poprzednia
strona ------------- następna
strona From: MI5Victim[]mi5.gov.uk Subject: MI5 Persecution: MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign (7052) Date: 1 Dec 2007 12:43:37 GMT
MI5 Persecution Update: Friday 30 April, 1999
If You Intend To Reply, Please Read This
Please.... keep your response to one page!. Faxes over a page or two will
be deleted without being read.
Somewhere between 0 and 100%
The last few days there have been no clear recordable instances of
abuse. However, while travelling on the Underground, while walking around
near my home and going to friends homes, I am constantly troubled by
thoughts that those people over there might be about to get at me; that
the couple sitting in the opposite seats laughing are in fact laughing at
me; et cetera, et cetera.
A comment by a scientist to the BSE inquiry sticks in my mind. He
described the possible scale of the epidemic as "between 0% and 100%". It
might not be happening, it might not happen at all, to any discernable
degree.... or it might be total. Without clear recording, which seems to
have become impossible the last couple of weeks, there is no way of
knowing whether the harassment really is continuing, whether we have
entered a temporary hiatus, or whether perhaps it has perhaps stopped for
now.
But for the time being I think there arent any reasons to dicontinue these
faxes. I only re-started them six weeks ago in response to a resumption of
MI5 harassment; and I think I will need to be more convinced of absence of
persecution before I discontinue my complaints.
The Newscasters are still watching
In the last few weeks there have been at least a couple of fairly overt
instances of "interactive watching" by newscasters. I reported this in a
previous "MI5 Persecution Update".
These instances are really very rare compared to 1990-91, when there were
many dozens of such occurrences. Undoubtedly the reduction is due to my
practice of videotaping everything I see. Recently I had the opportunity
of showing this years "happenings" (Jon Snow/Nicholas Witchell) to my
psychiatrist, and he agreed that in both cases the newscasters were
expressing merriment without visible cause, and that objectively it might
be possible for my claims to be true - although of course other people
reported similar thoughts to him, and this thinking is usually a symptom
of illness.
Read About the MI5 Persecution on the World Wide Web
The March 1998 issue (number 42) of .net Magazine reviews the website
describing it as an "excellent site". Since August 11, 1996 over 50,000
people have browsed this website.
You are encouraged to read the web pages which include
a FAQ (frequently asked questions) section outlining the nature of the
persecutors, their methods of harassment through the media, people at work
and among the general public
an evidence section, which carries audio and video clips of media and
workplace harassment, rated according to how directly I think they refer to me
objective descriptions of the state security agencies involved
scanned texts of the complaints I have made to media and state security
agencies involved
posts which have been made to netnews over the last four years on this topic
Keith Hill MP (Labour - Streatham), my elected representative, as ever
refuses to help.
MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign
Recently I was talking to an independent observer about the nature and
purpose of the perceived campaign of persecution against me. The person I
spoke to, a highly intelligent man, said he was struck by the utter
pointlessness of the perceived campaign against me. He also said that, if
my theories were in fact true, many people would have to be involved, in
the surveillance itself, and in the technical side of the delivery of
information from my home to TV studios for example, if the "interactive
watching" were happening as described. He voiced these thoughts without
any prompting from me; but both I and other observers had arrived at
pretty much the same conclusions, some years ago.
I saw a team of four men at Toronto Airport in 1993
To carry out the surveillance alone, full-time, would employ four or five
men, or their equivalent in terms of man-hours. Each man would "work" an
eight-hour shift, so you would need at least three men doing the
surveillance, plus a connecting link / manager. An indicator that this
estimate is correct arrived in 1993, when I was accosted by one of a group
of four men at Toronto Airport; he said, laughing, "if he tries to run
away well find him". Plainly these were the men who had been involved in
the intrusive surveillance of me for the preceding three years.
On other occasions, I have seen the same man on two or three occasions. On
one such occasion, at Ottawas Civic Hospital in November 1996; he gave his
name to the doctor as "Alan Holdsworth" or some such; my hearing is not
very good sometimes and I am not sure of the surname, although I am sure
"Alan" was his first name. I saw exactly the same man again in Ottawa, at
the airport, in July 1998. Obviously, other people must be "working" with
this person; he would not be the sole agent employed in this case.
Usenet readers views on the Cost to MI5 of Running the Campaign
Here's what a couple of other people on internet newsgroups / Usenet
(uk.misc) had to say regarding the cost of running such an operation...
PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking about
PO: >would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of
PO: >people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You
PO: >must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.
and......
PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
PM: >one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
PM: >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two men,
PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in shifts From: "Robert J." <rob_33[]wp.pl> Subject: Re: kablówka: od kogo zgody dla kogo opłaty... ? Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:35:50 +0200
> Zastanawiam sie z grupka zapaencow czy by nie zrobic TV kablowej :]
Pierwsze co musisz uczynić to pozostać przedsiębiorcą telekomunikacyjnym
zarejestrowanym w IKE. Inaczej się nie da.
> W zwiazku z tym mam następujące pytanko od stronyprawnej, bo techniczna mamy
> ze tak powiem zalatwiona jakbyco :)
Tzn. jak jesteś przygotowany technicznie?
> Z tego co wiem obowiazujace prawo wymaga posiadania zgody od
> wlasciciela kanalu na jego reemisje, czyli wpuszczenie kanalu
> telewizyjnego do lokalnej kablowki. Niektorzy pewnie chca za to jakies
> oplaty,
Praktycznie każdy chce opłaty. tylko TVN, TVN 7, Polsat oraz duperele w
postaci Polsat Zdrowie oraz Uroda nie chcą ;-). Za większość programów należy
płacić.
> niektorzy z pocalowaniem w reke sie zgodza
Nie bądź następujący pewny ;-).
> wiadome jest kto jest wlascicielem np TVN oraz TVN24, ale kto jest
> wlascicielem np. Discovery,
Jeśli planujecie malutką sieć to o Discovery zapomnij. Jak nie kupisz
sprzętu od nich to będziesz płacił za min. 400 abonentów. wtedy dzierżawią
Ci odbiorniki. Discovery - 0,25 USD za abonenta, Animal Planet - 0,18 USD,
paczka Digitus (pozostałe 3 Discovery) - 0,20 USD. Pomnóż to razy 400 oraz
zobacz ;-).
> Jest gdzies jakis spis firm do ktorych mozna skierowac prosby o zgody,
> ewentualnie poznac u nich warunki finansowe reemisji programu ? :)
A jakie Cię interesują? Napisz to dam Ci adresy.
> oraz pytanie z tym zwiazane... czy kanaly FTA (Free To Air) mozna bez
> zgody reemitowac ?
Nie można. Żadnego.
> Widze ze sa ich setki (mniej oraz bardziej
> "przydatne") - czy jesli chcialbym np reemitowac jakas chinska TV, to
> musialbym miec bezposrednio od niej zgode,
Musisz.
> czy FTA oznacza
> automatycznie "a robta se z nim co chceta oraz dupy nie zawracajta"