alt.cooking-chat :: Use rec.food.cooking instead.

MI5 Persecution: Surveillance methods 5/8/95 (5764)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:29:54 PST

From: Pamela Willoughby willouby.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 18:08:32 GMT
Organization: Myorganisation
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <142297143wnr@willouby.demon.co.uk>

>Hmmm, strange eh.
>I mentioned all this goings on to my boyfriend, who works for the
>British intelligence service, and he assures me this sort of thing
>never goes on.. not ever...honest.
>Though he said the name was familiar...

it does go on, although it's an open question who does it.

Some time ago there were press reports of an Army intelligence person
called Jones who claimed Diana and Hewitt had been photographed in a
compromising position... he said he'd been doing this as part of an
Army unit which had previously operated in Northern Ireland.

Then Hewitt said he'd been told the same thing by some Army people,
and that they were threatening to release the tapes unless they
curtailed their liaison... as per usual everyone denied everything,
painted Jones as the "Jones twins" - not very original in how
they deal with their perceived enemies, are they?

You have to wonder how they manage to achieve this sort of
surveillance though. Audio you can understand, it's possible to put
a microphone through the wall, and apparently there exist devices
which will retrieve sound from a laser beam bounced off a window -
sounds sci-fi, but there's a well known surveillance electronics
company in London which sells these things.

But how would you get video out of a room, unless you had actual
physical access in order to plant a device for pickup? We're not
talking about looking in from afar, but an actual device within
the room. You could either drill through the wall and shove a
pickup through; or you could supply a trojan device with a hidden
pickup inside; but most likely, you would have to physically break
into your target room to plant a camera. That's not an infeasible
option; all it means is having your target(s) watched to make sure
they're not in the vicinity, then you negotiate any locks on the
property and find a suitable receptacle for your device.

The next question is how they defeat the usual methods of counter-
surveillance. We had private detectives carry out a "sweep" of
every room and the telephone line. They found nothing. That
indicates at least four possibilities that I can think of;
(this is all guesswork BTW, and probably fanciful guesswork
at that!)

1) no bugs (pull the other one)

2) radio-transmitting devices which can be controlled from an
external source, ie you can instruct them to switch off
when you detect a counter-surveillance sweep taking place

3) hard-wired devices; probe microphones or whatever they're
called, things you poke through the wall

4) passive surveillance devices; so you bounce laser or
radio waves off a suitable reflecting surface (again,
sounds far-fetched but such things may apparently exist).

5) there is a fifth possibility, that the PI's didn't detect
an actual transmitting device; there are technologies
specifically designed to avoid detection, eg frequency hopping
and suchlike. But how much sophistication could you build in
to a device which would have to be small enough to be
physically concealable?

I guess the real question is to find out who is ultimately
behind these "goings on". And if the "great and good" (or
the better known, at any rate) can't protect themselves,
what hope is there for the rest of us?

5764

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: But why? 2/8/95 (4859)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:18:04 PST

>Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone
>take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats
>babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?

Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would
appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't
happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity.

>>This is an agglomeration of articles and replies previously
>>posted to Usenet, so it's a bit hard to read. This posting
>>describes a campaign of character assassination initiated

>Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post.
>Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook
>himself? He's 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.

That was the only occasion (the only one recognizable to me,
anyway) when they went after another target at the same time.
And it's quite lucky they did that - because it could give some
pointers to who they might be.

Presumably there are people still around who were involved in
that trial, and know what happened. Beck might be dead, but the
"witness" would still be around, as would Beck's solicitor.

>>by a group of people or agency within the UK. Although
>>they have never presented their identity, you can draw
>>your own conclusions on that point. There aren't many
>>people with the technical resources and contacts in
>>society to make feasible the sort of deliberate attack
>>on an individual which is described in this article.
>
>There aren't _any_ as far as I am aware.

I'm afraid there are.

>>The most disturbing part of the whole episode is the
>>participation of British institutions and their members, fully
>>comprehending what they do, in what is an act of attempted
>>murder against a British citizen.
>
>The whole society, in fact. From the top to the bottom. They
>wouldn't be trying to tell you to kill yourself by any chance,
>would they?

You got it. I'm a popular guy.

>>After the trial Janner said that "now he knew what it felt like
>>to be a victim of Beck's"; but, it wasn't Beck who set up the
>>attempted character assassination on Janner; the fact that they
>>took a side-swipe with their verbatim repetition shows
>>where the real source is to be found.
>
>The newspapers?

