MI5 Persecution: Stasi 21/4/96 (15702)
Subject: Chief Constable Alderson Condemns "Stasi" MI5 Newsgroups:uk.misc,uk.politics,uk.media,uk.legal,soc.culture.british Organization: Toronto Free-Net Summary: Keywords: John Alderson, former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, had the following to say about the expansion of the Security Service's powers, in a recent magazine article; "It is fatal to let the secret service into the area of ordinary crime. MI5 is not under the same restraints as the police. They infiltrate organisations, people's jobs and lives. They operate almost like a cancer." "At the moment the acorn of a Stasi [the former East German communists' secret service] has been planted. It is there for future governments to build on." The message is clear. Criminal subversion and criminal harassment by an unpoliced minority not subject to the law, "infiltration of people's jobs and lives" is with us today. 15702 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MI5 Persecution: A new Kafka? 3/10/95 (5104)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dick Jackson) Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Usenet Admin) Nntp-Posting-Host: soldev Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 22:53:12 GMT Lines: 34 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Corley) writes: > >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 humouroursly 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 >emphasising 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 caused by >harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have to be >consequent to a removal of its immediate cause, in other words a cessation >of harassment. I also reasoned that since they were taunting me with jokes >about mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then the abusers would >think that they had "won" and been proved "right". I have so far not contributed to this tread, it has been unpleasant in my opinion. However, I was struck by the resemblance of the above passages to the writing of Franz Kafka. Viz. while from an objective viewpoint it seems to refer to a abnormal world, in a strange way it does resonate strongly at other levels. Mr. Corley, have you tried to write for publication? I honestly think it might lead somewhere positive. Dick Jackson (serious for a change and expecting to get beaten up) 5104 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (5104)
I just thought I'd let you know what I've been reading into the "Crusader" spam. I don't want to post this to usenet because somebody might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has, in uk.misc). First of all, I'd like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail. Anyway, let's suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my internet service provider, it's over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if you wanted to bug what was said, either you'd listen in over the line and have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider (more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular user's connection. OK, so now they're listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, _FISH_!!! or rec.aquaria to be precise And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, you'll never guess... PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through, but the piranha didn';t appear. by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look in the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and Paddy Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Major's sunburnt goldfish. We haven't had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent by someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline "that gives you something to think about, doesn't it?" The way it works is that they're trying to kill two birds with one stone again. I don't knoiw why they should be against these national alliance people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles. = In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Corley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >John J Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we don't know about? >: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, who's >: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world". > >I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things >from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility >to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently >to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my >identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of >course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike >corley" is. But at least we're observing a studied silence for now. :People can always be called "MR X", to save them being named. : :I'm completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity? :To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you :already have a less than respectful reputation here? I'll just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember. Sometime around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming out of the house was physically attacked by someone - not punched, just grabbed by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was something the people at work shouldn't have known about... but soon after a couple of people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was attacked". Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day, at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday". I don't want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples' heads then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I don't want that. Also I can't remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992 I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole thing from my mind. >This is a feature time and time again, that the security services >(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at >you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then >you can do that sort of thing. :But why? Are you a threat? They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they had to find a reason to spy and abuse. You can't abuse someone unless they're in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it became "nutter" and "monster" and "he's going to attack us" coupled with "ha ha ha, he can't do anything to defend himself, it was so funny". That obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something th
