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 aren’t 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 year’s “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
You are reminded that the full story is on the World Wide Web at address;
Reply†††† by fax to†† 0171-681-1190†††††††††††††††† by email to†† email@example.com
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 we’ll 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 Ottawa’s 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.
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 -- so it would
PM: >be six men at £20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more like
PM: >£30,000 to the employer.)
PM: >So, we're talking £30,000 x 6. £180,000. plus say, £40,000 for the
PM: >supervisor. £220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved. And
PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big Boss'
PM: >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
PM: >So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than
PM: >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that makes
PM: >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter million
PM: >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 operation. At the very least, a quarter million a year - and probably much more, given the intrusive and human-resource-intensive methods employed. Times nine years. Equals well over two million pounds - and probably much, much more.
It’s wasteful for someone with my skills to be unemployed
The wastefulness of the MI5 campaign against me is not just that of futile expenditure on their side. It is also extremely wasteful for someone with my talents to be unemployed and on a disability pension. I am highly qualified in numerate disciplines, yet am unable to work, specifically because of the MI5 hate-campaign against me. It is a terrible waste of resources for a supposedly efficient economy like that of the UK to be squandering the talents of a skilled and capable worker.
I made every effort to remain in employment for as long as I could, but ultimately I was defeated by MI5’s employment of massive resources specifically targeted on my workplaces with the sole aim of seeing me evicted from those workplaces. You might expect this sort of behaviour from the Stasi or some other secret police force in a communist country where labour is cheap, and the government’s aim on seeing its citizens confined; but for a supposedly free and efficient economy like Britain’s, the wastefulness resulting both directly and indirectly from the Security Service’s activities is simply criminal, and should never be allowed.
The international dimension means the costs are multiplied many times over
For much of the last nine years I have lived abroad, and I have also visited other countries on a temporary basis at various times. Almost throughout the period of my being abroad, the British Secret Services have followed me, and attempted to institute the same conditions of harrassment as inflicted in the UK. In fact, they have expressed their intentions towards me quite explicitly; the man on the Toronto flight, saying “if he tries to run away we’ll find him”.
If the costs to MI5 of operating round-the-clock in the UK are high, their costs overseas must be astronomical. On a couple of occasions I have been abroad for only a few days, yet MI5 have gone all-out to institute regimes of harassment against me where I’ve been. For example, in 1992 I went abroad for the first time since the harassment started (apart from a couple of day-trips to Calais), to visit southern Poland. I thought MI5 would leave me alone since I was only going abroad for about ten days, and surely it would be pointless and economic insanity for them to spend money creating a presence in a distant country for a period of only a few days. Yet the harassment started on the coach from London to Dover, continued in Poland, and continued still on the coach back to England.
Quite clearly, many, many people must have been involved in the harassment on this trip to Poland in 1992. I am at a loss to understand why MI5 bothered to harass me on this trip. Did they think I might have wanted to live in Poland to escape the harassment in England? Did they want to cut off that route of escape? I have never had any intention of living there. It is clear that their harassment of me in June 1992 in Poland had nothing to do with sanity or logic. The Secret Services are sometimes laughingly called the “intelligence” services - yet the so-called “services” they provide are nothing to do with intelligent behaviour, and more to do with wasting taxpayer millions on feeding their peculiar obsessions with a “nobody from south London”.
Then they did exactly the same thing on my next trip to north-west Poland over Christmas 1995, again without reason, either reason in the sense of cause, or reason in the sense of sanity. If I were to visit Europe again, as I will this summer, they will doubtless seek to mess up my holidays yet again - and yet again, without cause, and in a manner which suggests very strongly that if the Security Services ever had any sense, then they have surely taken leave of them over the last nine years.
Four years of persecution in Canada
The persecution re-started within less than five minutes of my arrival in Canada, as documented above, and in the “frequently asked questions” article on the website. The words, “if he tries to run away we’ll find him” spoken by one of the harassers at Toronto Airport are now imprinted on my mind.
A year later I emigrated to Canada, intending to find a job and settle there, hoping that MI5’s interest in me might dim with time. I did manage to find work there, but my hopes of avoiding Security Service interest were ground into dust. As detailed above, I saw the same man in November 1996 and July 1998, both times in Ottawa. Apart from these encounters, there were numerous incidents between 1994 and 1998 of harassment, of an identical nature and in most cases using identical words to what had occurred in the UK. It became quite clear to me that the permanent surveillance and harassment operation which MI5 had subjected me to in England was being continued.
For a team of four or five men to be employed overseas must cost a lot more than if they operate in their home country. And for MI5 to continue the operation for a period of over four years, continuously, must cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds. This confirms my belief that the state is funding the campaign against me, since only a state-sponsored agency would be so wasteful of resources, over such a period of time.
Cost of MI5 “Watchers”
It is a matter of fact that the Security Service receives current annual funding of £160M. Divided by 1850 staff, works out at £86,000. But the unit annual cost of each “watcher” must be much higher than this, especially given the frequently mobile and overseas nature of their actions of the last few years. A very conservative figure might be a little over £100,000 pa for each of a team of five people, or half a million pounds per year. For nine years, so far. So the most conservative estimate of the surveillance element alone is perhaps four or five million pounds since 1990.
This guesstimate is of course theoretical - I am not privy to inside details of how MI5 split their funding. But to take some other examples, the cost of a US counter-surveillance specialist per day is USD 5,000. Even if the agents permanently assigned to me are not of this calibre - even if they employ specialists when difficult work planting bugs etc is encountered - their salary and support costs must still be very high. The individual agents are doing well for themselves as they are well-paid to exercise psychopathic instincts which in any sane society would see them in prison; but the taxpayers who must fund this terribly wasteful exercise are being “done” out of hundreds of thousands of pounds each year.
It must be emphasised that the above estimates are highly conservative. Besides the surveillance operation, it must carry a high cost in man-hours to propagate covert slanders through the population; to setup and maintain the “interactive watching” links to TV and radio stations, which these organisations continue desparately to “lie and deny”; and to induce antipathy in co-workers which would not otherwise exist.
Why they are wasting Millions of Pounds on a “Nobody from South London”
As remarked in the prologue to this article, it is really most extraordinary that the Security Service spends a chunk of its budget, every year for nine years so far, on a meaningless campaign against a “nobody from South London”. That they are spending such a large amount of money has been confirmed to me on several occasions, usually by oblique references to “it’s costing this country millions”. The supposed “logic” behind the persecution is that MI5 wish to avoid their harassment of me, and the involvement of the UK media, to be made public; yet as the reader will appreciate that is a circular argument, “they’re doing it because they want to keep it secret and avoid humiliation for themselves and their country” begs the question, “why did they start doing it in the first place?”, to which in truth I myself do not know the answer.
Plainly MI5 with its rich budget can afford half a million pounds a year to waste on a “nobody from South London”. Some time ago I was talking to a British surveillance professional on Compuserve who told me “this work costs a lot of money and is usally because the person I am following has done something (usually criminal) to warrant all this money and time being spent.” Yet in this particular case it is plainly not the “victim’s fault” that the harassment is taking place. The hate-campaign against me is completely the creation of the obsessive psychologies of the MI5 agents who have made themselves my persecutors; it is obviously a “personal” campaign for them, and for† years they misuse taxpayer funding to feed their insane, unnatural and fixated fantasies.