Posted by shauny on 01/05/07 04:58

MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk wrote:
> Eye Say, and Lord Gnome Answers
>
> My interactions with Private Eye started in May 1995, shortly after I'd started bleating on usenet. I tried to get the Eye
> interested in my case, as I thought they more than anyone have their finger on the pulse, and would surely already know
> something about my case. In my first email to them, entitled "pas de bouteille?" (wot no bottle?), I asked if they had the
> nerve to publish what was known to many thousands of people. Their email flunky answered;
>
> Date: Thu, 11 May 95 13:40 BST-1
> From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye)
> Subject: Re: pas de bouteille?
>
> In-Reply-To: <199505102232.SAA19988@freenet.carleton.ca>
> Bottle? Dunno really - but I've passed your mail on to the Ed for his
> consideration.
>
> Steve Mann
> (strobes)
> ==========================================================
> Date: Mon, 15 May 95 12:51 BST-1
> From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye)
> Subject: Re: hello again
>
> In-Reply-To: <199505122236.SAA02574@freenet.carleton.ca>
> Hello yourself...
>
> Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I can't say whether or not the Eye
> will do anything with this... I'm only the messenger. As the only
> computer-literate peron in the Gnome organisation, I get to read all the
> email and then pass it on to the Editor.
>
> Sorry -- not very helpful, I know.
>
> Steve Mann
> (strobes)
>
> The following year I gave PE another little prod, which yielded the following;
>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:38 GMT
> From: strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk (Private Eye Magazine)
> Subject: Re: Previous communication
>
> In-Reply-To: <199602102320.SAA26182@[snip]>
> Sorry not to reply sooner... we've been swamped with email and I have
> very little time to answer it.
>
> However, the editor sees all the email received here and I'm afraid he
> hasn't expressed an interest in your story so I can only assume that he
> feels it isn't for us.
>
> Sorry.
> strobes
>
> Given that I couldn't provide the evidence to persuade the Eye of the credibility of my claims, I did the next best thing,
> which was to take out classified adverts in their "Eye Say" and "Eye Tech" columns. My motivation for doing so is obvious;
> the Eye is read both by many thousands of ordinary folk, but also makes its way into the homes and consciousness of the UK's
> political and media elite. It is also a known favourite with "Five". What better way of taking the fight to the enemy?
>
> The first small ad appeared on 10 Jan 1997 in issue 915 in "Eye Say". It ran in that column on 24/1/97 and 7/2/97. On 21/2/97
> it ran in "Eye Tech", and on 7/3/97 and 21/3/97 again in "Eye Say".
>
> I then changed the ad's wording to read "BBC Newsreaders Conspiracy", and the new wording ran in "Eye Say" from 4/4/97 issue 921,
> 18/4/97 to 2/5/97. The word "xenophobic" in the first advert had been intended to convey the sense of exclusion through the bigotry
> of my enemies, both on the basis of race and mental condition, but it seemed a bit too non-specific. "BBC Newscasters Conspiracy" was
> a little more immediate, although readers had to actually wade through the website to find out what it was that the newscasters were
> conspiring to do.
>
> My next effort tried to spice up the text. "MI5/BBC Conspiracy" ran for six issues in "Eye Say", from 5/9/97 issue 931 until 31/10/97.
> I suppose there is something a little sad about somebody who knows he has mental illness, placing adverts about a conspiracy in which
> MI5's watchers enable BBC newscasters to personally and directly communicate with him while reading the news. It is pretty sad, but
> unfortunately it is also true, both in the objective reality we all inhabit, as well as in my own mind.
>
> There followed a hiatus of about a year until I resumed advertising on 2 October 1998. I paid over £200 for six months advertising
> of the new improved text "MI5 Persecution, BBC Newscasters Spying on my Home". This text ran from issue 960 until issue 972 (19 March
> 1999) in "Eye Say".
>
> Private Eye's editor Ian Hislop denies knowing anything about my case, as the following email illustrates.
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
> From: strobes@private-eye.co.uk (Private Eye)
> Subject: Re: PLEASE ANSWER - THANK YOU
> CC: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
> Reply-To: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
>
> Sorry to take so long to answer. As soon as the editor
> returned from holiday Steve went away. Steve is still away
> and so I am answering your letter.
>
> I have asked the editor and he knows nothing about any
> conspiracy between M15 and the BBC.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Mary Aylmer
> Private Eye
>
> I must say I'm quite surprised he knows nothing; the "Eye" is usually well clued up on what's going on.
>
> 1346
>

Yes, you ARE sad, and your illness has a name. It's called "Fucked In
The Head"

[Back to original message]