M`I 5.Perse cution . my response to t he harassment

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= 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.

8484

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= 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.

8484

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= 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.

8484

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= 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.

8484

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.

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.

ça bosse pas trop du côté de chez joël et ses sbires
à moi, sherbrooke!!!
Mgr T.B.

ça bosse pas trop du côté de chez joël et ses sbires
à moi, sherbrooke!!!
Mgr T.B.

ça bosse pas trop du côté de chez joël et ses sbires
à moi, sherbrooke!!!
Mgr T.B.

ça bosse pas trop du côté de chez joël et ses sbires
à moi, sherbrooke!!!
Mgr T.B.