XPost: alt.astrology.scam, alt.astronomy, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.atheism.holysmoke   
      
   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   
   Ramsay's 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, there's 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;   
      
   (1)	Has the Security Service Tribunal ever during its existence found in   
   favour of a   
   compaint against MI5?   
      
   (2)	Is 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?   
      
   (3)	Is 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 it's 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 we've heard from Peter Wright that this went on all the time in the 1960s.   
   So why wouldn't 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 we'll find him". I took this to mean that these were the men who had been   
   pursuing me   
   for some time in the UK. This leads me to ask again the last question in my   
   previous letter;   
      
   (3)	Is 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.   
      
   	I would very much hope that some means is available to the Tribunal and   
   Commissioner to investigate possible MI5 malefaction, other than relying on   
   MI5 themselves.   
   When I receive an answer to this question from you, I will work to put   
   together a more   
   comprehensive and detailed complaint for the Tribunal's consideration.   
      
   			Yours sincerely,   
      
   Brooks' reply was;   
      
   Brooks doesn't want to give a direct reply to the question, since that would   
   place him in a bad light. So he gives an indirect   
   answer; the tribunal, he avoids saying, has no investigative capacity; there   
   is no mention even of any investigative capacity   
   provided by MI5 themselves; nobody can investigate anything, all the Tribunal   
   can do is ask MI5, and they, in their "Alice in   
   Wonderland" world, can redefine the truth as it pleases them, and dissemble,   
   and lie.   
      
   Before deciding not to put another formal complaint before the Tribunal, I   
   asked Robin Ramsay, editor of Lobster magazine, what   
   he thought of the idea of making a complaint to the Tribunal. He replied;   
      
   RESPONSE  Yes it is a  waste of time. They will do nothing.   
      
   In a further email he elaborated;   
      
   As for quoting me on the Security Service Tribunal - if you think my   
   comments would mean anything, feel free. The problem people have is   
   this: they almost have to go through the motions of going to the   
   Tribunal for if they don't they will always be asked, 'Why didn't you   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)