> 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.

> 271