| Subject: | M-I'5.Pe rsecution - wh y t he securi ty servic es? |
| From: | fmvfifm@lycos.com |
| Posting date: | 02-01-2008 |
| Content: | |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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.
1119
|
