> 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.

> 54

> 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.

> 54