Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Counter-surveillance sweep by Nationwide Investigations Group
Posted: 2007-01-04 07:39:16
Replies: 1 Views: 2424
Counter-surveillance sweep by Nationwide Investigations Group
In July 1994 the private detective agency Nationwide Investigations Group
conducted an electronic counter-surveillance
sweep of my parents home in London. They checked for radio transmitter devices,
and tested the telephone line for attached
bugs. They found nothing.
I am afraid that I was unsurprised at their not finding any evidence of covert
surveillance. It had been made very clear to me,
particularly during 1990-92, that audio, and almost certainly video,
surveillance of my parents home was taking place. But this
would not have been made quite so obvious unless the persecutors were confident
of their apparatus being undetectable using the
technology the police, or a private agency like Nationwide, would be using.
I dont know very much about the surveillance technology that has been used
against me, but I understand that devices can be built
which switch off on receiving a coded command, and may switch on again after a
counter- surveillance sweep has completed; that devices
may rapidly alter the frequency of transmission, "frequency-hopping"
devices which presumably cannot be detected in a sequential scan
of the sort employed by Nationwide; and of course "probe" microphones
can be inserted "through-the-wall", although I hesitate to
believe our neighbours would permit this.
We paid Nationwide £411.25 (including VAT) for the surveillance sweep,
which took them about an hour and a half to complete, using
a "Professional 5000 multi-scanner, CCL UHF scanner and Guideline
telephone tap detector." As I said above, I dont know very much
about these things, so I cant comment on the capabilities or otherwise of this
equipment. But clearly the "watchers" are using
technology which in 1994 was beyond the detection capabilities of a good
private detective agency.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Eye Say, and Lord Gnome Answers
Posted: 2007-01-04 11:03:26
Replies: 1 Views: 831
Eye Say, and Lord Gnome Answers
My interactions with Private Eye started in May 1995, shortly after Id started
bleating on usenet. I tried to get the Eye
interested in my case, as I thought they more than anyone have their finger on
the pulse, and would surely already know
something about my case. In my first email to them, entitled "pas de
bouteille?" (wot no bottle?), I asked if they had the
nerve to publish what was known to many thousands of people. Their email flunky
answered;
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 13:40 BST-1
From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye)
Subject: Re: pas de bouteille?
In-Reply-To: <199505102232.SAA19988@freenet.carleton.ca>
Bottle? Dunno really - but Ive passed your mail on to the Ed for his
consideration.
Steve Mann
(strobes)
==========================================================
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 12:51 BST-1
From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye)
Subject: Re: hello again
Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I cant say whether or not the Eye
will do anything with this... Im only the messenger. As the only
computer-literate peron in the Gnome organisation, I get to read all the
email and then pass it on to the Editor.
Sorry -- not very helpful, I know.
Steve Mann
(strobes)
The following year I gave PE another little prod, which yielded the following;
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:38 GMT
From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye Magazine)
Subject: Re: Previous communication
In-Reply-To: <199602102320.SAA26182@[snip]>
Sorry not to reply sooner... weve been swamped with email and I have
very little time to answer it.
However, the editor sees all the email received here and Im afraid he
hasnt expressed an interest in your story so I can only assume that he
feels it isnt for us.
Sorry.
strobes
Given that I couldnt provide the evidence to persuade the Eye of the
credibility of my claims, I did the next best thing,
which was to take out classified adverts in their "Eye Say" and
"Eye Tech" columns. My motivation for doing so is obvious;
the Eye is read both by many thousands of ordinary folk, but also makes its way
into the homes and consciousness of the UKs
political and media elite. It is also a known favourite with "Five".
What better way of taking the fight to the enemy?
The first small ad appeared on 10 Jan 1997 in issue 915 in "Eye Say".
It ran in that column on 24/1/97 and 7/2/97. On 21/2/97
it ran in "Eye Tech", and on 7/3/97 and 21/3/97 again in "Eye
Say".
I then changed the ads wording to read "BBC Newsreaders Conspiracy",
and the new wording ran in "Eye Say" from 4/4/97 issue 921,
18/4/97 to 2/5/97. The word "xenophobic" in the first advert had been
intended to convey the sense of exclusion through the bigotry
of my enemies, both on the basis of race and mental condition, but it seemed a
bit too non-specific. "BBC Newscasters Conspiracy" was
a little more immediate, although readers had to actually wade through the
website to find out what it was that the newscasters were
conspiring to do.
My next effort tried to spice up the text. "MI5/BBC Conspiracy" ran
for six issues in "Eye Say", from 5/9/97 issue 931 until 31/10/97.
I suppose there is something a little sad about somebody who knows he has
mental illness, placing adverts about a conspiracy in which
MI5s watchers enable BBC newscasters to personally and directly communicate
with him while reading the news. It is pretty sad, but
unfortunately it is also true, both in the objective reality we all inhabit, as
well as in my own mind.
There followed a hiatus of about a year until I resumed advertising on 2
October 1998. I paid over £200 for six months advertising
of the new improved text "MI5 Persecution, BBC Newscasters Spying on my
Home". This text ran from issue 960 until issue 972 (19 March
1999) in "Eye Say".
Private Eyes editor Ian Hislop denies knowing anything about my case, as the
following email illustrates.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: strobes@private-eye.co.uk (Private Eye)
Subject: Re: PLEASE ANSWER - THANK YOU
CC: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
Reply-To: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
Sorry to take so long to answer. As soon as the editor
returned from holiday Steve went away. Steve is still away
and so I am answering your letter.