Well, your guess is as good as mine. But what newspaper would
send a team after someone for five years? I don't think so,
somehow. Of course they could, but it wouldn't be in their
commercial interest.

You'd have to look at a corporate entity which would indulge in
activity of this type, and the nature of the contacts they have
narrows down the search.

>>The goons behind the molestation are lower than the paedophiles
>>they use to convey their propaganda - they use the same
>>strategy of covert abuse, but there is nobody to check their
>>actions, or to bring these criminals to justice.
>
>Ummm.. Janner is a Barrister, a journalist who writes on a wide
>variety of issues, and a long-standing Labour MP. If he's unjustly
>smeared, he's more that capable of setting the record straight.

Janner blamed Beck for the invention. He didn't say anything about
it having any other origin. Even had he suspected any other source,
he could hardly have pointed the finger without some evidence.

>You say that the media is making similar allegations about you in
>relation to this issue? So, you're accused of child abuse, amd
>the allegation was reported in the media, I assume.

I've been accused of many things although that wasn't one of them.
Most of them have been yelled in my face by people on the street
in London at some time or other. Bit difficult to misinterpret
when that happens.

>What exact;y are they saying about you? (Respond here please. I'm
>leaving the UK tomorrow, so I can't read e-mail.)

It changes with time. Every so often, they sing a new song;
so at one point the allegation was homosexuality, at another
is was low intelligence, then it degenerated into sexual abuse.

>>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.
>
>How do you know this? Just from what you hear on the radio?

I can't remember if this was mentioned in the "regular" posting,
but on a few occasions they set me up with people nearby to talk
about me, or more correctly, to talk about somebody who
(in their minds) "resembles" me, with actually naming me.

One such occasion was a coach trip to Europe in June 1992.
The "set up" comprised a guy talking to a vacant giggling female
about "this bloke", who was never named. Apparently "they"
(also never named) "found somebody from his school",
"they" "got" him at his house and at a neighbours, and at
a B&B where their target was for one night.

Apart from that, yeah, from "what I hear on the radio". And
from what I see on TV. (I wouldn't be doing my job as a
mentally ill person properly if the TV and radio weren't
talking to me, now, would I?)

>>Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united
>>effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit
>>round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones
>>house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and
>>shoving it out on the news everyday.
>
>But why would they do this? What possible reason would they have?

But why get at anybody? Victimisation is the pastime practised against
other people; as the scorpion said to the frog, "it's in my nature".

>Are you aware that what you describe is also a common symptom of people
>who are suffering from a psychiatric illness? Have you been to your
>doctor and told him about this? Did he prescribe any medication? Have
>you been taking it, or have you stopped?

Yes, Yes, and Yes respectively. Still taking it. Doing quite well actually.

>>This someone has nothing to do with
>>politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who
>>seems to be extremely paranoid.
>
>Usually a clinical symptom rather than proof of a conspiracy in such
>matters.

>>How did they do this? I'll 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 didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're
>>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 it'll be there.
>
>And this is supposed to mean... what? Chris Tarrant is in on this plot
>to kill you? It sure sounds like a joke to me. When you start to get
>ill, the mind often makes connections that seem logical and lucid to
>you, but do not to the rest of the world. This is one of those connections.
>They are usually known as delusions.

This is the problem, and there doesn't seem to be any way around it.
If a clearly sane person reported this persecution, you might believe
him, but probably you'd tell him to go see a doctor to "verify his
sanity". If someone with the illness of which you could argue these
things to be symptomatic says these things, again, you might believe
him, but it would be unlikely - the easiest route is the one you are
taking in the above paragraph. The only way I can convince you of what
I am saying is by giving precise details of what, when, how - and for
most of that stuff is based solely on memory.

To prove it would require an admission from somebody, or else hard
proof in the shape of physical evidence such as tape recordings.
Of course, I don't have that.

>The idea of a "pattern", and the notion that if anyone could look
>through your eyes they would see the same thing is very indicative of
>the onset of a psychiatric illness. Schizophrenia and manic depression
>have similar symptoms. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here.
>This may be an illness and it can be managed by the use of medication.
>If it _isn't_ treated, it can lead to terrible tragic consequences.

I'm quite aware what the symptoms would be, and that the reality
corresponds to those symptoms.

But if anything, that is an argument which could convince you of
the truth of what I'm saying. If they deliberately set out to
simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia - in other words, if they
know through observation that their target is either suffering
from the illness, or is on the borderline and could be pushed in
with an appropriate stimulus, then they can feel safe in what
they do, since once you are registered as suffering from the
illness, people will assign less credibility to assertions that
persecution is based in reality.

