The first incident in. June 1990 was when a BBC newsreader made what seemed
to be a reaction to something which had happened in my home, and. out of
context of what they were reading. My first reaction was disbelief;. nothing
of the sort had ever happened. before, the idea that such a thing could
occur had. not crossed my mind, yet there was no doubt of what had just
taken place. My disbelief eroded as this recurred. time after time. Besides
the news, offenders included shows such as Crimewatch. (!), Newsnight, and
"entertainment" shows. There seems to. be very little moral understanding
among the people who make these programmes; they just assume they. will
never. be caught, so they carry on without a thought for the illegality or
amorality of. what they do. The only time I ever heard a word raised in
doubt was by Paxman being interviewed by. someone else (I think by Clive
Anderson) back in 1990; referring to the "watching" he said. it troubled
him, and when asked by the host. what you could do about it, replied "Well,
you could just switch it off". (meaning the surveillance monitor in the
studio). He clearly. didn't let his doubts stand in the way of continued
surreptitious spying from his own. or other people's shows, though.

Now you're convinced this is a troll, aren't you? This story. has been the
subject of much debate on the uk.* Usenet. newsgroups for over a year, and
some readers believe it to be an invention (it has even been. suggested that
a group. of psychology students are responsible!), others think it
symptomatic. of a derangement of the author, and a few give it credence.
Quite a. few people do know part or all of the story already, so this text
will fill in the gaps in their knowledge. For the rest, what may. persuade
you of the third possibility is that some. of the incidents detailed are
checkable against any archives of radio and TV. programmes that exist; that
the incidents involve named people (even. if those hiding in the shadows
have. not made their identity or affiliations evident), and those people
may be persuaded to come out with the. truth; and that the campaign of
harassment is continuing today both in the. UK and on the American
continent, in a none-too-secret fashion; by its nature. the significant risk
of exposure increases. with time.

On several occasions people said to my face that. harassment from the TV was
happening. On the first day I worked in Oxford, I spent. the evening in the
local pub with the company's technical director Ian, and Phil,. another
employee. Ian made a few references to. me and said to Phil, as if in an
aside, "Is he the bloke who's. been on TV?" to which Phil replied, "Yes, I
think. so".

I made a number of efforts to find the bugs, without success; last year. we
employed professional counter-surveillance. people to scan for bugs (see
later) again. without result. In autumn 1990 I disposed of my TV and watched
virtually no television for. the next three years. But harassment from TV
stations has gone on for over six years. and continues to this day. This is
something that many people obviously know. is happening; yet the TV staff
have the morality. of paedophiles, that because they're getting away with it
they feel. no wrong.

Other people who were involved in. the abuse in 1990 were DJs on BBC radio
stations, notably disc jockeys from Radio 1 and other stations. (see the
following. section). Again, since they don't have sense in the first place
they can't be expect to have the. moral sense not to be part of criminal
harassment.

PO: >Did. you ever look for the bugs in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if
PO: >I thought that was happening to me, I'd search the. place from top to bottom,
PO: >I mean I live there I would know if anything was out of. place. If I was
PO: >really suspicious, I would call in one. of those bug detection teams which
PO: >have those. machines that pick up the transmitted radio waves. This
PO: >reminds me of BUGS,. that new programme on BBC1 on

That's exactly what we did.. We went to a competent, professional detective
agency in London, paid them over 400. quid to debug our house. They used
scanner devices which go to over 1 GHz and would. pick up any nearby
transmitter. in that range, they also checked the phones and found
nothing... but if the. tap was at the exchange, then they wouldn't find
anything,. would they?

CS: >Doesn't this suggest to you. that there are, in fact, no bugs to be found?

You can assume that they've done this sort of. thing to other people in more
"serious" cases, where they would know. the targets would suspect the
presence of electronic surveillance. So they will. have developed techniques
and devices which are not readily detectable either by visual inspection. or
by electronic means. What those techniques might. be, I couldn't guess.

In this case,. the existence of bugging devices was clear from the
beginning, and they "rubbed it. in" with what was said by the boy on the
coach.. It was almost as if they wanted counter-surveillance people to be
called in, who they knew would fail. to detect the bugging devices, causing
loss of credibility to the other. things I would have to say relating to the
harassment.