I have asked the editor and he knows nothing about any
conspiracy between M15 and the BBC.
Hope this helps.
Mary Aylmer
Private Eye
I must say Im quite surprised he knows nothing; the "Eye" is usually
well clued up on whats going on.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Communications with Security Service Tribunal in 1999
Posted: 2007-01-04 18:27:59
Replies: 1 Views: 674
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;
(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 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 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 Tribunals consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Brooks reply was;
Brooks doesnt 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 dont they will always be asked, Why didnt you
go the proper authorities? (This is one of the chief functions of
the proper authorities.)
Robin Ramsay
So the sum of the various parts of this story is; DONT GO TO THE TRIBUNAL. If
you do, then MI5 will open a file on you (if you
dont have one already). Dont do as I did, do as I say. If you feel a really
deep-seated urge to complain, do so first under an
invented name, which will make you understand just how useless the Tribunal is,
how little information they provide, and how
unpleasant it is to know that you have given MI5 a reason to officially open a
file on you in their Registry.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Security Service Tribunal Denies
Posted: 2007-01-08 10:43:23
Replies: 1 Views: 1694
Security Service Tribunal Denies
In June 1997 the Security Service Tribunal wrote to me regarding the complaint
I had brought against MI5 in February. They say,
The Security Service Tribunal have now investigated your complaint and
have asked me to inform you that no determination in your favour has
been made on your complaint.
Again, I do not believe their denials. I think MI5 *has* taken the action
against me as described, and is refusing
to admit what they have done. To the best of my knowledge, the Security Service
Tribunal has *never* found in favour
of a complainant. This tends to strongly suggest that MI5 lies on a routine
basis, and the Tribunal cant fulfil its
functions in the face of Security Service falsehoods.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Dirk Gently on the Toronto Case
Posted: 2007-01-08 12:16:10
Replies: 1 Views: 1085
Dirk was on the West Coast when he got the call. An old
friend at the Toronto police department thought he would like
to fly up and take a look at a homicide which had occurred
the previous evening. He decided to skip the last day at the
World Holistics conference and take the next plane out of
San Francisco.
The flight was bad; Dirk had been hit on the back of the head
by the Newspaper trolley, the drinks trolley, the dinner trolley
and now the gift trolley. When the hostesses weren
> In article <GEVANS.95Aug14094119@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi>
gevans@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi (Gareth Evans) writes:
>
> His sysadmin is also next to useless, and has not replied to my request
or
> even acknowledged it. Maybe this person *is* a sysadmin?
>
> Hes not. It seems the public access site he uses has got no proper
> management over its users. Heres a copy of a reply I got from a
> complaint I made. [After returning every one of Corleys postings to
[snip a large pile of winging complaining drivel]
Geez what a bunch of tossers you all are - you dont like someones postings so
you try and get him evicted from the net, why not just use a kill file - you
DONT have to read his posts/threads now do you ?
Why is it the net is getting populated by the biggest bunch of self absorbed
little Hitlers ? You dont like someones posts so you bloody complain or mail
bomb them - grow up you bunch of fucking sad gits !
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Troubling Censorship Issues 20/8/95 (3071)
Posted: 2007-02-27 18:03:46
Replies: 1 Views: 2373
Fred Read (postmaster@foxhouse.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: He posts this drivel every week or so to a number of groups that
: I subscribe to and nothing seems to stop him. *ALL* of his posts
: are off topic and unwelcome to the groups he posts to.
: We have complained about him to his postmaster on at least four
: previous occasions and he still posts the same crap. As his SP
: seem unwilling, or unable, to do anything about him, we were
: windering if there was anything you could do?
If he is not actively using tactics to avoid or sabotage killfiles
(posting from various systems, forging, massive crossposting to create
cross-newsgroup flame wars) then it should be quite easy to killfile
him.
It does seem that the frequency and the size of his posts are
approaching net abuse. However, IMHO, they arent quite there yet. If
his postmaster were to act in this instance, it would raise troubling
censorship issues.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofstrom@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Adventures for those of the inadmissable kind,
with no follow through."
--- a flaming bonzo beckwithian idiot
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Options 21/9/95 (646)
Posted: 2007-06-08 12:31:37
Replies: 1 Views: 1991
From: john heelan <john@lorca.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.journalism
Subject: Re: CENSORHSIP IS IMMORAL, UNJUST AND WRONG
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 19:17:30 GMT
Organization: (Private)
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <811711050snz@lorca.demon.co.uk>
References: <DF8DMu.Dqu.0.bloor@torfree.net>
<43qpdh$iki@news3.digex.net>
Reply-To: john@lorca.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lorca.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
You have to admit that Mike is persistent and obviously feels
deeply that he is being hounded by the "Security Services"
and
there is a Conspiracy out to get him personally. If that is true,
then we should be concerned; if he is just paranoid, then we should
empathise with his sickness. What we should not do is to invite
censorship....that just could be implicitly joining in the
putative Conspiracy.
Lets look at Mikes potential options (and the alleged responses
he has received):
> 1. Complain to the Police: (their alleged response
> "Dont be silly, Sir"; Mikes rationale "They
are part
> of the Conspiracy")
>
I dont think the police as an organisation are part of it. Theyre
certainly not the source.
The officer I spoke to at Easter clearly didnt know anything about it.
And that was at my local police station in London - if anyone in the
police knew you would think the people at your local cop shop would.