That this can happen, and people collude by silence, is absolutely
horrifying. It is all the more horrifying that it can happen in a
country such as Britain which has no history of repression.
Perhaps its happening in the UK is due to the arrogant assumption
of moral superiority on the part of those in the media and others
involved - we won the last war and we can keep harping on about
German and Japanese war crimes, so we can do whatever we like and
we'll be right, up to and including destroying the lives of our
citizens (as long as we're not caught doing it).

>>That is the level it's at - basically they show they're listening
>>to what you're saying at home, they show they're listening to you
>>listening to them
>
>But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
>one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
>all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
>supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say,

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Let it go 1/8/95 (3954)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:05:18 PST

From: speedc@cs.man.ac.uk (C Speed)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Date: Tue Aug 1 10:23:46 1995

>OK, so instead of my posting the same tedious stuff every day,
>why don't you actually read the contents, and make a meaningful
>reply? Something more constructive than those silly little
>jokes about paranoia perhaps? Like what objectively can you do
>to break the conspiracy open, if one exists :-) ? If somebody
>did it to you, what would you do?

But we've *done* that. I certainly have at least. Way back when you
originally started posting and your posts were neither tediously repetitve
nor stupidly long.

But whenever anyone makes any good suggestions you ignore them and start
posting from the begining again. You don't want us to help you - so what do
you want? If you really wanted help you would listen to peoples suggestions
and respond to them. Is this just an attention thing?
But I'll try again, because I'm a fool like that.

>o Tell people about it, go to the police / legal services
> Done that; those around me either don't believe me, or they
>"sort of" believe but can't do anything about it. As for going
>to the police; I did, over Easter. Discouraging. They must be
>familiar with the occasional person walking into a station with
>this sort of story. "If a psychiatrist says you're imagining
>it, then that's what it is".

You haven't yet given any examples of anything concrete to suggest that this
is really happening to you. This, I would imagine, will be the stumbling
block for the police. How can they possibly help you when your only evidence
is a jumbled mess of TV presenters saying things that could be construed as
answers to your comments and the 'feeling' that people are talking about you
and watching you?

I seem to recall that last time this was being discussed someone asked if you
had been to see a psychiatrist about this - after all if this is really
happening then you have can only benefit from being given a clean bill of
health. I don't recall an answer.

> I also went to a firm of solicitors; again, very
>discouraging. Put bluntly, they can't deal with cases where the
>perpetrators aren't well-defined and the existence of the crime
>itself is unprovable.

Well how could they? Who would you sue? The country?

>o so if that option is out, what's left? well, there's the
>"do nothing" option. To some extent this option works. They've
>spent a lot of money and ultimately achieved nothing except to
>force me out of the country - which has been an own goal for
>them, since now they can't do what they were doing in the UK.
>Expenditure of further resources would feed the pockets of
>their greedy contractors, but is a waste of money as far as the
>employing organization is concerned.

So you are no longer in the uk? And this is not happening anymore?

Then let it go. Just leave it alone and get on with your life. Its just not
worth it. There is nothing you can do to prove that this happened whether it
did or did not. So forget it. Go and explore the net - when people aren't
spamming it with useless repetitve posts there's a lot of interesting and
worthwhile things out there to see and do. Likewise real life (I'm told *&).

>completely conventional, I have a good academic and work
>record. Until all this started, I had no mental health
>problems; the diagnosis of illness was only after 2 1/2 years
>of abuse. If they did this to me, they could do this to
>absolutely any British citizen. If this stuff gets out, it
>won't be me that has to worry - it'll be them. They take a
>normal person, lie about him, demonise him, try to force him
>into killing himself - and this is in a country where the rule
>of law applies?

If this gets out then *that* will be the time to bring your claims to the
foreground.

The only thing ruining your life right now is you, Mike. And the only thing
that will make your life any better now is also you. So go and make your
life better and show them that they failed.

Claire

*******************************************************************************
* "And though we say all information should be free it is not. *
* Information is power and currency of the virtual world we inhabit." *
*******************************************************************************
* C.Speed - cs.man.ac.uk> <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~speedc/> *
*******************************************************************************

========================================================================

>But we've *done* that. I certainly have at least. Way back when you
>originally started posting and your posts were neither tediously repetitve
>nor stupidly long.

