Eye Say, and Lord Gnome Answers

My interactions with Private Eye started in May 1995, shortly after I'd 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 I've 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

In-Reply-To: <199505122236.SAA02574@freenet.carleton.ca>
Hello yourself...

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 don't 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

Data Protection application to Keith Hill MP, 2002

In May 2002 I made a subject access application under the Data Protection Act 1998 to Keith Hill, my local MP. I was interested
to see who he had spoken to during 1997-1999, when we were communicating by letter. The Information Commissioner's office told
me that Mr Hill had been convicted in May 2000 under the DPA, presumably by omission of knowing the relevant law; consequently
Mr Hill was more helpful than usual in his response to my application. For the sake of interest, I reproduce the Evening Standard
news report here.

Coupled to my data protection application, I asked Mr Hill;

Additionally I ask the non-data-protection question of whether you spoke to the Police about me, about our communications or my
faxes to Parliament, either in April 2000 or at any other time. Please identify any such communications.

His response consisted of a computer printout, with covering letter, which are shown here. His letter says he may have spoken to
Police about the faxes Parliament had been receiving, but his memory is unclear "at this remove in time". I suspect that his memory
would allow him to remember whether or not he complained to Police two years previously; but it would not be to his advantage to
remember, would it.

The data printout spells out that I asked for Mr Hill's assistance against "BBC news readers who are spying on him through the
television." It also contains a reference of Mr Hill's office referring my case to Social Services, to whom I am unknown. "Presents
Challenging Issues" sounds a code, like the nursing UNDY = "Unfortunately Not Dead Yet" (but we continue to hope).

I wrote again to Mr Hill on 13 May and told him I did not accept his apparent memory lapse regarding the police. I asked him to
elucidate; in his response of 17 May he said he was unable to add to his earlier note on this point.

768

Bindman and Partners, Solicitors

As early as the start of 1995 I was in communication with a local lawyer to attempt to identify the "persecutors". In
January 1996, on the advice of my psychiatrist, I wrote to Robin Lewis at the well-known London firm of Bindman and Partners.
My doctor told me another of his patients was being represented by this firm, and described them as the "underdogs' solicitor".

My three-page letter to Mr Lewis (dated 23 January 1996) went into quite a lot of detail about what had happened at my former
employers in Oxford in 1992, and the external-to-the-company stimulus to that harassment. I also described the BA incident in
June 1993, and suggested that Mr Lewis's firm could represent me in a legal action, either against my former employers, or against
one of the organisations which had been molesting me.

Robin Lewis's reply was brief in the extreme, and is reproduced here.

My reply (dated 11 February 1996) said I was "disappointed to receive your insultingly brusque reply to my letter and would ask
you to look again at the matter." To which Mr Lewis replied;

I wrote to him again on 29 February 1996; he replied as follows.

On 29 March 1996, and again on 21 April 1996, I did again write to Robin Lewis, but he did not reply.

Three years later, on 25 May 1999, I again wrote to Bindmans, following a referral from MIND's legal department. Again I wrote,
this time to Nick Braithwaite, with a detailed statement; and again they sent a reply terse to the point of rudeness.

On the phone I suggested to Mr Braithwaite that his refusal to take my instructions was due to prejudice against the mentally ill.
He spluttered and coughed, and said words to the effect that he usually found that a mentally ill person's complaint would be a
product of their delusion.

My Summons against BBC

In March 1997 I issued a Summons against the BBC for Nuisance in my local county court. I claimed injunction against
them continuing their harassment.

Please see the next item for the results of the summons.

769

Buerk and Lewis deny their spying

This letter was sent on 6 February 1997 to me by BBC Viewer and Listener Information, in reply to a letter I had sent
them on 17 January. The letter says the BBC would "never engage in any form of surveillance activity such as you describe".

The BBC also informed me that they had spoken to Michael Buerk and Martyn Lewis, and that these two newscasters had
categorically denied spying on me. However, the BBC and these two employees have refused to put these denials in writing.

Needless to say, I do not accept the denials of the BBC and its employees. I think they are lying. Unfortunately I cannot
prove otherwise, and my attempt to "smoke them out" by suing them hit a brick wall.

769

Gagged by BBC Ariel's editor

On 25 June 1997 I wrote to Landmark Publishing Services, who deal with advertising for the BBC's in-house magazine Ariel.
I requested they run an advert "BBC Newsreaders Spying on my Home" in the Personal column. They accepted my instructions
and payment, and the following advert did indeed run in Ariel's issue of 8 July 1997.

Following the successful placement of this small ad, I wrote again to Landmark on 17 July 1997, requesting they run exactly
the same advert for 10 issues, enclosing payment. Unfortunately, the advert did not appear in any further issues of Ariel,
because Ariel's editor Robin Reynolds nixed it. Here is an email from Elaine Smith of Landmark dated 26 August 1997.

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:34:25 +0100 (BST)
X-Sender: landmark@194.112.32.30
From: elaine@lps.co.uk (Elaine Smith)
Subject: Re: advert - ariel

With regard to your E-mail of 22 August 1997 concerning your advertisement
in the Ariel magazine.

I was instructed by Ariel to remove your advertisement from the classified
pages as they were not comfortable with the contents of the Internet
address you supplied. I realise we have placed the advertisement
successfully for you in the past. Unfortunately this time they decided they
did not want it printed.

[snip]

Stephen Lander on Channel Four TV

MI5's Director-General, Stephen Lander, appeared in Channel Four's programme "The Power List" on 31/October/1998.
The series of three programmes described the most influential people in British society.

To my deep amusement and Lander's undoubted chagrin, Fulcrum Productions, makers of the programme, chose to illustrate
the piece using screen-shots of my website. To the best of my knowledge this is the only time this website has featured
on British television screens.

381

Observer article 9/March/1997
Fame at last! In an alleged book review in the Observer (Books p16), Jay Rayner writes about a "man called Bob"
(one of my many pseudonyms) in whom "a lot of people have shown an interest". Read and ponder!

Perhaps the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" could be re-worded into "may you be considered an
interesting person". Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!

381

.net magazine article March/1998

Britain's .net Magazine featured my website on page 17 of their March 1998 issue (number 42). They quote from the "FAQ"
pages, and also include some details of the evidence I have tried to present on my website.

The age of some of the material on the website shows in this review, which says the case "has been discussed in uk.*
newsgroups during the past year". At this time (March 1998) it has been discussed on uk.misc for three years, and there
are still occasional traces of the discussion going on.

381