A couple of years ago I had to go into the station after a motoring
infraction, the guy I spoke to then said something about "brain like a
computer sir" which my suspicions latched on to - (Im alleged to be a
programmer as some people reading this know) - but as per the usual
"can;t prove nuthin" and you ask yourself if youre just being stupid
suspecting on the basis of a straw
> 2. Complain to a Member of Parliament (Mikes rationale: "Cant
> because they are part of the Conspiracy")
>
I could do that actually. But he would probably tell me to go see the
police, for which see above.
> 3. Make it visible through the UK Press. (Mikes rationale:
> "Cant because they are part of the Conspiracy")
>
They are actually. Theres a difference though in the way journalists
react to this stuff when theyre "got to" by the security service.
This is completely giving the game away, but the trouble originally
started with my reading into stuff that was being written by Times
columnists, in particular our antagonistic friend Mr Levin.
But you see that some journalists are taking part in the conspiracy and
others are only doing it because their puppet masters have been feeding
them information which they cant allow themselves to ignore. The
security services have their hooks into the UK media, this case shows
that very explicitly. You also see how things get gradualkly wqorse with
a particular journalist; a couple of weeks ago Peter Tory in the Express
was writing about "nerds seeking their revenge on him through the
Net",
guess what that was about.
> 4. Complain to the UK Security Services. (Mikes rationale: "Cant
> because they ARE the Cnspiracy")
>
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If the fascist Gestapo bastards plot to
see you dead then whos going to deal with it? Not the security
services, thats for sure.
> 5. Make it visible through Internet: (Mike has done this
> suvccessfully; but any gainsayers are "part of the
Conspiracy".
>
I don;t think you;re part of the consipracy if you refuse to believe or
email the postmaster. Those who do know are keeping their silence.
> 6. Complain to the Canadian National and State Governments. (Has
> Mike done this yet ?)
>
No. Its a UK problem so thats where it should be dealt with. The
perpetrators are UK residents, are unidentified, and would be difficult
to deal with through the Canadian courts.
Ditto the police in Canada, ditto the press - it isnt their problem,
its caused by UK people against someone from the UK. Of course Canadian
laws are being broken relating to harassment and "stalking" which do
not
exist in the UK, but the Canadian police do not have a very good record
of enforcing those laws anyway.
> 7. Complain to the Canadian Security Services (Has Mike done this
> yet ?)
>
> 8. Complain to the Canadian Press. (Has Mike done this yet ?)
>
I think if they didnt knoiw, theyd just think you were having
delusions; and if they did, then they would side with the people with the
power, the smiling English people with their knives out.
Remember, nobody uis going to side with the person who has less power in
a copfrontation. The team over here in Canada have the resources of their
organization behind them, other broadcasters etc in the UK would have
influence with their counterparts in Canada; after all, this was once a
British colony, there is still a feeling of "looking up to" the UK
among
many Canadians, so if a team of security services arrives from the UK
with apparently limitless resources to pursue their target, people
over here will forget anything they ever knew about basic human rights
and go along with what they are told to do and how they are told to behave.
> 9. Complain to non-UK TV Watchdogs (Does Canada have an "Oprah
> Winfrey ? Has Mike done this yet ?)
>
> 10. Complain to the EC Court of Human Rights. (Has Mike done
> this yet ?)
>
> ........or...are 6,7,8,9,10 also all part of
> the Conspiracy ?
>
>
>
> --
> john heelan
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Question and Answer 27/9/95 (2160)
Posted: 2007-06-08 12:59:26
Replies: 1 Views: 785
In article <DFGxnF.Cr8.0.bloor@torfree.net>
bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>>> ##: There were also a few other things said at the trial
>>> ##: relating to this which I wont repeat here; it was in the
papers
>>> ##: at the time anyway. This quote and others said by and about
this
>>> ##: witness were repeating things that had been said by and about
>>> ##: me at around that time.
When, where and by whom ? Lets have some details
that can be checked.
Im not going to repeat them. Theyre hurtful to me because they contained abuse
that was
directed against me by someone else at the time and which got picked up and
thrown again
in the trial. It is a matter of record but I wont repeat it here.
>>> PM: >Whos character is being assassinated? It isnt clear from
the post.
>>> PM: >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a
spook
>>> PM: >himself? Hes certainly able to hold his own on the issue
you cite.
>>> ##: Mine, mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top
>>> ##: of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one
stone
>>> ##: at the Beck trial - they simultaneously put words into the
mouth
>>> ##: of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and
repeated exactly,
>>> ##: word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me.
Why would "they" wish to assassinate your character?
Well, lets put it this way - just because this is the first time its happened
in this way,
from these people, on this scale, doesnt mean that it hasnt happened before, on
a lesser
scale. At university there were people who quite overtly hated me and would
have wished
something nasty to happen to me. Because of where I went making the wrong sort
of enemies
is pretty deadly.
"They" would wish to assassinate my character because it had all been
done before, and
because they knew I would not be able to react in any other way than Id reacted
previously.
>>> ##: They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I
>>> ##: was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it
>>> ##: was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not
even communicate
>>> ##: what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC
television,
>>> ##: our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital
>>> ##: Radio in London and on Radio 1.
Please give details of when, where and by whom these
comments were made, so that they can be checked.
This was four, five years ago... sorry, I dont remember. I can remember
individual incidents,
words which were repeated by different people at different times in different
locations.
Around the end of 1992 Private Eye rtan a front-cover with John and Norma
Major, with
the title "Majors support lowest ever" and John saying to Norma
"Come back norma" on the
front cover. What can you read in to that? Not a lot, seems like standard fare
for PE.
The first time I saw it I was in the pub with some people from work. One was
expressing doubts
to the other (lets call the first one Simon, shall we? and the second one
Phil?) about
whether what was going on was right. Phils answer was that if Private Eye was
doing it
then it must be ok, "theyre usually right".