Once again we're running into a brick wall. The reason I started posting
was because I couldn't figure out a way out of the situation, and thought
that saying it out into the open would provide a catalyst for one of
those "in the know" (there are plenty in this category, and it's a fair
bet that some of them are reading this) to speak up.

It hasn't worked, yet. A little more aggressive shit-stirring (excuse expletive)
might do the trick. Perhaps Usenet posting is the wrong arena for this sort of
activity; although obviously it does have the advantage of rapid feedback.

Thing is, for people to open up, you would have to provide them with a
reason why it would be in their interest to do so. There's no obvious way
of doing that; to get thinking people to incriminate themselves when they're
safe in denying all knowledge is not a trick I can figure out how to do.

>But whenever anyone makes any good suggestions you ignore them and start
>posting from the begining again. You don't want us to help you - so what do
>you want? If you really wanted help you would listen to peoples suggestions
>and respond to them. Is this just an attention thing?
>But I'll try again, because I'm a fool like that.

A "good" suggestion would be one which had the effect of halting the
persecution, which so far hasn't happened. If you make a "good" suggestion then
damn right I'll stop posting - because then I won't have to.

>You haven't yet given any examples of anything concrete to suggest that this
>is really happening to you. This, I would imagine, will be the stumbling
>block for the police. How can they possibly help you when your only evidence
>is a jumbled mess of TV presenters saying things that could be construed as
>answers to your comments and the 'feeling' that people are talking about you
>and watching you?

Because, as said previously, concrete proof does not exist. If it existed then
I wouldn't be talking to you - if it could be proved, or if those doing it
could be found, they wouldn't be able to continue.

What's happened is all conversation. You can't prove conversation, not without
a tape recorder, and even then you would have to prove that what they meant
corresponded to what you understood.

The psychopath who manages the Applics group at my previous employers
played little word games, not only with me but with at least one other
person in the group; words which rhyme with swear words, words which are
ambiguous, eg "bent", words which rhyme with wank, "sheet" rhymes with shit,
end (how was your weak end? being the standard salutation on a Monday morning).
Sounds childish, most people would easily tell him to fuck off; except to people
with predisposition to depression and the inability to express themselves
(this was before I started taking medication), that sort of nastiness is
not bearable. After ten months of this I was so ill I was crying constantly,
eventually I went into hospital and started on medication. Somebody else he
did this to (over a year later!) got so depressed he took an overdose of
pills, had to go on antidepressants and left.

And where does the "concrete proof" of this trouble exist? NOWHERE. Even
if you had physical evidence, even if you had the presence of mind to
record what was said, how could you prove what he actually meant by what
he was saying? In some cases of harassment you can prove what was done,
because it's undeniable. But when the harassment is done with any presence
of mind whatsoever, it becomes difficult. In the case of the wider harassment,
the people doing it obviously know what they're about - they must have done
similar things to other people before in one form or another, and they know
what they can get away with, they know what the police will do nothing about.

>I seem to recall that last time this was being discussed someone asked if you
>had been to see a psychiatrist about this - after all if this is really
>happening then you have can only benefit from being given a clean bill of
>health. I don't recall an answer.

Yes. The reply was of the "neither confirm nor deny" variety. Not much else
they can say, is there?

>Well how could they? Who would you sue? The country?

Hmmm, now there's a thought... :-)

>If this gets out then *that* will be the time to bring your claims to the
>foreground.

Wrong way round. It won't get out unless I do something to bring that about;
remember, it isn't in THEIR interest for THEIR criminality to be exposed.
Yelling loudly on Usenet might nudge things along in the right direction.

>The only thing ruining your life right now is you, Mike. And the only thing
>that will make your life any better now is also you. So go and make your
>life better and show them that they failed.

Ignoring them would be bliss, but it's not a winning strategy.

There are going to be more of these posts. Sorry. That's the way it is.

3954

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Truth or Troll? 13/5/95 (3049)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:52:52 PST

Date: Sat May 13 21:41:57 1995
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.uk
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame

>:some pirate radio station in London in 1991, started listening to
>
>Conclusive proof if ever I heard it.
>
>Of course you were the only person in the office in the whole of Britain

Yeah, but this is the point. Each incident is easily and automatically
deniable along the lines you're taking. But when this happens every
time, and when you get independent corroboration from other people,
then there's no escaping it. For example, immediately after I lost
my job in 91 I went into the local garage to get some work done on the
car, and one of the blokes there said to the other, "so what do you
think of it then? it's getting killed on the radio isn't it"
Now again, you look at that and no proff; you can ask them what they're
referring to and they can say they're talking about something else.