I did all the. things someone in my situation would do to try to find the
bugs. In addition to calling in professional help using. electronic
counter-surveillance, I made a close visual inspection. of electrical
equipment, plus. any points where audio or video surveillance devices might
have been concealed. Of course, I found. nothing. Normal surveillance
"mini-cameras" are quite noticeable and. require visible supporting
circuitry. It seems to me the. best place to put a small video surveillance
device would be additional to a piece of electronic equipment such as a. TV
or video. It. would be necessary to physically break in to a property to fit
such a. device.

Capital Radio DJs have been "in on. it" from the start. One of the first
things I heard in the summer of 1990 was. from a Capital DJ who said, "If
he listens to Capital then he can't be all. bad" (supportive, you see. We're
not bastards). Much of what came over the radio in 1990 is now so far. away
the precise. details have been obliterated by time. No diary was kept of the
details, and although archives if they exist may. give pointers, the
ambiguity of what broadcasters. said would leave that open to
re-interpretation.

In. spring 1994, Chris Tarrant on his Capital morning show made an aside to
someone else in the studio, about a person he. didn't identify. He said,
"You know this bloke?. He says we're trying to kill him. We should be done
for. attempted manslaughter".

That mirrored something I had said a day or. two before. What Tarrant said
was understood by the staff member in the studio. he was saying it to; they
said, "Oh no, don't say. that" to Tarrant. If any archives exist of the
morning show (probably unlikely) then it could. be found there; what he said
was so out of context that. he would be very hard put to find an explanation.
A couple of days later, someone at the site where I. was working repeated the
remark although in a different way; they said there. had been people in a
computer. room when automatic fire extinguishers went off and those people
were "thinking of suing for attempted. manslaughter".

Finally, this isn't. confined to the established radio stations. In 1990
after I had listened to a pirate radio station in South. London for about
half an hour, there was an audible. phone call in the background, followed
by total. silence for a few moments, then shrieks of laughter. "So what are
we supposed to say now? Deadly torture? He's going to talk to us. now, isn't
he?", which meant that they could hear what I would. say in my room.

Here's what a couple of other people on. Usenet (uk.misc) had to say
regarding the. cost of running such an operation...

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

PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize. how much it would cost to keep
PM: >one person. under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
PM: >all. the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year.. Two men,
PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in shifts. -- so it would
PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which. with on-costs would work out at more like
PM: >#30,000. to the employer.)
PM:. >
PM:. >So, we're talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you've got the hardware involved.. And
PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think the 'Big. Boss'
PM:. >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
PM:. >
PM: >So, all in all, you couldn't. actually do the job for much less than
PM: >a quarter million a year.. Over five years. What are you doing that makes
PM:. >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter million
PM: >on. you?

Those are pretty much the sort of calculations that went through. my head
once I stopped to consider what it must be costing. them to run this
operation.. The partial answer is, there have been periods when the
intensity has been greater, and times when little has. happened. In fact,
for much of 1993 and the first half of 1994, very little happened.. Although
I don't think that was for reasons of money - if they can tap into. the
taxpayer. they're not going to be short of resources, are they?

The more complete answer is in the enormity of what. they're doing. Relative
to the cost. to British pride of seeing their country humiliated for the
persecution of their own citizens, isn't. is worth the cost of four or five
people to try to bring things to. a close in the manner they would wish? To
the government a million or two is quite honestly nothing. - if they can
convince themselves of. the necessity of what they're doing, resources will
not be the limiting. factor.

The harassment didn't start by. itself, so someone must have been there at
the. outset to give it a firm push and set the "animals" after me. It looks
as if I was set up in. June 1990, and the timing indicates someone from
university was. responsible.

The suggestion is that Freeman might have. shown the letter to other people,
and things could have snowballed from there. Right. from the start the real
source. (security services presumed) didn't announce themselves as the
origin, but let the "talkers", the radio DJs, believe that. they were the
originators. Think about it; if you announce,. "we're MI5 and we have a
campaign against this bloke" then people might not go along. with it; but if
you. say, "everyone else is getting at this bloke because he 'deserves' it"
then people. will join in with fewer qualms.

Many people. know, both in the establishment and media, and among the
general. public. Despite an absence of its target from the UK for more than
two years, the echoes of paranoia can still be heard. loud and clear from
across the water. When it started in 1990, the only. people who knew were
those in BBC television who were. spying on my home, and a few radio
broadcasters. There were a few cases of public harassment, but very. little
compared to the situation that developed a couple of. years later.

The list today includes BBC TV. staff (newsreaders such as Martyn Lewis,
Michael Buerk, Nicholas Witchell), people. from radio stations such as
Chris Tarrant of Capital and Radio 1 DJs, people in the print. media, but
also many people in the general public. All united in a. conspiracy which
breaks the laws which the UK does have regarding. harassment, and all
completely uncaring for any. semblance of decency or elementary respect
for individual. rights.

The British police (obviously) do know the. nature of the harassment and in
all probability the. identity of those behind it. Some time ago I made a
complaint to my local police. station in London, without positive result.
The UK police are failing in their duty to see. the law enforced in not
checking. the abuse.

The article of which part is reproduced below was penned by. Bernard Levin
for the Features section of the Times on. 21 September 1991. To my mind, it
described. the situation at the time and in particular a recent meeting with
a friend, during which I. for the first time admitted to someone other than
my GP that I. had been subjected to a conspiracy of harassment over the
previous year and a. half.

What makes. this article so extraordinary is that three or four days
immediately. preceding its publication, I had a meeting with a friend,
during the course. of which we discussed the media persecution, and in
particular. that by Times columnists. It seemed to me, reading the article
by Levin. in Saturday’s paper, that he was describing in some detail his
"artist’s impression" of that meeting. Most telling. are the final
sentences, when he writes,. "The madman bursts into tears, and swears it is
all true. And it is." Although I did. not "burst into tears" (he seems to be
using a bit of poetic licence and exaggerating) I did try hard. to convince
my friend that it was. all true; and I am able to concur with Mr Levin,
because, of course, it. is.

At the beginning of the piece Levin reveals a fear of being attacked. by the
"irrational" subject of his story, saying. "I have no reason to believe that
he is violent, but he should certainly be approached with. caution". This
goes back to the xenophobic propaganda of "defence" against a. "threat"
which was seen at the very beginning of the harassment. The. impression of a
"madman running loose" who needs to be controlled through. an agency which
assigns to itself the mantle of the "police". is also one which had been
expressed. elsewhere.

In the final paragraph of this. extract, his reference to Everyman’s Library
as having "died a lingering and shameful death a decade or so. ago" shows
clearly what sort. of conclusion they wish to their campaign. They want a
permanent solution, and as they are prevented from. achieving that solution
directly,. they waste significant resources on methods which have been
repeatedly shown. to be ineffective for such a purpose.

The British police obviously. do know what is taking place. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers. have said which forces that
conclusion, it would be inconceivable for them to be unaware. of something
on. this scale.

If they know, then they will know that the abusers have broken. laws in the
UK and abroad. Recently the UK introduced. laws against electronic spying
which carry a penalty of several years jail. if caught. If the police know
illegal harassment is taking place, and do nothing about it, then. they are
failing in their. responsibilities.

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.

The current situation with regard. to the police is not one which allows a
breakthrough in dealing with the problem.. On the one hand, most individual
officers at a local police station may not know about the ongoing. assaults,
so a complaint at that level will not yield results. Yet. the police as an
organisation do know of the harassment, and they must be. aware that a
complaint has been made at a police station. So it is clearly their. duty to
take preventative action against the continuing molestation, but. because
the criminals are operating on behalf of a state agency,. the police are not
carrying out. their duty.

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 humorously 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 emphasizing 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". Remember, the constant
theme of any persecution is, "we must destroy you. because you're X",
whether X is a racial or other attribute.. In this case the X was "we
persecute you because you have brain disease".. The similarity of this logic
to Nazi. attitudes to the mentally ill is striking.

The same manager who'd said "it wasn't. fair" asked me in winter 1992 why I
didn't seek help from. a psychiatrist; was it, he asked, because "they would
think they had won" if I sought treatment? That. was something I'd never
said at work... again, taken separately. it proves nothing, but many such
things over a. period of months proves conclusively that people in the
company knew what was going on, and in. quite a lot of detail.

Usually harassment in. public lacks the level of finesse of "paying your
fare". Most people's imagination does not go beyond moronic parroting. of
the current. term of denigration. That is not surprising given the average
level of the abusers;. if they do not have the intelligence to distinguish
wrong from right then neither will they have. the capacity for anything
other than mindless repetition. of a monosyllabic term calculated to fit
into. their minds.

The first incidents of. verbal assault in public were in again in the summer
of 1990, although they increased. in frequency and venom with time. In July
1990 the first public incident occurred on a tube train. on the Northern
line. Two men. and their girlfriends recognised me; the women sprang to my
defence, saying "He looks perfectly normal, he doesn't look ill".. Their
boyfriends of course knew better,. and followed the party line; one of them
made reference. to an "operation", apparently to work at the tube station
but implicitly to a visit that I had made. to hospital a couple of weeks
previously.

