Dave Milne

Precisely, and speaking as a Brit, if our government wants to waste this
useless ----er, will they please kindly get on with it.

Dave Milne, Scotland

<Thoth1126@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169777118.815128.284060@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
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 why
get 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 there
is 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

Dave Milne

Precisely, and speaking as a Brit, if our government wants to waste this
useless ----er, will they please kindly get on with it.

Dave Milne, Scotland

<Thoth1126@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169777118.815128.284060@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
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 why
get 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 there
is 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

Dave Milne

Precisely, and speaking as a Brit, if our government wants to waste this
useless ----er, will they please kindly get on with it.

Dave Milne, Scotland

<Thoth1126@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169777118.815128.284060@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
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 why
get 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 there
is 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