>I know you may be a little paranoid, but I suggest you sit down
>and work out rationally what possible reason anyone off television,
>or radio would have for listening to your conversations. After all
>it must be hard enough to present a show to millions of people
>without the added burden of watching and listening to a single
>person and slipping their phrases into the programme.

These presenters are clever people. They wouldn't be presenters
if they weren't - they're easily capable of reacting to an individual
in this way.

What possible reason? I guess because they think it's amusing to do
so. They know that if you ever tell anybody, without being able to
show any evidence, then the reaction you'll get from just about
anybody will be the one you're showing now.

I realize there are loads of people in England and elsewhere with
the sort of thoughts I've described in these postings; and almost
all impartial observers would say that nothing other than an
go after their private conversations (if they did it to me then I can
do it to them, it's a questions of technical competence and money).
If you were lucky, you might be able to entrap them into admission.
You could of course harass or threaten them back (any coppers reading
this?) but that would be illegal and might get a result quite
different to the one you're trying to achieve. Of course, it might
come out of its own accord given time - if so many people know, if
they have an escape valve in their "subtext" through the media,
will it not cease to be at a covert level, given time? Surely it
is in my interest for it to become overt, since the transgressions
at this time are on their side and not on mine?

Thoughts? There must be some way of breaking the secrecy. This
isn't the first time in human history that a conspiracy has taken
place on this scale, but the truth tends to out. The situation
now is they think they';re "winning" hence have little stimulus
to change the rules - if they started seeing themselves "losing"
things could change drastically.

=================================================================

From: amh15@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alan Hart)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Date: Sun May 14 09:59:54 1995

: Thoughts? There must be some way of breaking the secrecy. This
: isn't the first time in human history that a conspiracy has taken
: place on this scale, but the truth tends to out. The situation
: now is they think they';re "winning" hence have little stimulus
: to change the rules - if they started seeing themselves "losing"
: things could change drastically.

Mike, if that is your name,

I'm going to try to rationalise what you're telling us. I can think of three
possible explanations for what you are experiencing.

One is that there _is_ a conspiracy against you. As a previous writer said,
though, a lot of these programmes are taped, so it really isn't possible in
some of the cases you've named. Further, why were no bugs found in your
house? Finally, unless you are a political figure or someone else in the
public eye, why would anyone bother? People like me (and I assume you) are
small fry; our contribution to society is likely to be minor. Why would
anyone spend so much money and effort on you?

Another possibility is that you are developing some kind of paranoia. There's
no stigma attached to this; we're all paranoid to some extent, although
perhaps not to the extent that a doctor would call us paranoid. I think
paranoia is quite a straightforward explanation here - you really do believe
that all these things are aimed at you; you see people everywhere trying to
get at you. Logic suggests that this cannot really be the case.

The third possibility is that not even you really believe any of this, and
that this is a "troll". I'm not sure I believe this possibility, but it's
possible.

Anyway, if you want to be sure that you're _not_ going mad, I'd go and see
your G.P. if I were you. If you don't trust him/her, why not see someone
recommended by a person you can trust? If you don't trust anyone any more,
don't you think it's time you got help?

Alan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Hart - amh15@cam.ac.uk - Cambridge University, UK - +44 1223 515460
"How many letters are there in the alphabet - is it 27?" - J.R. Histed
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ian Preece dktower.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Reply-To: ianp@dktower.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun May 14 14:58:08 1995

In article <3p52cq$rsl@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
amh15@cus.cam.ac.uk "Alan Hart" writes:

> The third possibility is that not even you really believe any of this, and
> that this is a "troll". I'm not sure I believe this possibility, but it's
> possible.

For a troll, the posts are remarkably well-informed on paranoid
behaviour.. you'd need to be one, or be reasonably well-informed on the
subject to sustain the tale... which lead me to my theory...*ahem*...:

An extension to possibility 3 (Number 3.5, perhaps?) is that the original
poster may be somehting like a psychology student writing a term paper
on the net community's reactions to this tale. (Now, there's paranoia
for you! Not only are they listening to/watching us, they're writing
reports about us too...:-)

More likely, though, is that the poster is genuinely in need of professional
help (he has intimated as much, himself) and, as such, he should be encouraged
to seek it.

regards,
IanP
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Ian Preece ianp@dktower.demon.co.uk

IT Project Specialist Ideas for Hire
-----------------------------------------------------

3049

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Recognition by Strangers is Normal 12/5/95 (2144)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:41:07 PST

From: speedc@cs.man.ac.uk (C Speed)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Date: Fri May 12 04:34:26 1995

>Yes, I realize that. But after five years I think I can tell the difference
>between reality and unreality. Look, in the part of London where I used
>to live, I went back there over Easter, and I got recognized walking
>down the street by people I had never seen before. That's happened
>quite a few times and I am at a complete loss to explain it.