In August 1990 going home from college, soon after getting on a tube. train
at Gloucester Road. I was followed by a group of four youths, who started a
chant of abuse. That they were targeting me was confirmed. by other people
in the carriage, one of. whom asked the other "who are they going on at, is
it the. bloke who just got on?" to which the second replied "yes, I think
so". I was tempted to reply, but as in. every other instance the abusers are
enabled in their. cowardice by physically outnumbering the abused; any
confrontation. would result in my being beaten up, followed by a complaint
to the police that "he attacked us", and of course he's ill,. so he must
have been imagining that we were getting at him. Shitty, aren't. they?

But the shittiness. of the four youths on the tube train is as nothing
compared to the. episode on the National Express coach to Dover in the
summer of 1992. While going on holiday to the. Continent I was verbally set
upon by a couple travelling sitting a few rows behind. The boy. did the
talking, his female companion contributing only. a continuous empty giggling
noise. He spoke loudly to ensure other people on the coach. heard, always
about "they" and "this. bloke" but never naming either the abusers or the
person he was talking about. He said "they" had. "found somebody from his
school, and. he was always really stressed at school". They must have dug
deep to find enemies there; perhaps someone who. dropped out of school,
someone who didn't do too well later, who was jealous and keen to get. their
own back? The boy also said "he was in a bed and breakfast for only. one
night and they got him". By. a not unexpected coincidence I had been in a
B&B in Oxford a week previously, which. had been booked from work; other
things lead me to the conclusion that the. company's offices were bugged for
most of the 2 1/2 years that I was. there, so "they" would have known a room
in the B&B had. been booked. (But I'll bet "they" didn't tell the company's
managers their offices. were bugged, did they?).

After a few minutes of this I went. back to where they were sitting and
asked where they were travelling. The boy named a. village in France, and
the girl's giggling suddenly ceased; presumably it permeated. to her brain
cell what the. purpose of the boy's abuse was.

This and other set-up situations are obviously calculated to provoke. a
direct. confrontation which would bring in the police, with the abusers
claiming that they. were the ones attacked. Again in 1992, outside the
house where I was living in Oxford I 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, "I. heard he was attacked". The UK police have a responsibility
for preventing assault occurring, but they do not seem to take any. interest
in meeting that responsibility. I suppose their attitude is. that harassment
does not come. within their remit unless it involves physical assault, and
they will only. become involved once that happens. That is of course quite
the wrong attitude for them. to take, but as I now understand, the police
investigate. only the crime they wish to investigate; if they do not take
your complaints seriously then there is nothing you can do. to make them
take. action.

The postings to uk.misc newsgroup generated. a very defensive reaction from
Usenet readers in the UK. So much. so, that they tried strenuously to
suppress what was being said, both by breaking the rules of netiquette. in
their responses on the forum, and directly by action. to revoke the account
from which. the postings were issued.

Yet the postings were within the normal boundaries of. behaviour for
uk.misc, and other less partisan spectators did. not see justice in the
censorship. which was effected, as the following excerpt shows;

:Karen Lofstrom (lofst...@lava.net). wrote
:>It does seem. that the frequency and the size of his posts are
:>approaching. net abuse.  However, IMHO, they aren't quite there yet. If
:>his postmaster. were to act in this instance, it would raise troubling
:>censorship. issues.

The inescapable conclusion of the censorship. effected on the uk.*
newsgroups is that the British are intent on their wrongdoing. remaining
concealed,. and therefore seek to subvert and suppress freedom of speech,
not only in their own country where the media shows. xenophobic bias and
bile against all perceived. enemies within and without, but also in other
countries which have their own statutes to guarantee. the basic human right
of. free speech.

It is absolutely necessary to bring. their hate campaign out into the open
where it can be. placed under scrutiny and the harassers seen for what they
are. That is the only way of making. it impossible for the security services
to carry it out. There is a wider dimension, though.. Xenophobia as
demonstrated by British people and institutions. over the last few years
belongs to the same stable as racial hatred. In one case, two youths. on a
Tube train made that racism explicit by referring to their victim as. a
"soft toy, not up to. British Standards". Doubtless others victimize partly
on the. basis of race (isn’t it odd that they chose to torment someone who
is not ethnically English?) while expressing their abuse in. terms of
another genetic attribute, namely mental illness. All xenophobia. on a
genetic basis is. wrong, but while racial insults are illegal, abusing the
mentally ill is neither against. the law nor subject to similar condemnation
when it is. exposed.