M I`5'Persecut ion my res ponse to the harassm ent

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my. response to the harassment -> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first reaction in 1990/91 was. to assume that if I broke contact then
they would not be. able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things. that have been suggested by other people; I sold my television,
stopped listening to the radio and tried to withdraw away. from the
sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more
important
things to deal with and that normal people would simply leave me. alone if
it. were made difficult for them to continue their harassment.

I reckoned without the sheer vindictiveness of. the abusers. They did not
let up but instead "got to" people around me, mainly people. at work, to
do
their. dirty work for them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe
what
he was being told, and refused. to direct me on to anyone who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed. that the GP
admitted the matter was outside his competence and suggested going to. the
police.

In the summer of 1994 we called in. counter-surveillance experts from a
private. detective agency to sweep our house and telephone for bugging
devices. They conducted a. thorough search and found nothing; but as noted
above, since the existence of surveillance was. being forced in my face by
the harassers, you would expect them to have taken the possibility of. a
counter-surveillance. sweep into account when planning the type of devices
to be. employed.

In Easter 1995 I made a complaint. to my local Police station in London,
but
the police. have not expressed any intention to do anything about the
continuing harassment. ("we're not saying it's happening and we're not
saying it. isn't happening" were the words used). I think the officer I
spoke to at Easter wasn't aware of. it happening, although other members
of
the police force obviously do. know.

From April 1995 until the present time the matter. has been discussed in a
lot of detail on. the Usenet (Internet) "uk.misc" newsgroup. That
discussion
has given birth to the article which you are now. reading. My hopes in
posting to Usenet were that wider. publicizing would discourage the
security
services from continuing their. harassment, and "draw people out" into
concurring with. the truth of what was being said. Neither of those have
followed,. but the discussion has served a purpose in allowing this
structured report to be. created.

9388

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my. response to the harassment -> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first reaction in 1990/91 was. to assume that if I broke contact then
they would not be. able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things. that have been suggested by other people; I sold my television,
stopped listening to the radio and tried to withdraw away. from the
sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more
important
things to deal with and that normal people would simply leave me. alone if
it. were made difficult for them to continue their harassment.

I reckoned without the sheer vindictiveness of. the abusers. They did not
let up but instead "got to" people around me, mainly people. at work, to
do
their. dirty work for them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe
what
he was being told, and refused. to direct me on to anyone who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed. that the GP
admitted the matter was outside his competence and suggested going to. the
police.

In the summer of 1994 we called in. counter-surveillance experts from a
private. detective agency to sweep our house and telephone for bugging
devices. They conducted a. thorough search and found nothing; but as noted
above, since the existence of surveillance was. being forced in my face by
the harassers, you would expect them to have taken the possibility of. a
counter-surveillance. sweep into account when planning the type of devices
to be. employed.

In Easter 1995 I made a complaint. to my local Police station in London,
but
the police. have not expressed any intention to do anything about the
continuing harassment. ("we're not saying it's happening and we're not
saying it. isn't happening" were the words used). I think the officer I
spoke to at Easter wasn't aware of. it happening, although other members
of
the police force obviously do. know.

From April 1995 until the present time the matter. has been discussed in a
lot of detail on. the Usenet (Internet) "uk.misc" newsgroup. That
discussion
has given birth to the article which you are now. reading. My hopes in
posting to Usenet were that wider. publicizing would discourage the
security
services from continuing their. harassment, and "draw people out" into
concurring with. the truth of what was being said. Neither of those have
followed,. but the discussion has served a purpose in allowing this
structured report to be. created.

9388

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my. response to the harassment -> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first reaction in 1990/91 was. to assume that if I broke contact then
they would not be. able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things. that have been suggested by other people; I sold my television,
stopped listening to the radio and tried to withdraw away. from the
sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more
important
things to deal with and that normal people would simply leave me. alone if
it. were made difficult for them to continue their harassment.

I reckoned without the sheer vindictiveness of. the abusers. They did not
let up but instead "got to" people around me, mainly people. at work, to
do
their. dirty work for them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe
what
he was being told, and refused. to direct me on to anyone who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed. that the GP
admitted the matter was outside his competence and suggested going to. the
police.

In the summer of 1994 we called in. counter-surveillance experts from a
private. detective agency to sweep our house and telephone for bugging
devices. They conducted a. thorough search and found nothing; but as noted
above, since the existence of surveillance was. being forced in my face by
the harassers, you would expect them to have taken the possibility of. a
counter-surveillance. sweep into account when planning the type of devices
to be. employed.

In Easter 1995 I made a complaint. to my local Police station in London,
but
the police. have not expressed any intention to do anything about the
continuing harassment. ("we're not saying it's happening and we're not
saying it. isn't happening" were the words used). I think the officer I
spoke to at Easter wasn't aware of. it happening, although other members
of
the police force obviously do. know.

From April 1995 until the present time the matter. has been discussed in a
lot of detail on. the Usenet (Internet) "uk.misc" newsgroup. That
discussion
has given birth to the article which you are now. reading. My hopes in
posting to Usenet were that wider. publicizing would discourage the
security
services from continuing their. harassment, and "draw people out" into
concurring with. the truth of what was being said. Neither of those have
followed,. but the discussion has served a purpose in allowing this
structured report to be. created.

9388