That is what happens in big cities. Hell, it scared me to death when I first
started working in Manchester. People keep talking to me on the streets,
even if its just to say hello, and I've no idea who they are. This happens
to most people, don't worry about it.

>>paranoid, whoops I mean suspicious, I would call in one of those bug
>>detection teams which have those machines that pick up the transmitted

>That's 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.

Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs to be found?

>Over Easter I went to the police in London, telling them basically
>what I've posted here. I don't think you'll be surprised to learn
>that I didn't get very far; they asked "why would they be doing this to
>you in particular?" and the answer "they are because they are" doesn't
>go very far.

Exactly. All you have offered so far as proof of your harrassment by these
people is:

1) Someone on radio said something that you had recently said
and
2) People on the streets seem to recognise you.

These are both perfectly normal occurences and happen to lots of people every
day so it is unsurprising that people here, and the police, are not taking
you seriously.

Trying to always keep an open mind about things I would say that one of three
things is likely.

Either there is a lot more to this that you are not telling us, or you are
messing about or you have some genuine delusions. I'd like to think that in
two of the three cases you would find some real support here, but it seems
unlikely I'm afraid.

Claire

*******************************************************************************
* "And though we say all information should be free it is not. *
* Information is power and currency of the virtual world we inhabit." *
*******************************************************************************
* C.Speed - cs.man.ac.uk> <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~speedc/> *
*******************************************************************************

-------------------------------

Date: Fri May 12 17:41:49 1995
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame

>That is what happens in big cities. Hell, it scared me to death when I first
>started working in Manchester. People keep talking to me on the streets,
>even if its just to say hello, and I've no idea who they are. This happens
>to most people, don't worry about it.

The key is the pattern, or a change in the pattern. I've lived in London
almost all my life, and just walking around the streets, I never got
hassled by anybody. All of a sudden, people start harassing you,
throwing abuse at you, behaving as if they know you personally, as
if they've seen you before somewhere. I read in the papers that this
happens to Colin Stagg and people like that Eastenders actress, but
they've had their picture in the paperes, so that is understandable.
In a couple of cases people have even known my name - when I was in
London over Easter I was walking down Shaftesbury avenue in the
West End when somebody (no idea who they were, just some bloke with
his girlfriend) called me by name - quite clearly, and my name is
distinctive. This also happened once about four 1/2 years ago, onn
the tube - some blokes I had never seen started chanting my name
and a term of abuse.

It's the pattern which convinces me there's something to it - and
would convince any impartial abserver who could see things tyhrough
my eyes.

>Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs to be found?

There's a little story behjjind this. First iof 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 Directpor said to another guy,
"is this the bloke who's been on TV?" "yeah, I think so") and also
indirectly, by rep[peating stuff I was saying at home in London and
in my rented accomodation there (I moved several times in the course of
1992 and they followed me each time). Now, if "they" (the buggers)
knew their bugs could be found easily, they wouldn;'t be keen to make
their existence known, would they?

Also, in summer 1992 I went on a trip abroad to Europe by coach, and
on the way out there were a couple a little younger than myself on the coach
a bloke and hius girlfriend. He said things about some bloke who was
never named, who sounded exactly like me - and he made explicitly
clear that our house was bugged, and that a neighrbours house was
bugged (and at work they'd been rep[earting what was said at the
neighbours, so this looks like independent corroboration).
They also said stuff like "at school he was always really streesed,
they found someone from his school and he was a real psycho"
and that "he was in a B&B for one night and they got him", dead right
again, I had been in B&B for once night a few days before this trip
and weatching the news again got a reaction from the newsreader.

2144

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: A doubting Thomas is heard 9/5/95 (1239)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:29:14 PST

From: pao1@ukc.ac.uk (P.A.Orrock)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Reply-To: pao1@ukc.ac.uk (P.A.Orrock)
Date: Tue May 9 05:54:20 1995

>have laws that protect the individual from harassement -
>you can't just threaten people willy nilly. There are laws
>against that. And if someone lies about you in the press
>or tv then you have recourse to libel/slander etc. laws.

