M'I`5'Persecuti on ' M I5 a re A fraid to Admit T heyre Be hind t he Persecution

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 against me. So they are forced to maintain. a ridiculous silence on the issue of their identity, in the face of vociferous. accusations on internet newsgroups and. faxed articles. Have. MI5 lied to the Home Secretary? In order for the. Security Services to bug

vifvmf@gmail.com wrote: > from my corner on > usenet > You spamming little turd: this isn't YOUR corner on Usenet. Do us all a favour and go sit in an Oxfordshire field with a pen knife. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

On 31 Dec, 09:00, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > vif...@gmail.com wrote: > > from my corner on > > usenet > > You spamming little turd: this isn't YOUR corner on Usenet. Do us all a > favour and go sit in an Oxfordshire field with a pen knife. > A little further delving on "Mike Corley" reveals that the aforementioned turd is one "Boleslaw Tadeusz Szocik", writer of the Miracle C compiler, no less. He's all over the internet, OTC, he's not picking on us specifically; he almost googles more pages than Balmer, Jobs and Gates put together! Dissuading him with a stick with nails in the end would be too good for him.