A few days later, again near work, there were some students laughing in the
street,
"Were you COMING BACK later? But I thought you said you were COMING BACK
ha ha ha?"
Play on words, you see. Not very nice, either. I had start medication soon
afterwards.
Clever people, these chaps who think up PE titles. Just slightly lacking in any
sense of morality.
>>> ##: How did they do this? Ill give you an example. About a year
ago,
>>> ##: I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other
>>> ##: pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking
about
>>> ##: someone he didnt identify, "you know this bloke? he says
were
>>> ##: trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted
manslaughter"
>>> ##: which mirrored something I had said a day or two before.
>>> ##: Now that got broadcast to the whole of London - if any
recordings
>>> ##: are kept of the shows then itll be there.
What was the date of the broadcast ?
Out of 2 million plus listeners, why should you be
the only one that Tarrant was allegedly referring to ?
Sometyime in spring 1994. I cant remember the date, I heard the broadcast in
the
car - I was going into the office from London that day and just happened to
snap
on the radio, and hey presto! Mr Tarrant gives us the benefit of his excellent
understanding.
>>> ##: Thats exactly what we did. We went to a competent,
professional
>>> ##: detective agency in London, paid them over 400 quid to debug
our house.
>>> ##: They found nothing.
What was the name of the detective agency and their
address ?
I dont see why I should tell you that, but theyre in Yellow Pages; theyre
a well-established outfit.
>>> PM: >What? Spend a quarter mil. a year to amuse themselves? And
why not
>>> PM: >change every now and again? Why keep watching you? (Unless
you are
>>> PM: >doing something, and I dont think you are, though you may
have some
>>> PM: >deep, dark secret in your past.)
>>>
>>> ##: See the above.
Is there a deep dark secret in your past ?
Apart from "its all happened before in a different way", no.
>>> ##: In a couple of cases people have even known my name - when I
was in
>>> ##: London over Easter somebody (no idea who they were, just some
bloke with
>>> ##: his girlfriend) called me by name - quite clearly, and my
name is
>>> ##: distinctive.
Is your name truly Mike Corley, or are you using it as
an alias ?
Its an alias. Im not English by ethnic origin. If someone manages to pronounce
my name as well as that guy did then they must have been really trying.
>>> ##: Theres a little story behind this. First of all, in 1992 I
worked
>>> ##: for a company where the people made clear they knew what was
going on,
>>> ##: first of all directly (the very first evening I was there I
went out to
>>> ##: the pub with them and the Technical Director said to another
guy,
>>> ##: "is this the bloke whos been on TV?" "yeah, I
think so")
Have you appeared, or been reported by name on TV ?
When, where and by whom ?
No. Never. Not directly.
>>> ##: Also, in summer 1992 I went on a trip abroad to Europe by
coach,
What was the name of the coach company and your date
of departure ?
It was a national express coach. At dover we boarded a ferry for Holland
somewhere.
The company that organized the trip went out of business some time ago, so they
wont
have records of passengers - so we cant get any corroboration from anyone else
that way. We tried all that last summer, ran into a brick wall.
The other thing is in summer 1992 I was visibly ill, so other people in the
party might remember that more than anyone getting at me on the coach trip.
>>> ##: >>Yes, this gets me. I think the answer is that I was
set up by
>>> ##: >>someone. I was very aware when this started back in
1990 that I
>>> ##: >>was being painted as a "threat" to which
people had to "react"
Why were you being painted as a "threat"; is this
related
to a "deep,dark, secret" ?
Aaaarrrrgh. I think I should make clear that thats their created justification
rather than the real reason. They started harassing first and then came up with
the
reasons for it.
>>>
>>> ##: I think I know who set me up.
Who ?
Someone who knew me some time ago. Someone who would have been able to talk
this
little campaign into existence.
>>> ##: The bloke cant even control his own mind without medicine.
Is this true ? What is the medication and dosage ?
Yes, Im afraid so. Sulpiride, 200mg a day. Its designed to stop people
coming up with the sort of ideas youve heard here for the last few weeks.
Give him a higher dose!!
In the long term it causes tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and general
nasty stuff to your brain. So its three years of sulpiride talking to you here.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Watch Out, Forger About 27/9/95 (3674)
Posted: 2007-06-08 13:26:05
Replies: 1 Views: 1298
From: ray@ultimate-tech.com (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An apology from Mike Corley
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:20:36 1995
In referenced article, David Wooding says...
>Well, Mike Corley might or might not have written the apologies, but I
>think not. I thought the following line both witty and imaginative.
>
>>>It was the razor blades stuffed down between the keys that told me.
Corley himself denies posting this "apology", but Im impressed if it
is a forgery.
Heres the header of my received email. It looks very genuine except
for the fact that postings to newsgroups are directed through demons
mail to news gateway, which is strange.
Also the message id is <m0sxbx2-000JEeC@bloor.torfree.net> which seems
to be in a different format from previous Corley postings, e.g.
<DFJJB3.6Ft.0.bloor@torfree.net
The mail seems to have been received directly from mail.torfree.net.
One way of telling for sure would be if anyone on the recipient list
contacted torfree, but did not publish any complaints on the newsgroups
- he would not have had access to their address in that case.
>Received: from SpoolDir by ULTIMATE (Mercury 1.20); 26 Sep 95 12:00:14
+0500
>Return-path: <bu765@torfree.net>
>Received: from mail.torfree.net by smtp.ultimate-tech.com (Mercury
1.20);
> 26 Sep 95 12:00:04 +0500
>Received: from bloor.torfree.net ([199.71.188.18]) by mail.torfree.net
> (/==/ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.6; 16-jun-94)
> via sendmail with smtp id <m0sxbyy-000LXSC@mail.torfree.net>
> for <ray@ultimate-tech.com>; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:31 EDT
>Received: from torfree.net by bloor.torfree.net with smtp
> (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0sxbx2-000JEeC; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:29 EDT
>Message-Id: <m0sxbx2-000JEeC@bloor.torfree.net>
>Apparently-To: bu765@torfree.net, snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk,
> ray@ultimate-tech.com, Frank@acclaim.demon.co.uk,
> p.marshall@axion.bt.co.uk, me93jrb@brunel.ac.uk, >
mikeh@mordor.com,
> michael@everyman.demon.co.uk, tim@xara.co.uk,
> Alan.Holmes@brunel.ac.uk, uk.misc@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk-misc@news.demon.co.uk, uk-media@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk.media@news.demon.co.uk, uk.legal@news.demon.co.uk,
> uk-legal@news.demon.co.uk, alt-conspiracy@news.demon.co.uk,
> alt.conspiracy@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc.culture.british@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc-culture-british@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc-culture-canada@news.demon.co.uk,
> soc.culture.canada@news.demon.co.uk
>Newsgroups: uk.misc, uk.media, soc.culture.british,
soc.culture.canada, uk.legal, alt.conspiracy
>From: bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley)
>Subject: Oops! Sorry!
>Organization: Toronto Free-Net
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1995 01:23:45 GMT
>Lines: 27
>X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
--
Ray Dunn (opinions are my own) | Phone: (514) 938 9050
Montreal | Phax : (514) 938 5225
ray@ultimate-tech.com | Home : (514) 630 3749
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (5188)
Posted: 2007-06-08 13:55:03
Replies: 1 Views: 1646
I just thought Id let you know what Ive been reading into the
"Crusader" spam. I dont want to post this to usenet because somebody
might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has, in
uk.misc).
First of all, Id like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my
apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple
of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail.
Anyway, lets suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my
internet service provider, its over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if
you wanted to bug what was said, either youd listen in over the line and
have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider
(more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular users connection.
OK, so now theyre listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP
connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking
articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a
nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would
ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, FISH !!! or
rec.aquaria to be precise
And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, youll
never guess... PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through,
but the piranha didn;t appear.
by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look in
the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and Paddy
Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Majors sunburnt goldfish. We
havent had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent by
someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian
backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages
to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline
"that gives you something to think about, doesnt it?"
The way it works is that theyre trying to kill two birds with one stone
again. I dont knoiw why they should be against these national alliance
people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to
discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles.
In article <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> wrote:
>
>John J Smith (J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we dont know about?
>: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, whos
>: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world".
>
>I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things
>from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility
>to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently
>to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my
>identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of
>course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike
>corley" is. But at least were observing a studied silence for now.
:People can always be called "MR X", to save them being named.
:
:Im completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity?
:To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you
:already have a less than respectful reputation here?
Ill just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember. Sometime
around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming out
of the house was physically attacked by someone - not punched, just grabbed
by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was something
the people at work shouldnt have known about... but soon after a couple of
people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was
attacked".
Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day,
at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday".
I dont want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so
would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples heads
then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I dont want that.
Also I cant remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992
I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole
thing
from my mind.
>This is a feature time and time again, that the security services
>(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at
>you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then
>you can do that sort of thing.
:But why? Are you a threat?
They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they
had
to find a reason to spy and abuse. You cant abuse someone unless theyre
in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it
became
"nutter" and "monster" and "hes going to attack
us" coupled with
"ha ha ha, he cant do anything to defend himself, it was so funny".
That
obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something they
blithely ignore.
:So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and you assume that
:they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a bit of a big
:logical step, here: That person doesnt like me, or is causing me trouble,
:its not because theyve got problems themselves, it must be the "Security
:Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is there more?
A single source is indicated because of the range of harassment.
BBC + Capital + manipulated public at large + set up situations,
what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry out the
covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you around for
five years without being spotted. It smells very much of the security
services, because there is no other organization (to my knowledge)
which does the things Ive seen these people do.
Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of soft targets
to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person who they thought
would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could get away with
murder.
And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal vendetta by someone.
Who could that be? I dont know, but I can give you some clues.
The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from my college set me
up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, during the last
year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I know that I was
talking in my sleep; although I dont know what I was saying, it got
me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked afterwards to
the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all that has
followed.
I think thats the strongest contender for source. Directly beneath my
room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends round late at
night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could have heard what
I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the reputation for
"talking to myself".
What I dont know is why that should have rebounded a year after I left.
Youd think it would have happened sooner; its a bit odd to wait for a
year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what in particular
happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.
>What I dont know is how it looks from the other side, from the side of
>the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a couple of
>occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of the matter, but
>they have alwats ducked the challenge.
:Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have made a mistake, and
:the people dont know what you are talking about?
Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some people around me
know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not been
"contacted"
by "them". But I know that others have been contacted.
:What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a catchphrase of a
:popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?
In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this year,
returning home
from Clapham police station to report five years of harassment ("were not
saying its happening and were not saying it isnt happening"), another
"not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly little slut
did her
country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the face of the
hated enemy.
What can you do about that? You cant yell abuse back in their face, because
they know theyre supported by their peers, by the media, by the murderers in
the security forces. You cant put them down when the fascist establishment
is on their side. You cant hit them, because they would deny their abuse,
they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges against the
"nutter"
who attacked them "at random".
>You know, youre
>passing saomeone, theyre hardly going to construct an argument for your
>benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the conversation which they
>can giggle at.
:Abuse such as what? Were all adults here, we can take it. Is this abuse
:aimed at you? How can you tell it is?
I think Ive said already what the words are. Thing is, at any given time
the language is consistent. In January everyones calling you X, then a
few weeks later people stop calling you X and start calling you Y.
You can tell its aimed at me, because when people repeatedly say the same
words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be hard of
understanding not to recognize it.
>Or they repeat something thats been said somewhere else... the PE thing
>being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick up the refrain.
:Remind me who PE is again.
PE = "Private Eye"
>: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another posting. In
around
>: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading "Majors
support
>: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover "come
back, Norma".
>: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn;;t there? I certainly
>: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the pub with people
from work
>: >Simon says to phil, "don;t you think its wrong then?" phil
says, "well
>: >private eye are usuallyright"..."hislop strikes again..
>
>: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What is the other
>: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a bit wrong, with the
>: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"...
>
>No, this one isnt obvious , it really does need to be explained. I
>certainly didnt understand it when I first saw it. You see, the kernel
>of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the themes
of
>abuse were centred around interpretations of those two words (stretch your
>mind a little bit, I dont have to spell it out for you, surely).
:You did in your mail item.
:
:You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double Entendre".
The
:inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not
the first part
:of the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly gone for
"Back",
:silly old me).
:
:You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a Private Eye
:headline. They are everywhere. The English language has much double
:meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could pull a double
:entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So what?
>The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he did recognise
>what it meant after a moments thought... and so did I... and so did the
>people who repeated it several times later... so however murky it may
>seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to have...
I still dont really know if the meaning was intended when that headline was
written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The reason I
think it
might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse along the lines of
"sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in particularly
from Steve.
So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, "two
people in one";
"back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come"
inevitably meant you-know-
what, "split" (well, wed better split now) again you can guess,
"bent" (of
a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These arent "nice" double-
entendres intended for comedy, theyre nasty words to humiliate and cause
pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I would sue my
former employers for harassment and I would almost certainly win. I had to
take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldnt be able to lie their
way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to court - the main
obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit late and much
of what happened, the details that would be necessary for a case to go
to court, has just been obliterated by time.
: Smid
==============================================
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
In article <812551172snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail
<snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> says:
>Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply because I dont want
>to download groups he is partaking in, because of his behaviour.
>
>I wasnt that bothered, but I am starting to get seriously pissed off
>with him. Which takes a lot.
Hi Snail
This person Corley seems quite interesting for three reasons. I put the
following at the end of a post in another thread just to see if he was
reading any other threads in uk.media.
It seems he is probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres an interesting little story from back in the early days of CCD
technology. There was this miniature camera which was designed to fit
behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control system (just
beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the data in 256 lines
of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line at a time,
into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be picked up
remotely from a standard license detector van from where it was stripped
out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the TV station where
it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a corner of the news
readers monitor.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (646)
Posted: 2007-06-23 01:34:51
Replies: 1 Views: 924
I just thought Id let you know what Ive been reading into the
"Crusader" spam. I dont want to post this to usenet because somebody
might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has, in
uk.misc).
First of all, Id like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my
apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple
of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail.
Anyway, lets suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my
internet service provider, its over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if
you wanted to bug what was said, either youd listen in over the line and
have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider
(more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular users connection.
OK, so now theyre listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP
connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking
articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a
nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would
ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, FISH !!! or
rec.aquaria to be precise
And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, youll
never guess... PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through,
but the piranha didn;t appear.
by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look in
the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and Paddy
Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Majors sunburnt goldfish. We
havent had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent by
someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian
backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages
to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline
"that gives you something to think about, doesnt it?"
The way it works is that theyre trying to kill two birds with one stone
again. I dont knoiw why they should be against these national alliance
people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to
discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles.
In article <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>,
Mike Corley <bu765@torfree.net> wrote:
>
>John J Smith (J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we dont know about?
>: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, whos
>: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world".
>
>I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things
>from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility
>to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently
>to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my
>identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of
>course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike
>corley" is. But at least were observing a studied silence for now.
:People can always be called "MR X", to save them being named.
:
:Im completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity?
:To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you
:already have a less than respectful reputation here?
Ill just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember. Sometime
around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming out
of the house was physically attacked by someone - not punched, just grabbed
by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was something
the people at work shouldnt have known about... but soon after a couple of
people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was
attacked".
Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day,
at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday".
I dont want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so
would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples heads
then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I dont want that.
Also I cant remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992
I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole
thing
from my mind.
>This is a feature time and time again, that the security services
>(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at
>you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then
>you can do that sort of thing.
:But why? Are you a threat?
They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they
had
to find a reason to spy and abuse. You cant abuse someone unless theyre
in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it
became
"nutter" and "monster" and "hes going to attack
us" coupled with
"ha ha ha, he cant do anything to defend himself, it was so funny".
That
obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something they
blithely ignore.
:So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and you assume that
:they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a bit of a big
:logical step, here: That person doesnt like me, or is causing me trouble,
:its not because theyve got problems themselves, it must be the "Security
:Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is there more?
A single source is indicated because of the range of harassment.
BBC + Capital + manipulated public at large + set up situations,
what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry out the
covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you around for
five years without being spotted. It smells very much of the security
services, because there is no other organization (to my knowledge)
which does the things Ive seen these people do.
Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of soft targets
to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person who they thought
would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could get away with
murder.
And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal vendetta by someone.
Who could that be? I dont know, but I can give you some clues.
The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from my college set me
up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, during the last
year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I know that I was
talking in my sleep; although I dont know what I was saying, it got
me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked afterwards to
the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all that has
followed.
I think thats the strongest contender for source. Directly beneath my
room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends round late at
night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could have heard what
I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the reputation for
"talking to myself".
What I dont know is why that should have rebounded a year after I left.
Youd think it would have happened sooner; its a bit odd to wait for a
year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what in particular
happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.
>What I dont know is how it looks from the other side, from the side of
>the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a couple of
>occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of the matter, but
>they have alwats ducked the challenge.
:Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have made a mistake, and
:the people dont know what you are talking about?
Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some people around me
know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not been
"contacted"
by "them". But I know that others have been contacted.
:What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a catchphrase of a
:popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?
In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this year,
returning home
from Clapham police station to report five years of harassment ("were not
saying its happening and were not saying it isnt happening"), another
"not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly little slut
did her
country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the face of the
hated enemy.
What can you do about that? You cant yell abuse back in their face, because
they know theyre supported by their peers, by the media, by the murderers in
the security forces. You cant put them down when the fascist establishment
is on their side. You cant hit them, because they would deny their abuse,
they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges against the
"nutter"
who attacked them "at random".
>You know, youre
>passing saomeone, theyre hardly going to construct an argument for your
>benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the conversation which they
>can giggle at.
:Abuse such as what? Were all adults here, we can take it. Is this abuse
:aimed at you? How can you tell it is?
I think Ive said already what the words are. Thing is, at any given time
the language is consistent. In January everyones calling you X, then a
few weeks later people stop calling you X and start calling you Y.
You can tell its aimed at me, because when people repeatedly say the same
words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be hard of
understanding not to recognize it.
>Or they repeat something thats been said somewhere else... the PE thing
>being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick up the refrain.
:Remind me who PE is again.
PE = "Private Eye"
>: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another posting. In
around
>: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading "Majors
support
>: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover "come
back, Norma".
>: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn;;t there? I certainly
>: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the pub with people
from work
>: >Simon says to phil, "don;t you think its wrong then?" phil
says, "well
>: >private eye are usuallyright"..."hislop strikes again..
>
>: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What is the other
>: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a bit wrong, with the
>: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"...
>
>No, this one isnt obvious , it really does need to be explained. I
>certainly didnt understand it when I first saw it. You see, the kernel
>of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the themes
of
>abuse were centred around interpretations of those two words (stretch your
>mind a little bit, I dont have to spell it out for you, surely).
:You did in your mail item.
:
:You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double Entendre".
The
:inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not
the first part
:of the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly gone for
"Back",
:silly old me).
:
:You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a Private Eye
:headline. They are everywhere. The English language has much double
:meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could pull a double
:entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So what?
>The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he did recognise
>what it meant after a moments thought... and so did I... and so did the
>people who repeated it several times later... so however murky it may
>seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to have...
I still dont really know if the meaning was intended when that headline was
written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The reason I
think it
might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse along the lines of
"sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in particularly
from Steve.
So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, "two
people in one";
"back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come"
inevitably meant you-know-
what, "split" (well, wed better split now) again you can guess,
"bent" (of
a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These arent "nice" double-
entendres intended for comedy, theyre nasty words to humiliate and cause
pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I would sue my
former employers for harassment and I would almost certainly win. I had to
take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldnt be able to lie their
way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to court - the main
obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit late and much
of what happened, the details that would be necessary for a case to go
to court, has just been obliterated by time.
: Smid
==============================================
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct 2 05:43:42 1995
In article <812551172snz@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail
<snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> says:
>Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply because I dont want
>to download groups he is partaking in, because of his behaviour.
>
>I wasnt that bothered, but I am starting to get seriously pissed off
>with him. Which takes a lot.
Hi Snail
This person Corley seems quite interesting for three reasons. I put the
following at the end of a post in another thread just to see if he was
reading any other threads in uk.media.
It seems he is probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres an interesting little story from back in the early days of CCD
technology. There was this miniature camera which was designed to fit
behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control system (just
beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the data in 256 lines
of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line at a time,
into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be picked up
remotely from a standard license detector van from where it was stripped
out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the TV station where
it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a corner of the news
readers monitor.
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Grievous Bodily Harm 2/10/95 (2160)
Posted: 2007-06-23 01:51:32
Replies: 1 Views: 362
From: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch)
Newsgroups:
uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,uk.media,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc
Subject: Re: Auntie gets it in the emails
Reply-To: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon Oct 2 19:44:19 1995
lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:
>However, Im pleased to say that, in the past couple of days, Mike Corley
has
>stopped doing it and he appears (I say this cautiously) to be acting more
>reasonably. True, his postings are still based on paranoid delusions.
>However, so long as he doesnt go back to his old practices of multiple,
>identical, unreadable postings, Im sure that most people on this newsgroup
>are willing to put up with him.
Time to come out of the woodwork of this thread (or variations
thereof)...
I find it annoying that discussion of Mikes situation is spread over
multiple threads - it makes it hard to follow, and especially to follow
up. If it could be consolidated into one thread on relevant newsgroups
(Im reading this on uk.media btw).
Im a little surprised with the volume of abuse Mike has received, but
believe strongly in freedom of speech if such a thing were to exist,
which clearly includes abuse as much as anything.