Yup, agreed

>True, Britain has no 'privacy' laws as such, but isn't that
>a good thing? As of this moment, the govt. are considering
>a privacy law, but it is unlikely to succeed. Why? Because any
>such law would benefit the priviledged and those in power.
>Privacy laws, while supposedly protecting the individual, help
>those in power hide their mistakes/scandals. They stop the press
>etc. investigating. Privacy laws are undemocratic - they prevent
>the people from keeping an eye on govt.

Agreed again.

>Douglas.

I am slightly confused here as to who is writing what. this just seems to
be an amalgam of posts and replies posted to here to keep the thread going.

>Confession time - the victim is/was me (except my name isn't
>Corley, but that's irrelevant). What happened was not threats;
>just invasion of privacy, in a partiicularly flagrant and
>shocking way, in a way which most people would consider to
>constitute harassment.

>You know there's a particular category of person with mental
>illness to whom TV and radio "talk", ie they feel the broadcast
>is directed at them in particular? This happpened to me,

You mean the category where they think that everyone is after them ? that
one ? So lets get this straight you know you are paranoid and you think
that they are out to get you ? Uh huh, try putting the two together and
see what you come up with.

>quite some time ago in the UK (I'm originally from London
>so I've seen plenty of British media print and other).
>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.

Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united
effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit
round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones
house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and
shoving it out on the news everyday. This someone has nothing to do with
politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who
seems to be extremely paranoid.

Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking about
would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of
people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You
must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.

>How did they do this? I'll 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 didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're
>trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"
>which mirrored something I had said a day or two before
>(I'm not paranoid, honest!). Now that got broadcast to the whole
>of London - if any recordings are kept of the shows then it'll be
>there.

Of course you are not paranoid, just slightly mad. Did you ever look for
the bugs in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if I thought that was
happening to me, I'd search the place from top to bottom, I mean I live
there I would know if anything was out of place. If I was really
paranoid, whoops I mean suspicious, I would call in one of those bug
detection teams which have those machines that pick up the transmitted
radio waves. This reminds me of BUGS, that new programme on BBC1 on
saturdays which is all about this kind of stuff, but, shown as a drama /
thriller. I suppose thats based on you as well is it ?

>is that there is a conspiracy in Britain, that it encompasses the
>broadcast media, and there is no way of breaking the conspiracy.
>The people who are involved in it will not open up.

What a load of jolly hollyhocks, I would say something else but,
apparently students are not allowed to swear on newsgroups in case it
damages the reputation of the university or some such jolly hollyhocks.

This guy is extremely paranoid to suggest that the entire British media
is after him in such a big way. He gives no real reason as to why they
are after him, just that he suffers/suffered from a slight mental
disorder, could it be paranoia perhaps ?? No surely not.

I put it to the house that he has never recovered from this mental
disorder, lets come out with it and call it paranoia, and thinks everyone
is after him. Remember just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean
they aren't after you.

This guy has a serious problem to suggest that the media would go to such
lengths just to single out and ridicule one person. I mean apart from
anything else, we ( the listening masses) wouldn't be interested unless
it concerned the royal family, politicians or showbiz personalities. e.g.
the camillagate tapes. I would think that almost everyone, no matter how
much they went on about infringements of privacy read the transcripts with
interest. I really don't think that Joe Bloggs ordinary guy or paranoid
nutter would have the same appeal. Well actually I dunno. :)

Regards,

Paul.

--
Paul Orrock, Websurfer wannabe, http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/home.html
PC Consultant and HTML freelance Writer, http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/
===========================================================================
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

1239

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: BBC's Hidden Shame 4/5/95 (334)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:17:23 PST

Date: Thu May 4 18:27:24 1995
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: BBC's Hidden Shame

Remember the two-way televisions in George Orwell's 1984?
The ones which watched you back? Which you could never get
rid of, only the sound could be turned down?

Well the country which brought Orwell into the world has
made his nightmare follow into the world after him.
Since 1990 the British have been waging war against one of
their own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy
and a campaign of abuse in the transmitted media in
their efforts to humiliate their "victim".

And the most remarkable thing about it is that what they
do is not even illegal - the UK has no laws to protect
the privacy of its citizens, nor does it proscribe
harassment or abuse except in the case of racial abuse.

A lot of people in England know this to be going on,
yet so far they have maintained perfect "omerta";
not a sound, not a squeak has escaped into the English
press, and for all the covert harassment absolutely
nothing has come out into the public domain.

Have the British gone mad? I think we should be told.

