would be published if any attempt was made by them to resume their
association.
