-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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 re****ted 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 sponsor****p for these. acts of psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; sup****t 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.
169
|