-------------------------------

From: "Mr.B" stir.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Date: Mon May 8 05:32:13 1995

Mmmm.

Who, exactly is this victim you're talking about?

First up, Britain or the UK (not 'England' - England is
a part of Britain, like Kansas is a part of the USA) does
have laws that protect the individual from harassement -
you can't just threaten people willy nilly. There are laws
against that. And if someone lies about you in the press
or tv then you have recourse to libel/slander etc. laws.

True, Britain has no 'privacy' laws as such, but isn't that
a good thing? As of this moment, the govt. are considering
a privacy law, but it is unlikely to succeed. Why? Because any
such law would benefit the priviledged and those in power.
Privacy laws, while supposedly protecting the individual, help
those in power hide their mistakes/scandals. They stop the press
etc. investigating. Privacy laws are undemocratic - they prevent
the people from keeping an eye on govt.

And stop looking for some kinda conspiracy in the British
press. It's hardly perfect, but your notion that they don't
cover/campaign against press legislation, harrassment,
discrimination, human rights etc. is plain wrong. You've never
seen a British paper in yr life.

You clearly have a specific case/individual in mind. Speak up!
The thought police aren't coming round just yet.

Douglas.

-------------------------------

Date: Mon May 8 19:21:28 1995
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame

Confession time - the victim is/was me (except my name isn't
Corley, but that's irrelevant). What happened was not threats;
just invasion of privacy, in a partiicularly flagrant and
shocking way, in a way which most people would consider to
constitute harassment.

You know there's a particular category of person with mental
illness to whom TV and radio "talk", ie they feel the broadcast
is directed at them in particular? This happpened to me,
quite some time ago in the UK (I'm originally from London,
so I've seen plenty of British media print and other).
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.

How did they do this? I'll 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 didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're
trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"
which mirrored something I had said a day or two before
(I'm not paranoid, honest!). Now that got broadcast to the whole
of London - if any recordings are kept of the shows then it'll be
there.

334

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Newsgroup members join in the discussion (2144)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:12 PST

Newsgroup members join in the discussion

Peter Kr

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Intelligence agency sources on the Web (1239)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:48:40 PST

Intelligence agency sources on the Web

http://intelweb.janes.com/

Intelligence Watch Report covers public and private intelligence
agencies around the world.

kim-spy

http://www.kimsoft.com/kim-spy.htm

The Korea WebWeekly kim-spy Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence
link page.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

Lobster Journal publishes research on the intelligence community.

http://cryptome.org/

Cryptome is an online source of intelligence related material.

http://www.mi5.gov.uk/

MI5 has a website, too, but you should prepare yourself for some serious
"alternative reality" if you plan to visit it.

1239

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments

MI5 Persecution: Toronto Freenet supports free speech (334)

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:38:09 PST

Despite an orchestrated campaign of attempted censorship by UK-resident newsgroup readers, TFN did not bow
to demands for a suppression of freedom of speech. TFN general policy on the matter is as follows;

Draft Policy on Account Deactivations due to News Group Postings
================================================================

News group postings occasionally take the form of a message which goes against the "topic" of the conference.
For example, a derogatory message about Canadians in the soc.culture.canada.

Members of such news groups then may send a message to the system administrators asking that a user's account
be terminated because of such posting.

The Toronto Free-Net Board of Directors has taken the position that the only postings that will get a person's
account terminated is material that is illegal under Canadian law. Otherwise, the Toronto Free-Net will not
take any action.

Freenet Executive Director Mike Anderson had this to say regarding the continued attempts of a minority of usenet
participants to have my account on his system deactivated;

The TFN's policy is not to take action against members unless they contravene the Criminal Code of Canada, or
engage in practices such as forgery, attacks against other computer systems or mailbombing.

Mr. Corley, while possibly being very annoying, has not contravened the TFN's policies. The TFN believes strongly
in freedom of expression, while recognizing that the price for such freedom may be a high signal-to-noise ratio in Usenet.

If Mr. Corley breaks the law, we will take action -- until then, he has the same rights as any TFN member to post
to Usenet newsgroups. Actions such as mailbombing the TFN in protest will be met by strong complaints to the
originating site's postmaster. The best defense against unwanted postings may be simply be to ignore them and deny
the poster an audience.

TFN Executive Director Toronto, Ont CANADA

Personally, I find it gratifying that my contributions to usenet discussion are recognized as being conducive
to a high signal-to-noise ratio by their quality and thoughtfulness.

334

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Posted In: alt.cooking-chat

no comments