MI5 Persecution: A doubting Thomas is heard 9/5/95 (1141)

[MI5Victim@xxxxxxxxxx]

From: pao1@xxxxxxxxx (P.A.Orrock)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Reply-To: pao1@xxxxxxxxx (P.A.Orrock)
Date: Tue May  9 05:54:20 1995

>have laws that protect the individual from harassement -
>you can't just threaten people willy nilly. There are laws
>against that. And if someone lies about you in the press
>or tv then you have recourse to libel/slander etc. laws.

Yup, agreed

>True, Britain has no 'privacy' laws as such, but isn't that
>a good thing? As of this moment, the govt. are considering
>a privacy law, but it is unlikely to succeed. Why? Because any
>such law would benefit the priviledged and those in power.
>Privacy laws, while supposedly protecting the individual, help
>those in power hide their mistakes/scandals. They stop the press
>etc. investigating. Privacy laws are undemocratic - they prevent
>the people from keeping an eye on govt.

Agreed again.

>Douglas.

I am slightly confused here as to who is writing what. this just seems to
be an amalgam of posts and replies posted to here to keep the thread going.

>Confession time - the victim is/was me (except my name isn't
>Corley, but that's irrelevant). What happened was not threats;
>just invasion of privacy, in a partiicularly flagrant and
>shocking way, in a way which most people would consider to
>constitute harassment.

>You know there's a particular category of person with mental
>illness to whom TV and radio "talk", ie they feel the broadcast
>is directed at them in particular? This happpened to me,

You mean the category where they think that everyone is after them ? that
one ? So lets get this straight you know you are paranoid and you think
that they are out to get you ? Uh huh, try putting the two together and
see what you come up with.

>quite some time ago in the UK (I'm originally from London
>so I've seen plenty of British media print and other).
>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.

Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united
effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit
round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones
house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and
shoving it out on the news everyday. This someone has nothing to do with
politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who
seems to be extremely paranoid.

Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking about
would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of
people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You
must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.

>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
>(I'm not paranoid, honest!). Now that got broadcast to the whole
>of London - if any recordings are kept of the shows then it'll be
>there.

Of course you are not paranoid, just slightly mad. Did you ever look for
the bugs in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if I thought that was
happening to me, I'd search the place from top to bottom, I mean I live
there I would know if anything was out of place. If I was really
paranoid, whoops I mean suspicious, I would call in one of those bug
detection teams which have those machines that pick up the transmitted
radio waves. This reminds me of BUGS, that new programme on BBC1 on
saturdays which is all about this kind of stuff, but, shown as a drama /
thriller. I suppose thats based on you as well is it ?

>is that there is a conspiracy in Britain, that it encompasses the
>broadcast media, and there is no way of breaking the conspiracy.
>The people who are involved in it will not open up.

What a load of jolly hollyhocks, I would say something else but,
apparently students are not allowed to swear on newsgroups in case it
damages the reputation of the university or some such jolly hollyhocks.

This guy is extremely paranoid to suggest that the entire British media
is after him in such a big way. He gives no real reason as to why they
are after him, just that he suffers/suffered from a slight mental
disorder, could it be paranoia perhaps ?? No surely not.

I put it to the house that he has never recovered from this mental
disorder, lets come out with it and call it paranoia, and thinks everyone
is after him. Remember just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean
they aren't after you.

This guy has a serious problem to suggest that the media would go to such
lengths just to single out and ridicule one person. I mean apart from
anything else, we ( the listening masses) wouldn't be interested unless
it concerned the royal family, politicians or showbiz personalities. e.g.
the camillagate tapes. I would think that almost everyone, no matter how
much they went on about infringements of privacy read the transcripts with
interest. I really don't think that Joe Bloggs ordinary guy or paranoid
nutter would have the same appeal. Well actually I dunno. :)

Regards,

Paul.


--
 Paul Orrock,  Websurfer wannabe, http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/home.html
 PC Consultant and HTML freelance Writer, http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/
===========================================================================
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

1141


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com