MI5 Persecution: Counter-surveillance sweep by Nationwide Investigations Group

From : Annonymous

Q: communications with security service tribunal in 1999 i took some more potshots at the ss-tribunal in the first half of 1999. the correspondence between myself and the tribunal secretary is detailed on this webpage. ultimately i decided not to pursue another complaint with them partly from robin ramsays advice and that of a solicitor i consulted but mostly because it was rather obvious from mr brooks replies that the tribunal has no investigative means of its own and is that useless animal a toothless watchdog. included with this first letter was a copy of the leaflet complaints about the security service. this tells you that the tribunal can order the service to end its inquiries about you; the service to destroy any records it holds about those inquiries; the quashing of a property warrant; financial compensation. yeah right. look theres a flying pig oink-flap oink-flap. my subsequent letter to nick brooks tribunal secretary dated 25 march 1999 said; dear mr brooks we spoke on the phone last week and you kindly sent a copy of the form complaints about the security service. i have a few questions which i should like to ask you before i undertake the task of making a formal complaint. as you know i made a complaint in february 1997 and in june of that year the tribunal made a bland and unsatisfactory statement that no determination in your favour has been made on your complaint. during our phone conversation i expressed the view that the tribunal was incapable of performing its functions and acts as a whitewashing body for the security service. my questions are as follows; 1has the security service tribunal ever during its existence found in favour of a compaint against mi5 2is the tribunal able to disclose whether no determination in your favour is made because mi5 claims to have no inquiries on a subject or whether it is made because mi5 admits to actions against a subject but claims justification if disclosure is not possible for individual cases then in 1997 for how many cases out of what total did mi5 claim justification 3is the tribunal able to investigate information such as british airways passenger lists given that these could conclusively prove mi5 involvement would the tribunal be forced to rely on mi5 to carry out such investigations or would it have some other means of investigating it might look slightly ridiculous for the tribunal to rely on mi5 to investigate their own misdeeds. when i made my previous complaint to the tribunal in 1997 i gave very little information as to the nature of my complaint. this time i intend to give as complete information as possible; but before i do so i would ask you to answer the questions above to outline the ground rules for a tribunal investigation and reporting of its results. yours sincerely mr brooks replied by sending me a photocopy of two pages from the 1997 report of the security service commissioner as follows. the photocopied pages from the 1997 report follow. in particular the answers the report gives to my questions are; the security service tribunal has never found in favour of a complainant; see sections 29 and 31 of the scanned report. nick brooks has confirmed orally over the phone that he has no memory of the tribunal ever finding in favour of a complainant. secondly the question of whether the tribunal is able to disclose no determination in your favour is because mi5 claims to have no inquiries on a subject or whether its because mi5 admits to having inquiries but claims they are justified. the answer to this one is in section 24 which says the ambiguity is intentional; and the tribunal will in no circumstances give an unambiguous answer of whether mi5 claims or disclaims inquiries on a subject. in section 27 of the report ss commissioner lord justice stuart-smith says the blanket denials might lead some to speculate that members of the service are carrying out operations involving unlawful interference with property such as the installation of eavesdropping equipment without first obtaining a warrant from the home secretary. he goes on to try to deny this speculation. but weve heard from peter wright that this went on all the time in the 1960s. so why wouldnt it still be happening now of course it is. the tribunal secretary had avoided answering the question from my previous letter of whether the tribunal had any independent investigative capacity. so i asked him again. dear mr brooks thank you for your letter dated 6 april enclosing an extract of the 1997 report of the security service commissioner. this answers two of the three questions asked in my letter of 25 march. the third question remains. in 1993 i travelled on a british airways flight on which there also travelled four men one of whom stared at me laughed and said if he tries to run away well find him. i took this to mean that these were the men who had been pursuing me for some time