M'I-5 Perse cution ' wh y the s ecurity ser vices?

[Guest fivmfevi@gmail.com]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-=. 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.

 

1743