Amateur, computer-based video editing and production

Archive for December, 2012

M,I.5'Persecut ion , wh y the securit y servic es?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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 reported 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 sponsorship for these acts of psychological. terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support 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.

567

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

M I.5'Persecuti on why th e securit y s ervices?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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 reported 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 sponsorship for these acts of. psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support 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.

567

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

M,I.5'Persecu tion har assment at wo rk

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= harassment at. work -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Once I stopped watching television and listening to. the radio at the end of
1990, "they" had to find other ways of. committing abuses. So they took what
must. be for them a tried and tested route; they get at you by subversion of
those around you. Since they wouldn’t be able to. do that with my family or
friends, that meant getting at people in. the workplace to be their
mouthpieces and. do their dirty work for them.

They supplied my employers in Oxford with details from what. was going on in
my private life, and what. I and other people had said at my home and
accommodation in. Oxford. So people at work repeated verbatim words which
had been said in my home, and repeated what I’d been. doing recently. Often
the most trivial things, the ones. from your domestic life, are the ones
which hurt most. One. manager in particular at Oxford continuously abused me
for ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing, and. threats to terminate
my employment. After ten months. I was forced to seek psychiatric help and
start taking medication, and was away. from work for two months. I spoke
later with a solicitor about what had. happened at that company; he advised
it was only possible to take action if. you had left the company as a result
of harassment, and such an action. would have to be started very soon after
leaving.

Over a year later the same manager picked on another new. worker, with even
more. serious results; that employee tried to commit suicide with an
overdose as a. result of the ill-treatment, and was forced to leave his job.
But he didn’t take action. against the company, either. Abuse at work is
comparable to that elsewhere. in that tangible evidence is difficult to
produce, and the abusers will always have. their denials ready when
challenged. And even if a court accepts what you say happened, it. still
remains. to prove that abuse causes the type of breakdown I had at the end
of 1992.. In a recent case before a British court, a former member of the
Army brought a case against others who had maltreated him. ten years
previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not
agree that depressive illness. necessarily followed, and denied justice to
the. plaintiff.

2988

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

re: MI-5

Dang.. I wish MI-5 would take this idiot out. What’s keeping them?

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (4)

ITS SECRET

SEXY GIRLS ARE IN A LOVE MOOD COME AND JOIN WITH US http://rexmier.blogspot.com/

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

our new website for intelligent people is online

http://www.cineversity.tv/
Tell us what you think. We put four months work in it. Its PHP and SQL
now. Pi-Qui

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Michael Schumacher Clone

Real Michael Schumacher standing in the shop and acts as if he is just
a clone hanging..

http://www.googlyfoogly.com/videos/Michael-Schumacher-Clone.html

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

M,I.5'Persecut ion , wh y the securit y servic es?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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 reported 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 sponsorship for these acts of psychological. terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support 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.

567

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

M I.5'Persecuti on why th e securit y s ervices?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= 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 reported 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 sponsorship for these acts of. psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support 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.

567

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

M,I.5'Persecu tion har assment at wo rk

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= harassment at. work -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Once I stopped watching television and listening to. the radio at the end of
1990, "they" had to find other ways of. committing abuses. So they took what
must. be for them a tried and tested route; they get at you by subversion of
those around you. Since they wouldn’t be able to. do that with my family or
friends, that meant getting at people in. the workplace to be their
mouthpieces and. do their dirty work for them.

They supplied my employers in Oxford with details from what. was going on in
my private life, and what. I and other people had said at my home and
accommodation in. Oxford. So people at work repeated verbatim words which
had been said in my home, and repeated what I’d been. doing recently. Often
the most trivial things, the ones. from your domestic life, are the ones
which hurt most. One. manager in particular at Oxford continuously abused me
for ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing, and. threats to terminate
my employment. After ten months. I was forced to seek psychiatric help and
start taking medication, and was away. from work for two months. I spoke
later with a solicitor about what had. happened at that company; he advised
it was only possible to take action if. you had left the company as a result
of harassment, and such an action. would have to be started very soon after
leaving.

Over a year later the same manager picked on another new. worker, with even
more. serious results; that employee tried to commit suicide with an
overdose as a. result of the ill-treatment, and was forced to leave his job.
But he didn’t take action. against the company, either. Abuse at work is
comparable to that elsewhere. in that tangible evidence is difficult to
produce, and the abusers will always have. their denials ready when
challenged. And even if a court accepts what you say happened, it. still
remains. to prove that abuse causes the type of breakdown I had at the end
of 1992.. In a recent case before a British court, a former member of the
Army brought a case against others who had maltreated him. ten years
previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not
agree that depressive illness. necessarily followed, and denied justice to
the. plaintiff.

2988

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments