BBC. h2g2 16/Sept/1999

The BBC's h2g2 website is billed as "Earth Edition of. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!". Naturally, one of its pages
is about me, me, me. It starts. off with the lines;

Every. now and then something comes along which makes you
think "Ah! That's what the Internet is for!" Mike. Corley
is one such. case.

The page itself. can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A164404

The user comments linked from h2g2 are less than respectful, but given the point of view. my website promulgates that is
understandable. It's true that without the communications ability afforded by. the internet, which came along at just the
right time, my complaints would be. getting nowhere. But that's a two edged sword also; miniature cameras only appeared
around 1990, so the advantage of technology. is up to the adopter. Secret service intrigues, and on the other side of the
coin human paranoia, have both been going on for centuries; what changes. now is an increased technologisation of both sides.

27

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= harassment at. work -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Once I stopped watching television and listening to the radio at. the end of
1990, "they" had to find. other ways of committing abuses. So they took what
must be for them. a tried and tested route; they get at you by subversion of
those. around you. Since they wouldn't be able to do that with my family or
friends, that meant getting at people in the workplace to be. their
mouthpieces and do. their dirty work for them.

They supplied my. employers in Oxford with details from what was going on in
my private life, and what I and. other people had said at my home and
accommodation in Oxford. So people at work repeated verbatim...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= why the. security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= MI5: methods and tactics. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

They deliberately set. out to harass in a way that would resemble the
symptoms of schizophrenia, so that any report. of the harassment would be
taken. as indicating mental illness and "treated" accordingly. They never
show their. own faces; they only work through proxies, in the media, among
the public, and by manipulating people in. the workplace. Since they do not
declare their identity there. is no evidence to initiate legal action
against the security services or. anyone else. The only people you can
prosecute. are the proxies and they will deny knowledge of any conspiracy.

By repeatedly humiliating and abusing the. victim, they induced mental
illness. This is the worst. form of human rights violation: making any
statement of the harassment appear to. be symptomatic of the illness which
they. cause through the harassment. That this can happen, and people collude
by silence, is. absolutely horrifying.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my response to the. harassment -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My. first reaction in 1990/91 was to assume that if I broke contact then
they would not. be able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things that have been suggested by other people; I. sold my television,
stopped listening to the radio and tried to withdraw away from. the sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more important
things to deal with and that normal people would simply leave me. alone if
it were made difficult for them to continue their. harassment.

I reckoned without the sheer vindictiveness. of the abusers. They did not
let up but instead. "got to" people around me, mainly people at work, to do
their dirty work for. them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe what
he was being told, and refused to. direct me on to anyone who could be of
practical assistance. It. was not until three years had passed that the GP
admitted the matter. was outside his competence and suggested going to the
police.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= purpose. in publicizing it; censorship in uk.* newsgroups -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The postings to uk.misc newsgroup. generated a very defensive reaction from
Usenet readers in the UK. So much so, that they tried strenuously. to
suppress what was being said, both by breaking the. rules of netiquette in
their responses on the forum, and directly by action to. revoke the account
from which. the postings were issued.

Yet the postings were within the normal boundaries of behaviour. for
uk.misc, and other. less partisan spectators did not see justice in the
censorship which was effected, as the. following excerpt shows;

:Karen. Lofstrom (lofstrom@lava.net) wrote
:>It does seem that the frequency and the size of his posts. are
:>approaching net abuse.. However, IMHO, they aren't quite there yet. If
:>his postmaster were to. act in this instance, it would raise troubling
:>censorship. issues.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= abuse in set-up situations and in public. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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 humorously said that
"it wasn't 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. emphasizing 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...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= why won't the. British police do their job and put a stop to it? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The British police obviously do know what is. taking place. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers have said which. forces that
conclusion, it. would be inconceivable for them to be unaware of something
on this. scale.

If they know,. then they will know that the abusers have broken laws in the
UK and. abroad. Recently the UK introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a penalty of several years jail if caught. If the. police know
illegal harassment is taking. place, and do nothing about it, then they are
failing in. their responsibilities.

Last Easter (1995) I went into the local. police station in London and spoke
to. an officer about the harassment against me. But I couldn't provide
tangible evidence; what people said, in. many cases years ago, is beyond
proof, and without something to support my statements I cannot. expect a
police officer to take the complaint. seriously.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= why won't the British police do their job and put a stop to it?. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The British police obviously do know what is taking place.. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers have said. which forces that
conclusion, it would. be inconceivable for them to be unaware of something
on. this scale.

If they. know, then they will know that the abusers have broken laws in the
UK and abroad. Recently the. UK introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a penalty of several years jail if caught. If the. police know
illegal harassment is taking place, and do nothing about it, then. they are
failing in their. responsibilities.

Last Easter (1995) I went into the local police station in London. and spoke
to an officer about the harassment against. me. But I couldn't provide
tangible evidence; what people said, in many cases years. ago, is beyond
proof, and without something to support my statements I. cannot expect a
police officer to. take the complaint seriously.

The article of which part. is reproduced below was penned by Bernard Levin
for the. Features section of the Times on 21 September 1991. To my mind, it
described the situation at the time and in particular a recent. meeting with
a friend, during which. I for the first time admitted to someone other than
my GP that I had been subjected to a conspiracy of. harassment over the
previous year. and a half.