Financial Times 17/Sept/1999

David Bowen performed a Web Site Inspection in the Financial Times, in which he compared the "Open Government" approach
of the American intelligence community with the closed world of British spookdom. The second paragraph mentions this site.

It appears that there are very few sites with material information on SS/SIS, which leads to this site's descriptions of
those agencies being frequently linked to by other persons' pages. Perhaps there is an irony that American agencies which
have much more capability appear to be more transparent than British agencies which have much less.

707

Bizarre magazine article June/2001

The appropriately-named Bizarre magazine, a UK publication, featured my website on page 114 of their June 2001 issue
(number 47). They present a copy of the letter MI5 sent me in February 1997.

This article was pointed out to me by a reader of Bizarre magazine. I suppose I should be pleased to be placed at no. 1
of a list of top ten paranoid sites, even though paranoia is only incidental to the the material on this website, which
is objective.

707

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.

707

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

I want to import a range of avi files (made by Fraps) to a collection. If I
highlight a range of files in a folder and click "Import", only two of the
files are collected.

Also, if I try to add another file to a collection, a new collection is
created instead.

I recently updated to Windows Media Player 11, then removed it (rolling back
to WMP 10). I wonder if that could be related.

Using: Version 5.1 SP2

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

Some of us search the list of threads for problems similar to ours. If the
title is "Please help" or "having a problem", we have to open it to find out
that it's not our problem.

Please use titles that are specific as possible.

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