On 25 Jan 2007 21:24:25 GMT, MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk wrote:

Please remove alt.religion.the-last-church from your replies.
We are the victim of Martin Willett who is cross posting your
NG to ours.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>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".
>
>5323