From: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,uk.media,r ec.arts.tv.uk.misc
Subject: Re: Auntie gets it in the emails
Reply-To: jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon Oct 2 19:44:19 1995

lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:

>However, I'm pleased to say that, in the past couple of days, Mike Corley has
>stopped doing it and he appears (I say this cautiously) to be acting more
>reasonably. True, his postings are still based on paranoid delusions.
>However, so long as he doesn't go back to his old practices of multiple,
>identical, unreadable postings, I'm sure that most people on this newsgroup
>are willing to put up with him.

Time to come out of the woodwork of this thread (or variations
thereof)...

I find it annoying that discussion of Mike's situation is over
multiple threads - it makes it hard to follow, and especially to follow
up. If it could be consolidated into one thread on relevant newsgroups
(I'm reading this on uk.media btw).

I'm a little surprised with the volume of abuse Mike has received, but
believe strongly in freedom of speech if such a thing were to exist,
which clearly includes abuse as much as anything.

One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
now-influential ex-students of his university.

Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years,
fascinating and quite believable, even.

The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times , that the
security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it

We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
very early stages.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories generally, but I know there is
far more that goes on in the universities, old boy's clubs, civil and
secret services and Parliament than is ever made public.

Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant
newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike
Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant.

Give us more detail. Who knows? It may be true, stranger things have
happened.

_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://metro.turnpike.net/J/jeibisch/
=======

-------------------------------
Tue, 03 Oct 1995 04:01:34 uk.misc Thread 3 of 14
Lines 58 Re: Auntie gets it in the emails Respno 16 of 16
J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk John J Smith at Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd

In article <812677261.12841@revolver.demon.co.uk>,
James Eibisch <jeibisch@revolver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>lig0007@queens-belfast.ac.uk (TOM OATES) wrote:

>One thing which has been missing from this discussion is this simple
>prognosis: that maybe Mike is right and that, despite his admitted
>mental condition, there really is a campaign against him organised by
>now-influential ex-students of his university.

We're trying to find this out on uk.misc. He's posted some *new* *huge*
replies (which I'd have to give up my day job to reply to), detailing
some things like:

a) Mike Corley is *not* his real name
b) Exactly what the "abuse" is (it seems be such things, as taking
completely unrelated newspaper articles, striving to make them a
disgusting insult, then redirecting against himself).
c) How he came to the conclusion.

I think he's doing rather better nowadays..

>Does anyone remember the TV series GBH, a fictional account of security
>service and governmental power games? Fictional, certainly, but one of
>the most powerful pieces of TV drama I've seen in many years,
>fascinating and quite believable, even.

This would be a point, apart from the fact that this was directed against
someone of political importance. I don't believe Mike is...

>The fact is, as Mike has pointed out (oh, so many times , that the
>security services _do_ have the influence, contacts, resources, and time
>to conduct such a campaign of surveillance and even psychological terror
>if they so chose. If they have this power, then they will surely use it
>at some point against some people.

It appears he has formed the Security Service conclusion, because they
are the only ones capable of doing it. A "searching for an enemy capable
of it".

>We still don't have all the facts from Mike, and the most pertinent here
>I think would be about his time at university - the people who took
>against him, the ringleaders. We need to know far more about Mike: his
>political and social affiliations, put in context with his univeristy
>years, the enemies he made, the reasons people ganged up on him at the
>very early stages.

I'm beginning to think that we never will get all the facts from Mike. We
may, however, get enough...

>Mike, I leave it to you to construct a _single_ thread in a relevant
>newsgroup about this topic and keep to this thread to give us new
>information and answer questions about your situation. Ignore the 'Mike
>Corley is a nutter' posts unless they are relevant.

Uk.misc, me boy...

Smid

================================================== ========

From: flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.media,uk.politics,a lt.politics.british,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What it's like to be watched by the security services
Date: Tue Oct 3 15:41:54 1995

In article <44rrrh$t6v@news.ox.ac.uk>, idaniel@jesus.ox.ac.uk (Illtud Daniel) says:

>
>And what do you mean when you state that the symptoms are too
>'textbook'? Are the textbooks wrong?

I think what is meant by 'textbook' is that some of the symptoms
of 'illness' displayed in the posts seem to have been lifted from
textbooks describing mental instability and personality disorders.

I must admit I haven't seen Mike's postings before has he only just
started posting again?


Peter Kruger
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
flames@flames.cityscape.co.uk

1543