Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
WOWWWW GET THE ---- OFF THIS BOARD MAN. 6 posts of CRAP like this on a
JEEP FORUM? WTF MAN On Jan 25, 4:25 pm, ---Vic...@---.gov.uk wrote: > >Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone > >take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats > >babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would > appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't > happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity. > > >>This is an agglomeration of articles and replies previously > >>posted to Usenet, so it's a bit hard to read. This posting > >>describes a campaign of character assassination initiated > >Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post. > >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook > >himself? He's certainly able to hold his own on the issue you cite.Mine,mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top > of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one stone > at the Beck trial - they simultaneously put words into the mouth > of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and repeated exactly, > word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me. > > That was the only occasion (the only one recognizable to me, > anyway) when they went after another target at the same time. > And it's quite lucky they did that - because it could give some > pointers to who they might be. > > Presumably there are people still around who were involved in > that trial, and know what happened. Beck might be dead, but the > "witness" would still be around, as would Beck's solicitor. > > >>by a group of people or agency within the UK. Although > >>they have never presented their identity, you can draw > >>your own conclusions on that point. There aren't many > >>people with the technical resources and contacts in > >>society to make feasible the sort of deliberate attack > >>on an individual which is described in this article. > > >There aren't _any_ as far as I am aware.I'm afraid there are. > > >>The most disturbing part of the whole episode is the > >>participation of British institutions and their members, fully > >>comprehending what they do, in what is an act of attempted > >>murder against a British citizen. > > >The whole society, in fact. From the top to the bottom. They > >wouldn't be trying to tell you to kill yourself by any chance, > >would they?You got it. I'm a popular guy. > > >>After the trial Janner said that "now he knew what it felt like > >>to be a victim of Beck's"; but, it wasn't Beck who set up the > >>attempted character assassination on Janner; the fact that they > >>took a side-swipe with their verbatim repetition shows > >>where the real source is to be found. > > >The newspapers?Well, your guess is as good as mine. But what newspaper would > send a team after someone for five years? I don't think so, > somehow. Of course they could, but it wouldn't be in their > commercial interest. > > You'd have to look at a corporate entity which would indulge in > activity of this type, and the nature of the contacts they have > narrows down the search. > > >>The goons behind the molestation are lower than the paedophiles > >>they use to convey their propaganda - they use the same > >>strategy of covert abuse, but there is nobody to check their > >>actions, or to bring these criminals to justice. > > >Ummm.. Janner is a Barrister, a journalist who writes on a wide > >variety of issues, and a long-standing Labour MP. If he's unjustly > >smeared, he's more that capable of setting the record straight.Janner blamed Beck for the invention. He didn't say anything about > it having any other origin. Even had he suspected any other source, > he could hardly have pointed the finger without some evidence. > > >You say that the media is making similar allegations about you in > >relation to this issue? So, you're accused of child abuse, amd > >the allegation was reported in the media, I assume.I've been accused of many things although that wasn't one of them. > Most of them have been yelled in my face by people on the street > in London at some time or other. Bit difficult to misinterpret > when that happens. > > >What exact;y are they saying about you? (Respond here please. I'm > >leaving the UK tomorrow, so I can't read e-mail.)It changes with time. Every so often, they sing a new song; > so at one point the allegation was homosexuality, at another > is was low intelligence, then it degenerated into sexual abuse. > > <snip> > > >>They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I > >>was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it > >>was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not even communicate > >>what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC television, > >>our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital > >>Radio in London and on Radio 1. > > >How do you know this? Just from what you hear on the radio?I can't remember if this was mentioned in the "regular" posting, > but on a few occasions they set me up with people nearby to talk > about me, or more correctly, to talk about somebody who > (in their minds) "resembles" me, with actually naming me. > > One such occasion was a coach trip to Europe in June 1992. > The "set up" comprised a guy talking to a vacant giggling female > about "this bloke", who was never named. Apparently "they" > (also never named) "found somebody from his school", > "they" "got" him at his house and at a neighbours, and at > a B&B where their target was for one night. > > Apart from that, yeah, from "what I hear on the radio". And > from what I see on TV. (I wouldn't be doing my job as a > mentally ill person properly if the TV and radio weren't > talking to me, now, would I?) > > >>Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united > >>effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit > >>round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones > >>house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and > >>shoving it out on the news everyday. > > >But why would they do this? What possible reason would they have?But whyget at anybody? Victimisation is the pastime practised against > other people; as the scorpion said to the frog, "it's in my nature". > > >Are you aware that what you describe is also a common symptom of people > >who are suffering from a psychiatric illness? Have you been to your > >doctor and told him about this? Did he prescribe any medication? Have > >you been taking it, or have you stopped?Yes, Yes, and Yes respectively. Still taking it. Doing quite well actually. > > > > >>This someone has nothing to do with > >>politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who > >>seems to be extremely paranoid. > > >Usually a clinical symptom rather than proof of a conspiracy in such > >matters. > >>How did they do this? I'll give you an example. About a year ago, > >>I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other > >>pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking about > >>someone he didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're > >>trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter" > >>which mirrored something I had said a day or two before. > >>Now that got broadcast to the whole of London - if any recordings > >>are kept of the shows then it'll be there. > > >And this is supposed to mean... what? Chris Tarrant is in on this plot > >to kill you? It sure sounds like a joke to me. When you start to get > >ill, the mind often makes connections that seem logical and lucid to > >you, but do not to the rest of the world. This is one of those connections. > >They are usually known as delusions.This is the problem, and there doesn't seem to be any way around it. > If a clearly sane person reported this persecution, you might believe > him, but probably you'd tell him to go see a doctor to "verify his > sanity". If someone with the illness of which you could argue these > things to be symptomatic says these things, again, you might believe > him, but it would be unlikely - the easiest route is the one you are > taking in the above paragraph. The only way I can convince you of what > I am saying is by giving precise details of what, when, how - and for > most of that stuff is based solely on memory. > > To prove it would require an admission from somebody, or else hard > proof in the shape of physical evidence such as tape recordings. > Of course, I don't have that. > > >The idea of a "pattern", and the notion that if anyone could look > >through your eyes they would see the same thing is very indicative of > >the onset of a psychiatric illness. Schizophrenia and manic depression > >have similar symptoms. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here. > >This may be an illness and it can be managed by the use of medication. > >If it _isn't_ treated, it can lead to terrible tragic consequences.I'm quite aware what the symptoms would be, and that the reality > corresponds to those symptoms. > > But if anything, that is an argument which could convince you of > the truth of what I'm saying. If they deliberately set out to > simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia - in other words, if they > know through observation that their target is either suffering > from the illness, or is on the borderline and could be pushed in > with an appropriate stimulus, then they can feel safe in what > they do, since once you are registered as suffering from the > illness, people will assign less credibility to assertions that > persecution is based in reality. > > That this can happen, and people collude by silence, is absolutely > horrifying. It is all the more horrifying that it can happen in a > country such as Britain which has no history of repression. > Perhaps its happening in the UK is due to the arrogant assumption > of moral superiority on the part of those in the media and others > involved - we won the last war and we can keep harping on about > German and Japanese war crimes, so we can do whatever we like and > we'll be right, up to and including destroying the lives of our > citizens (as long as we're not caught doing it). > > > > >>That is the level it's at - basically they show they're listening > >>to what you're saying at home, they show they're listening to you > >>listening to them > > >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep > >one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about > >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a > >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, £30,000 a year. Two men, > >£20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in shifts -- so it would > >be six men at £20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more like > >£30,000 to the employer.) > > >So, we're talking £30,000 x 6. £180,000. plus say, £40,000 for the > >supervisor. £220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved. And > >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big Boss' > >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you. > > >So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than > >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that makes > >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter million > >on you?Those are pretty much the sort of calculations that went through my > head once I stopped to consider what it must be costing them to > run this little operation. > > The partial answer is, there have been periods when the intensity has > been greater, and times when little has happened. In fact, for much > of 1993 and the first half of 1994, very little happened. Although > I don't think that was for reasons of money - if they can tap into > the taxpayer they're not going to be short of resources, are they? > > The more complete answer is in the enormity of what they're doing. > When countries kill their own people, as a rule, they get found > out and all hell breaks loose. This isn't some para shooting > Irish teenagers in the back. This is something which permeates > English society, which they are ALL responsible for, and which > they cannot escape responsibility for. > > Relative to the cost to British pride of seeing their country > humiliated for the persecution of their own defenceless citizens, > isn't is worth the cost of four or five people to try to bring > things to a close in the manner they would wish? To the > government a million or two is quite honestly nothing - if they > can convince themselves of the necessity of what they're doing, > money is not going to be the limiting factor. > > >>What possible reason? I guess because they think it's amusing to do > >>so. > > >What? Spend a quarter mil. a year to amuse themselves? And why not > >change every now and again? Why keep watching you? (Unless you _are_ > >doing something, and I don't think you are, though you may have some > >deep, dark secret in your past.)See the above. > > ================================================== =========== > > >>I'm going to try to rationalise what you're telling us. I can think of three > >>possible explanations for what you are experiencing. > >>Another possibility is that you are developing some kind of paranoia. There's > >>no stigma attached to this; we're all paranoid to some extent, although > >>perhaps not to the extent that a doctor would call us paranoid. I think > >>paranoia is quite a straightforward explanation here - you really do believe > >>that all these things are aimed at you; you see people everywhere trying to > >>get at you. Logic suggests that this cannot really be the case. > >I think the evidence leans towards this explanation myself. Why not > >try soc.support.depression and see what some of the people there have > >to say about this? Just to get some more perspective on your perspective, > >so to speak?Sure, it "leans" towards it. But please at least admit thereis a > POSSIBILITY of it being very real. And once you've done that, can > you come up with some thoughts on methods of proof? I may be missing something > in my assessment - there may be a way of proving it, in the face of non- > cooperation from the "players". > > 5419 > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
>WOWWWW GET THE ---- OFF THIS BOARD MAN. 6 posts of CRAP like this on a
>JEEP FORUM? WTF MAN Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? Thoth1126@gmail.com wrote: c > > On Jan 25, 4:25 pm, ---Vic...@---.gov.uk wrote: >>> Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone >>> take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats >>> babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would >> appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't >> happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity. >> |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
>WOWWWW GET THE ---- OFF THIS BOARD MAN. 6 posts of CRAP like this on a
>JEEP FORUM? WTF MAN Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? Thoth1126@gmail.com wrote: c > > On Jan 25, 4:25 pm, ---Vic...@---.gov.uk wrote: >>> Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone >>> take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats >>> babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would >> appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't >> happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity. >> |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
>WOWWWW GET THE ---- OFF THIS BOARD MAN. 6 posts of CRAP like this on a
>JEEP FORUM? WTF MAN Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? Thoth1126@gmail.com wrote: c > > On Jan 25, 4:25 pm, ---Vic...@---.gov.uk wrote: >>> Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone >>> take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats >>> babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would >> appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't >> happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity. >> |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
>WOWWWW GET THE ---- OFF THIS BOARD MAN. 6 posts of CRAP like this on a
>JEEP FORUM? WTF MAN Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? Thoth1126@gmail.com wrote: c > > On Jan 25, 4:25 pm, ---Vic...@---.gov.uk wrote: >>> Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone >>> take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats >>> babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would >> appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't >> happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity. >> |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
Right click on the From: xxxxxxxxxxx in the message heading and use the
option "Create Filter from Message..." The Merg wrote: > > Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? > > -- FRH |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
Right click on the From: xxxxxxxxxxx in the message heading and use the
option "Create Filter from Message..." The Merg wrote: > > Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? > > -- FRH |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
Right click on the From: xxxxxxxxxxx in the message heading and use the
option "Create Filter from Message..." The Merg wrote: > > Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? > > -- FRH |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
Right click on the From: xxxxxxxxxxx in the message heading and use the
option "Create Filter from Message..." The Merg wrote: > > Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? > > -- FRH |
Re: MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (5419)
Done and done - thanks
Frank_v7.0 wrote: > Right click on the From: xxxxxxxxxxx in the message heading and use the > option "Create Filter from Message..." > > The Merg wrote: >> >> Speaking of which, how do I set up a killfile in thunderbird? >> >> -- ÐÏࡱá |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:13 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands