XPost: alt.1d, alt.2600, alt.2600.cracks   
   XPost: alt.2600.crackz, uk.misc   
   From: bobbyd2000@comcast.net   
      
   STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS   
   CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP   
   THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   
    wrote in message news:m07110112475918@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > Four Years of "MI5 Persecution" Posts on Internet Newsgroups   
   >   
   > For approximately the first three years of the MI5 persecution, from June   
   > 1990 until late 1992, I kept as quiet as possible, in the hope that by not   
   > reacting, MI5s interest in me would decrease and they would simply go away   
   > of their own accord. This is the sort of behaviour some people employ   
   > against bullies; if the bullies arent getting a reaction, then they might   
   > simply go away and victimize someone else.   
   >   
   > Unfortunately, this tactic didnt work. The quieter I became, the more   
   > shrill and hysterical the noise from the Security Service operatives. For   
   > about two years I didnt watch TV news at all. Yet this only heightened   
   > their obsessed fixation; they continued to follow me wherever I went, they   
   > continued to induce harassment at work by managers and fellow workers, and   
   > they continued to encourage me to commit suicide. They seemed to regard my   
   > refusal to react as a crime which they would have to "put right" by ever   
   > more extreme forms of abuse.   
   >   
   > Finally, in 1995, I changed tactics radically. Since late 1994 I had had   
   > accounts with internet providers in Ontario, Canada. I discovered the   
   > cornucopia of internet newsgroups, on every topic from consumer   
   > electronics, to politics and legal topics, and I discovered online   
   > services such as Compuserve and AOL. In May 1995, I made the first posting   
   > to the conspiracy newsgroup, on the subject of "BBCs Hidden Shame".   
   >   
   > BBC's Hidden Shame   
   >   
   > The internet newsgroup discussion, which has now reached its fourth   
   > anniversary, started with an article in alt.conspiracy, which I reproduce   
   > here.   
   >   
   > Date: Thu May  4 18:27:24 1995   
   > Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy   
   > Subject: BBC's Hidden Shame   
   >   
   > Remember the two-way televisions in George Orwell's 1984? The ones which   
   > watched you   
   > back? Which you could never get rid of, only the sound could be turned   
   > down?   
   >   
   > Well the country which brought Orwell into the world has made his   
   > nightmare follow into   
   > the world after him. Since 1990 the British have been waging war against   
   > one of their   
   > own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy and a campaign of abuse   
   > in the   
   > transmitted media in their efforts to humiliate their "victim".   
   >   
   > And the most remarkable thing about it is that what they do is not even   
   > illegal - the   
   > UK has no laws to protect the privacy of its citizens, nor does it   
   > proscribe harassment   
   > or abuse except in the case of racial abuse.   
   >   
   > A lot of people in England know this to be going on, yet so far they have   
   > maintained   
   > perfect "omerta"; not a sound, not a squeak has escaped into the English   
   > press, and for   
   > all the covert harassment absolutely nothing has come out into the public   
   > domain.   
   >   
   > Have the British gone mad? I think we should be told   
   >   
   > At this point, I did not name MI5 as my persecutors. I was still unsure   
   > that they were the ones responsible for the "psychological terrorism". In   
   > followup posts however I did name them; and the persecutors have never   
   > denied the claim; so I think my guess is valid. (The Security Service   
   > Tribunal in 1997 have said "no determination in your favour was made", but   
   > it is a well established fact that MI5 lies routinely to the Tribunal   
   > which has never found in favour of a plaintiff, so no conclusions can be   
   > drawn from this.)   
   >   
   > This first post was made to alt.conspiracy, but further posts were made to   
   > the UK-local newsgroups, in particular uk.misc but also uk.legal and   
   > uk.politics (which is now called uk.politics.misc). Some time ago I tried   
   > to take the battle to the Compuserve forums, UKPOLITICS (which is now   
   > called UKCURRENT - current affairs), but my articles were censored by the   
   > forum operators. Such censorship is impossible on the internet newsgroups.   
   >   
   > Police Refuse to Act   
   >   
   > I have complained several times to the Metropolitan Police, who have each   
   > time refused to help.   
   >   
   > From: Green    
   > Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british   
   > Subject: Re: MI5 Persecution: Why Aren't the British Police Doing Their   
   > Job?   
   > Reply-To: Green@guidion.demon.co.uk   
   > Date: Sun Apr  7 21:13:30 1996   
   >   
   > In article    
   >           bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   > This in itself dos not suggest that the police have it in for you. The old   
   > bill   
   > operates on extremely tight spending limits forced on them by that pillock   
   > Michael   
   > Howard, and without evidence, they often have higher priorities than   
   > chasing something   
   > that cannot go to court.   
   >   
   > I doubt that the police are actually being leant on, but they probably   
   > realise that if   
   > they looked into this, they would be leant on hard. The met always stays   
   > away from   
   > anything that looks like it has Defence, Security or secret service   
   > interest already,   
   > because they realise that they are below these government agencies in the   
   > general   
   > pecking order.   
   >   
   > If I walked into my local nick and complained that MI5 were snooping on   
   > me, they would   
   > show me the door without even looking at my evidence, because that bored   
   > desk seargant   
   > with only five years to go before he retires doesn't want to start fucking   
   > about with   
   > somebody who has incurred the wrath of Stella Rimington.  He would rather   
   > deal with the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)