MI5 Persecution: Watch Out, Forger About 27/9/95 (3590)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british Subject: Re: An apology from Mike Corley Date: Wed Sep 27 14:20:36 1995 In referenced article, David Wooding says... >Well, Mike Corley might or might not have written the apologies, but I >think not. I thought the following line both witty and imaginative. > >>>It was the razor blades stuffed down between the keys that told me. Corley himself denies posting this "apology", but I'm impressed if it is a forgery. Here's the header of my received email. It looks very genuine except for the fact that postings to newsgroups are directed through demon's mail to news gateway, which is strange. Also the message id is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which seems to be in a different format from previous Corley postings, e.g. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] The mail seems to have been received directly from mail.torfree.net. One way of telling for sure would be if anyone on the recipient list contacted torfree, but did not publish any complaints on the newsgroups - he would not have had access to their address in that case. >Received: from SpoolDir by ULTIMATE (Mercury 1.20); 26 Sep 95 12:00:14 +0500 >Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from mail.torfree.net by smtp.ultimate-tech.com (Mercury 1.20); >26 Sep 95 12:00:04 +0500 >Received: from bloor.torfree.net ([199.71.188.18]) by mail.torfree.net > (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.6; 16-jun-94) > via sendmail with smtp id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:31 EDT >Received: from torfree.net by bloor.torfree.net with smtp > (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0sxbx2-000JEeC; Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:29 EDT >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Newsgroups: uk.misc, uk.media, soc.culture.british, soc.culture.canada, uk.legal, alt.conspiracy >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Corley) >Subject: Oops! Sorry! >Organization: Toronto Free-Net >X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1995 01:23:45 GMT >Lines: 27 >X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 -- Ray Dunn (opinions are my own) | Phone: (514) 938 9050 Montreal | Phax : (514) 938 5225 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Home : (514) 630 3749 3590 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MI5 Persecution: Question and Answer 27/9/95 (2076)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Mike Corley" writes: >>> ##: There were also a few other things said at the trial >>> ##: relating to this which I won't repeat here; it was in the papers >>> ##: at the time anyway. This quote and others said by and about this >>> ##: witness were repeating things that had been said by and about >>> ##: me at around that time. When, where and by whom ? Let's have some details that can be checked. I'm not going to repeat them. They're hurtful to me because they contained abuse that was directed against me by someone else at the time and which got picked up and thrown again in the trial. It is a matter of record but I won't repeat it here. >>> PM: >Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post. >>> PM: >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook >>> PM: >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. Why would "they" wish to assassinate your character? Well, let's put it this way - just because this is the first time it's happened in this way, from these people, on this scale, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened before, on a lesser scale. At university there were people who quite overtly hated me and would have wished something nasty to happen to me. Because of where I went making the wrong sort of enemies is pretty deadly. "They" would wish to assassinate my character because it had all been done before, and because they knew I would not be able to react in any other way than I'd reacted previously. >>> ##: 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. Please give details of when, where and by whom these comments were made, so that they can be checked. This was four, five years ago... sorry, I don't remember. I can remember individual incidents, words which were repeated by different people at different times in different locations. Around the end of 1992 Private Eye rtan a front-cover with John and Norma Major, with the title "Major's support lowest ever" and John saying to Norma "Come back norma" on the front cover. What can you read in to that? Not a lot, seems like standard fare for PE. The first time I saw it I was in the pub with some people from work. One was expressing doubts to the other (let's call the first one Simon, shall we? and the second one Phil?) about whether what was going on was right. Phil's answer was that if Private Eye was doing it then it must be ok, "they're usually right". A few days later, again near work, there were some students laughing in the street, "Were you COMING BACK later? But I thought you said you were COMING BACK ha ha ha?" Play on words, you see. Not very nice, either. I had start medication soon afterwards. Clever people, these chaps who think up PE titles. Just slightly lacking in any sense of morality. >>> ##: 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. What was the date of the broadcast ? Out of 2 million plus listeners, why should you be the only one that Tarrant was allegedly referring to ? Sometyime in spring 1994. I can't remember the date, I heard the broadcast in the car - I was going into the office from London that day and just happened to snap on the radio, and hey presto! Mr Tarrant gives us the benefit of his excellent understanding. >>> ##: That's exactly what we did. We went to a competent, professional >>> >>> ##: detective agency in London, paid them ov
