M`I 5-Pe rsecution . why th e secu rity s ervices?

[Guest fifvevmiv@yahoo.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.

 

1867