LESS Than A Dollar A Day Gets
HUGE Exposure. Let Us Handle
All The Work - VISITORS GUARANTEED
OR YOUR MONEY BACK!!!

http://submitmywebpage.com/offers/

cAn]T.P$6<=bejNZaxUnjVg<

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=. 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.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=. 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 stress...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= 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.