SEO

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.