One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
now-influential ex-students of his university.
Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
the most powerful pieces of TV drama Ive seen in many years,
fascinating and quite believable, even.
The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the
security services do have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it
We still dont have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
very early stages.
I dont subscribe to conspiracy theories generally, but I know there is
far more that goes on in the universities, old boys clubs, civil and
secret services and Parliament than is ever made public.
Mike, I leave it to you to construct a single thread in a relevant
newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the Mike
Corley is a nutter posts unless they are relevant.
Give us more detail. Who knows? It may be true, stranger things have
happened.
-------------------------------
Tue, 03 Oct 1995 04:01:34 uk.misc Thread 3 of 14
Lines 58 Re: Auntie gets it in the emails Respno 16 of 16
J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk John J Smith at Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd
In article <812677261.12841@revolver.demon.co.uk>,
James Eibisch <jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:
>One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
>prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
>mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
>now-influential ex-students of his university.
Were trying to find this out on uk.misc. Hes posted some *new* *huge*
replies (which Id have to give up my day job to reply to), detailing
some things like:
a) Mike Corley is *not* his real name
b) Exactly what the "abuse" is (it seems be such things, as
taking
completely unrelated newspaper articles, striving to make them a
disgusting insult, then redirecting against himself).
c) How he came to the conclusion.
I think hes doing rather better nowadays..
>Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
>service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
>the most powerful pieces of TV drama Ive seen in many years,
>fascinating and quite believable, even.
This would be a point, apart from the fact that this was directed against
someone of political importance. I dont believe Mike is...
>The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times :-), that the
>security services do have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
>to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
>if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it
>at some point against some people.
It appears he has formed the Security Service conclusion, because they
are the only ones capable of doing it. A "searching for an enemy capable
of it".
>We still dont have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
>I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
>against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
>political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
>years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
>very early stages.
Im beginning to think that we never will get all the facts from Mike. We
may, however, get enough...
>Mike, I leave it to you to construct a single thread in a relevant
>newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
>information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the Mike
>Corley is a nutter posts unless they are relevant.
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups:
uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What its like to be watched by the security services
Date: Tue Oct 3 15:41:54 1995
In article <44rrrh$t6v@news.ox.ac.uk>, idaniel@jesus.ox.ac.uk (Illtud
Daniel) says:
>
>And what do you mean when you state that the symptoms are too
>textbook? Are the textbooks wrong?
I think what is meant by textbook is that some of the symptoms
of illness displayed in the posts seem to have been lifted from
textbooks describing mental instability and personality disorders.
I must admit I havent seen Mikes postings before has he only just
started posting again?
Peter Kruger
------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.gold.net/flames/
flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: Do they fear truth? 3/10/95 (3674)
Posted: 2007-06-23 02:05:20
Replies: 1 Views: 782
From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Krüger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: What its like to be watched by the security services
Date: 3 Oct 1995 15:38:20 GMT
Organization: Steinkrug Publications
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <44rldc$nrm@news.cityscape.co.uk>
References: <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aa040.du.pipex.com
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
In article <DFus24.HxB.0.bloor@torfree.net>, bu765@torfree.net (Mike
Corley) says:
>
>It completely mystifies me how it can be done. One night in June 1992 I
>was in a bed-and-breakfast in Oxford (some hard facts now, you
Post subject: MI5 Persecution: A new Kafka? 3/10/95 (5188)
Posted: 2007-06-23 02:18:58
Replies: 1 Views: 2346
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Re: What its like to be watched by the security services
Message-ID: <1995Oct13.225312.6514@ttinews.tti.com>
Sender: usenet@ttinews.tti.com (Usenet Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: soldev
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea
References: <DFy9tB.3JK.0.bloor@torfree.net>
<813188298snz129.os2.7@blackcat.demon.co.uk>
<DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 22:53:12 GMT
Lines: 34
In article <DGE7uJ.8tF.0.bloor@torfree.net> bu765@torfree.net (Mike
Corley) writes:
>
>Strangers in the street have recognized me on sight many times, and shown
>awareness of the current thread of abuse. To give you one example, in 1992
>I was seriously ill, and a manager at work somewhat humouroursly said that
>"it wasnt fair" that people were bullying me. A few days later, I
>attended for the first time a clinic in London as an outpatient, and on my
>way out was accosted by someone who asked if "they had paid my
fare", with
>emphasis on the word "fare". He repeated the word several times
in this
>different context; that they should have paid my "fare", each
time
>emphasising the word.
>
>For two and a half years from the time their harassment started until
>November 1992 I refused to see a psychiatrist, because I reasoned that I
>was not ill of my own action or fault, but through the stress caused by
>harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have to be
>consequent to a removal of its immediate cause, in other words a cessation
>of harassment. I also reasoned that since they were taunting me with jokes
>about mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then the abusers would
>think that they had "won" and been proved "right".
<Ive deleted a lot, but I think this gives the idea>
I have so far not contributed to this tread, it has been unpleasant
in my opinion. However, I was struck by the resemblance of the above
passages to the writing of Franz Kafka.
Viz. while from an objective viewpoint it seems to refer to a abnormal
world, in a strange way it does resonate strongly at other levels.
Mr. Corley, have you tried to write for publication? I honestly think
it might lead somewhere positive.
Dick Jackson (serious for a change and expecting to get beaten up)
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Search
![New posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_unread_hot.gif "New posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_read_hot.gif "No new posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![New posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_unread_locked.gif "New posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_read_locked.gif "No new posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