MI5 Persecution: Options 21/9/95 (562)
From: john heelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.journalism Subject: Re: CENSORHSIP IS IMMORAL, UNJUST AND WRONG Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 19:17:30 GMT Organization: (Private) Lines: 65 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lorca.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 You have to admit that Mike is persistent and obviously feels deeply that he is being hounded by the "Security Services" and there is a Conspiracy out to get him personally. If that is true, then we should be concerned; if he is just paranoid, then we should empathise with his sickness. What we should not do is to invite censorshipthat just could be implicitly joining in the putative Conspiracy. Let's look at Mike's potential options (and the alleged responses he has received): > 1. Complain to the Police: (their alleged response > "Don't be silly, Sir"; Mike's rationale "They are part > of the Conspiracy") > I don't think the police as an organisation are part of it. They're certainly not the source. The officer I spoke to at Easter clearly didn't know anything about it. And that was at my local police station in London - if anyone in the police knew you would think the people at your local cop shop would. A couple of years ago I had to go into the station after a motoring infraction, the guy I spoke to then said something about "brain like a computer sir" which my suspicions latched on to - (I'm alleged to be a programmer as some people reading this know) - but as per the usual "can';t prove nuthin" and you ask yourself if you're just being stupid suspecting on the basis of a straw > 2. Complain to a Member of Parliament (Mike's rationale: "Can't > because they are part of the Conspiracy") > I could do that actually. But he would probably tell me to go see the police, for which see above. > 3. Make it visible through the UK Press. (Mike's rationale: > "Can't because they are part of the Conspiracy") > They are actually. There's a difference though in the way journalists react to this stuff when they're "got to" by the security service. This is completely giving the game away, but the trouble originally started with my reading into stuff that was being written by Times columnists, in particular our antagonistic friend Mr Levin. But you see that some journalists are taking part in the conspiracy and others are only doing it because their puppet masters have been feeding them information which they can't allow themselves to ignore. The security services have their hooks into the UK media, this case shows that very explicitly. You also see how things get gradualkly wqorse with a particular journalist; a couple of weeks ago Peter Tory in the Express was writing about "nerds seeking their revenge on him through the Net", guess what that was about. > 4. Complain to the UK Security Services. (Mike's rationale: "Can't > because they ARE the Cnspiracy") > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If the fascist Gestapo bastards plot to see you dead then who's going to deal with it? Not the security services, that's for sure. > 5. Make it visible through Internet: (Mike has done this > suvccessfully; but any gainsayers are "part of the Conspiracy". > I don;t think you';re part of the consipracy if you refuse to believe or
MI5 Persecution: Stand up for Free Speech 14/8/95 (363)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Ingram) Newsgroups: uk.misc Date: Mon Aug 14 10:08:32 1995 Some cencorship loving bore wrote : > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gareth Evans) writes: > > His sysadmin is also next to useless, and has not replied to my request or > even acknowledged it. Maybe this person *is* a sysadmin? > > He's not. It seems the public access site he uses has got no proper > management over its users. Here's a copy of a reply I got from a > complaint I made. [After returning every one of Corley's postings to [snip a large pile of winging complaining drivel] Geez what a bunch of tossers you all are - you don't like someones postings so you try and get him evicted from the net, why not just use a kill file - you DONT have to read his posts/threads now do you ? Why is it the net is getting populated by the biggest bunch of self absorbed little Hitlers ? You don't like someones posts so you bloody complain or mail bomb them - grow up you bunch of fucking sad gits ! Richard. 363 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MI5 Persecution: Counter-surveillance sweep by Nationwide Investigations Group
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 £411.25 (including VAT) for the surveillance sweep, which took them about an hour and a half to complete, using a "Professional 5000 multi-scanner, CCL UHF scanner and Guideline telephone tap detector." As I said above, I don't know very much about these things, so I can't comment on the capabilities or otherwise of this equipment. But clearly the "watchers" are using technology which in 1994 was beyond the detection capabilities of a good private detective agency. 386 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
