<MI5-Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:m06102815442527@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -= MI5: cost of the operation -=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Here's what a couple of other people on Usenet (uk.misc) had to say
> regarding the cost of running such an operation...
> PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking
> about
> PO: >would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots
of
> PO: >people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it.
You
> PO: >must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth
it.
> PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
> PM: >one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think
about
> PM: >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
> PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two men,
> PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in ****fts -- so it
would
> PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more
> like
> PM: >#30,000 to the employer.)
> PM: >
> PM: >So, we're talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
> PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved. And
> PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big Boss'
> PM: >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
> PM: >
> PM: >So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less than
> PM: >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that
> makes
> PM: >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter
> million
> PM: >on you?
> Those are pretty much the sort of calculations that went through my head
> once I stopped to consider what it must be costing them to run this
> operation. The partial answer is, there have been periods when the
> intensity has been greater, and times when little has happened. In fact,
> for much of 1993 and the first half of 1994, very little happened.
> Although
> I don't think that was for reasons of money - if they can tap into the
> taxpayer they're not going to be short of resources, are they?
> The more complete answer is in the enormity of what they're doing.
> Relative
> to the cost to British pride of seeing their country humiliated for the
> persecution of their own citizens, isn't is worth the cost of four or
five
> people to try to bring things to a close in the manner they would wish?
To
> the government a million or two is quite honestly nothing - if they can
> convince themselves of the necessity of what they're doing, resources
will
> not be the limiting factor.
> 368
>
Again, you fail to tell us what it is you have, or know or do etc.,
which is worth that kind of money? Now fess up already!!!!! Tell us the
truth: Are you a bloke who knows who in London builds a nuclear bomb in
his
basement? Anything else wouldn't be worth the money they spend on you.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
