MI5 Persecution: Goldfish and Piranha 29/9/95 (5104)

[Mike]

And this is here because ....???


<MI5Victim at mi5.gov.uk> wrote in message 
news:m07050813525824 at 4ax.com...
|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 <DFnE55.8tF.0.bloor at torfree.net>,
| Mike Corley <bu765 at torfree.net> wrote:
| >
| >John J Smith (J.J.Smith at ftel.co.uk) 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 
they
| blithely ignore.
|
| :So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and 
you assume that
| :they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a 
bit of a big
| :logical step, here: That person doesn't like me, or is 
causing me trouble,
| :it's not because they've got problems themselves, it must 
be the "Security
| :Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is 
there more?
|
| A single source is indicated because of the range of 
harassment.
| BBC + Capital + manipulated_public_at_large + 
set_up_situations,
| what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry 
out the
| covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you 
around for
| five years without being spotted. It smells very much of 
the security
| services, because there is no other organization (to my 
knowledge)
| which does the things I've seen these people do.
|
| Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of 
soft targets
| to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person 
who they thought
| would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could 
get away with
| murder.
|
| And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal 
vendetta by someone.
| Who could that be? I don't know, but I can give you some 
clues.
|
| The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from 
my college set me
| up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, 
during the last
| year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I 
know that I was
| talking in my sleep; although I don't know what I was 
saying, it got
| me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked 
afterwards to
| the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all 
that has followed.
|
| I think that's the strongest contender for source. 
Directly beneath my
| room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends 
round late at
| night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could 
have heard what
| I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the 
reputation for
| "talking to myself".
|
| What I don't know is why that should have rebounded a year 
after I left.
| You'd think it would have happened sooner; it's a bit odd 
to wait for a
| year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what 
in particular
| happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.
|
| >What I don't know is how it looks from the other side, 
from the side of
| >the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a 
couple of
| >occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of 
the matter, but
| >they have alwats ducked the challenge.
|
| :Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have 
made a mistake, and
| :the people don't know what you are talking about?
|
| Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some 
people around me
| know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not 
been "contacted"
| by "them". But I _know_ that others have been contacted.
|
| :What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a 
catchphrase of a
| :popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?
|
| In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this 
year, returning home
| from Clapham police station to report five years of 
harassment ("we're not
| saying it's happening and we're not saying it isn't 
happening"), another
| "not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly 
little slut did her
| country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the 
face of the
| hated enemy.
|
| What can you do about that? You can't yell abuse back in 
their face, because
| they know they're supported by their peers, by the media, 
by the murderers in
| the security forces. You can't put them down when the 
fascist establishment
| is on their side. You can't hit them, because they would 
deny their abuse,
| they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges 
against the "nutter"
| who attacked them "at random".
|
| >You know, you're
| >passing saomeone, they're hardly going to construct an 
argument for your
| >benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the 
conversation which they
| >can giggle at.
|
| :Abuse such as what? We're all adults here, we can take 
it. Is this abuse
| :aimed at you? How can you tell it is?
|
| I think I've said already what the words are. Thing is, at 
any given time
| the language is consistent. In January everyone's calling 
you X, then a
| few weeks later people stop calling you X and start 
calling you Y.
|
| You can tell it's aimed at me, because when people 
repeatedly say the same
| words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be 
hard of
| understanding not to recognize it.
|
| >Or they repeat something that's been said somewhere 
else... the PE thing
| >being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick 
up the refrain.
|
| :Remind me who PE is again.
|
| PE = "Private Eye"
|
| >: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another 
posting. In around
| >: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading 
"Major's support
| >: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover 
"come back, Norma".
| >: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn';;t 
there? I certainly
| >: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the 
pub with people from work
| >: >Simon says to phil, "don';t you think it's wrong 
then?" phil says, "well
| >: >private eye are usuallyright"..."hislop strikes 
again..
| >
| >: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What 
is the other
| >: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a 
bit wrong, with the
| >: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"...
| >
| >No, this one isn't obvious , it really does need to be 
explained. I
| >certainly didn't understand it when I first saw it. You 
see, the kernel
| >of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the 
themes of
| >abuse were centred around interpretations of those two 
words (stretch your
| >mind a little bit, I don't have to spell it out for you, 
surely).
|
| :You did in your mail item.
| :
| :You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double 
Entendre". The
| :inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not 
the first part
| :of the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly 
gone for "Back",
| :silly old me).
| :
| :You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a 
Private Eye
| :headline. They are everywhere. The English language has 
much double
| :meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could 
pull a double
| :entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So 
what?
|
| >The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he 
did recognise
| >what it meant after a moment's thought... and so did I... 
and so did the
| >people who repeated it several times later... so however 
murky it may
| >seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to 
have...
|
| I still don't really know if the meaning was intended when 
that headline was
| written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The 
reason I think it
| might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse 
along the lines of
| "sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in 
particularly from Steve.
| So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, 
"two people in one";
| "back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come" 
inevitably meant you-know-
| what, "split" (well, we'd better split now) again you can 
guess, "bent" (of
| a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These aren't 
"nice" double-
| entendres intended for comedy, they're nasty words to 
humiliate and cause
| pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I 
would sue my
| former employers for harassment and I would almost 
certainly win. I had to
| take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldn't be 
able to lie their
| way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to 
court - the main
| obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit 
late and much
| of what happened, the details that would be necessary for 
a case to go
| to court, has just been obliterated by time.
|
| :        Smid
|
| ==============================================
| From: flames at flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
| Newsgroups: 
uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
| Subject: Re: Mike Corley - a (helpful) suggestion
| Date: Mon Oct  2 05:43:42 1995
|
| In article <812551172snz at objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail 
<snail at objmedia.demon.co.uk> says:
|
| >Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply 
because I don't want
| >to download groups he is partaking in, because of his 
behaviour.
| >
| >I wasn't that bothered, but I am starting to get 
seriously pissed off
| >with him. Which takes a lot.
|
|
| Hi Snail
|
| This person Corley seems quite interesting for three 
reasons. I put the
| following at the end of a post in another thread just to 
see if he was
| reading any other threads in uk.media.
|
| It seems he is probably not.
|
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Heres an interesting little story from back in the early 
days of CCD
| technology. There was this miniature camera which was 
designed to fit
| behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control 
system (just
| beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the 
data in 256 lines
| of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line 
at a time,
| into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be 
picked up
| remotely from a standard license detector van from where 
it was stripped
| out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the 
TV station where
| it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a 
corner of the news
| readers monitor.
|
| 5104
|