Subject: Re: Is --- persecuting Mike Corley?
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,uk.net,uk.misc,uk.legal
Followup-To: uk.politics.misc,uk.net,uk.misc,uk.legal
References: <NEWTNews.843523097.30215.apascoe@apascoe.patrol .i-way.co.uk> <DyADyG.8IK$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:

wooding@cf.ac.uk wrote:
: In article <NEWTNews.843523097.30215.apascoe@apascoe.patrol .i-way.co.uk> apascoe@pa$
: > In summary, for there to be a serious possibility that Mike
: >Corley's allegations are true, there needs to be evidence of two
: >things. Firstly, there must be evidence of subversive activity on
: >his part. Secondly, there needs to be evidence of --- taking
: >measures to counter this subversive activity, in proportion to the
: >magnitude of the threat posed. Upon reading Mike Corley's posts,

: Alan,

: What about the following scenario? --- conducts "experiments" including
: field trials of novel surveillance methods. Say there was a "research
: project" underway to see just how invasive a surveillance of an
: individual could be. Perhaps it wasn't research, perhaps it was for
: training of novice personnel. Either way, there is a sizeable risk of
: detection. In order to minimise the consequences of this, you choose
: someone who is out of the public eye, and if possible someone whose
: credibility is already damaged - by diagnosis of schizophrenia, for example.
: This will facilitate the "plausible denial" if something goes wrong.

: I think this would be closer to Mike's theory.

: Mike, if you are reading, please don't post the story again. Anyone can
: read it at [snip] if they are interested. Also, don't
: think that I actually *believe* the above. On cost alone, it is extremely
: unlikely to be true, and some elements of the story (people in the media
: being "in on it") are just too crazy (though I can see how the paranoia
: builds to the extent that you can see "them" everywhere).

My argument is that the fact that it's so totally crazy is what makes it so
plausible and so hard to prove.

I shall continue to try to find ways to kick down the house of cards. Because
it is a brittle structure. It only needs one person to corroborate, and then
it's all over.

: P.S. Anyone else ever thought of "what-ifs" along the same lines? I
: remember as a boy daydreaming that maybe I was the focus of national
: attention in a "let's follow the life of one person from life to
: death" study - that while I was out or in bed there were programmes on
: the television about my life so far, etc. It makes for a good fiction,

Perhaps --- have become victims of their own paranoia. Their agency has been
thought of as acting disreputably, so when their decision arrives, they don't
think twice about breaking the law. Whereas say CSIS (the Canadian equivalent)
is at pains to point out how it would never ever do anything in contravention
of the law, and how it is strictly controlled in what it does and how it does it.

If this matter does ever make it into the public gaze, then it won't just be a
few individuals in the media or security service who'll get hit. The UK is
supposed to be a civilized democratic country (East Germany called themselves a
democracy and they had the Stasi, but anyway). In a civilized country these
things shouldn't be happening - and it is ultimately Parliament and the
government who are answerable for not imposing sufficient restraints and
accountability on those who are supposed to be ensuring security for citizens,
not jeopardising it.
.................................................. ....................

4652


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access