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

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.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= who knows about. it? =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Many people know, both in the establishment and media,. and among the
general. public. Despite an absence of its target from the UK for more than
two years, the echoes of paranoia can still be heard loud and clear. from
across the water. When it started in 1990, the only. people who knew were
those in BBC. television who were spying on my home, and a few radio
broadcasters.. There were a few cases of public harassment, but very little
compared to the situation that developed a. couple of years later.

The list today. includes BBC TV staff (newsreaders such as Martyn Lewis,
Michael Buerk, Nicholas Witchell), people. from radio stations such as
Chris Tarrant of Capital and Radio 1 DJs, people. in the print media, but
also many people. in the general public. All united in a conspiracy which
breaks the laws which. the UK does have regarding harassment, and all
completely. uncaring for any semblance of decency or elementary respect
for individual. rights.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= how and why. did it start? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The harassment didn't start. by itself, so someone must have been there at
the outset to give it a firm push and set the. "animals" after me. It looks
as if I was set up in June 1990, and. the timing indicates someone from
university. was responsible.

In May or June. 1990, Alan Freeman on Radio 1 read out a letter from someone
who had known me for a few years, who. wrote of the one who "wore out his
welcome with random. precision" (from the Pink Floyd song). Freeman went on
to say to the writer. "that's a hell of a letter you wrote there". The
indication is strongly that people I had parted. from soon before nursed a
grudge against me. and were trying to cause trouble for me.