-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=. harassment at work -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Once I stopped watching television and listening to the radio at the. end of 1990, "they" had to find other ways of committing abuses. So. they took what must be for. them a tried and tested route; they get at you by subversion of those around you.. Since they wouldn't be able to do that with my family or friends, that meant getting at people in the workplace to. be their mouthpieces and. do their dirty work for them.
They supplied my. employers in Oxford with details from what was going on in my private life,. and what I and other people had said at my home and accommodation in Oxford. So people at work repeated. verbatim words which had been said in my home, and repeated. what I'd been doing recently. Often the most trivial things,. the ones from your domestic life, are the ones which hurt most. One. manager in particular at Oxford continuously abused me for ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing, and threats. to terminate my employment. After ten months I was. forced to seek psychiatric help and start taking medication, and was away from work. for two months. I spoke later with a solicitor about what had happened at. that company; he advised it was only possible. to take action if you had left the company as a result of harassment, and such. an action would have to be started very soon after leaving.
Over a year later the same manager picked on another new worker, with. even more. serious results; that employee tried to commit suicide with an overdose as. a result of the ill-treatment, and was forced to leave his job. But he didn't. take action against the company, either. Abuse at work is comparable to that elsewhere. in that tangible evidence is difficult to produce, and the. abusers will always have their denials ready when challenged. And even if a court accepts what you say. happened, it still remains to prove that abuse causes the type of breakdown I had at. the end of 1992. In a recent case before a British court,. a former member of the Army brought a. case against others who had maltreated him ten years previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not agree that depressive illness necessarily followed, and denied justice. to the. plaintiff.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:09:54 +0000 (UTC), imviei...@bigfoot.com wrote: >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >-=. harassment at work -= >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Once I stopped watching television and listening to the radio at the. end of >1990, "they" had to find other ways of committing abuses. So. they took what >must be for. them a tried and tested route; they get at you by subversion of >those around you.. Since they wouldn't be able to do that with my family or >friends, that meant getting at people in the workplace to. be their >mouthpieces and. do their dirty work for them.
>They supplied my. employers in Oxford with details from what was going on in >my private life,. and what I and other people had said at my home and >accommodation in Oxford. So people at work repeated. verbatim words which >had been said in my home, and repeated. what I'd been doing recently. Often >the most trivial things,. the ones from your domestic life, are the ones >which hurt most. One. manager in particular at Oxford continuously abused me >for ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing, and threats. to terminate >my employment. After ten months I was. forced to seek psychiatric help and >start taking medication, and was away from work. for two months. I spoke >later with a solicitor about what had happened at. that company; he advised >it was only possible. to take action if you had left the company as a result >of harassment, and such. an action would have to be started very soon after >leaving.
>Over a year later the same manager picked on another new worker, with. even >more. serious results; that employee tried to commit suicide with an >overdose as. a result of the ill-treatment, and was forced to leave his job. >But he didn't. take action against the company, either. Abuse at work is >comparable to that elsewhere. in that tangible evidence is difficult to >produce, and the. abusers will always have their denials ready when >challenged. And even if a court accepts what you say. happened, it still >remains to prove that abuse causes the type of breakdown I had at. the end >of 1992. In a recent case before a British court,. a former member of the >Army brought a. case against others who had maltreated him ten years >previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not >agree that depressive illness necessarily followed, and denied justice. to >the. plaintiff.
The MI5 poster, his name is Mike Corley, he is an IT professional but alas he has mental health issues. Here are some details about Mike Corley. He lives in London, UK. He first began his postings to usenet, BBS, and forums in 1995, unsurprisingly first to alt.conspiracy.
"And amongst many other covers of the Mike Corley phenomenon there has been a modern opera about this usenet legend:" http://www.thecorleyconspiracy.com/
The problem is amplified by posters who reply to Mikes X-post floods without snipping, and without removing the crossposts. But also Mike Corley sets "follow-up" groups to his MI5 posts, this is where he hasn't actually posted to a specific group but it's listed as "follow-up" in the crossposts, the lusers who reply, their posts show up in groups that Mike wants flooded. Mike Corley has set uk.misc as follow-up to all his posts, (which I've removed) it gets flooded with the replies, and of course the X-posting. Mike Corley has been doing this since 1995, and he knows what he is doing, he avoids killfiles/plonk/block by morphing and using pay-as-you-go dial-up. Filters rarely have an effect as in this example, if you set the criteria as "MI_5", then the flood morph to "MIfive" or whatever. He dosen't post via google dispite the headers, nor are the email addies valid, he dances between proxy servers such as altopia etc, filtering has no effect. The simple rule with Mike Corley floods is to ignore and not to reply. Mike will take his medication and eventually stop.....until the next time. But if lusers do the foolish and reply/x-post/fail-to-snip, then Mike Corley sticks around. So don't a Bobby and spam your pointless replies across dozens of groups.
> The bonehead who answers spam but fails to snip and remove > groups from his crossposted pointless replies and is known as: > "Bobby" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:nqtnn3dijk6vnphddaovd3o29nbpgoa61r@4ax.com...
> The MI5 poster, his name is Mike Corley, he is an IT professional but alas > he has mental health issues. Here are some details about Mike Corley. > He lives in London, UK. He first began his postings to usenet, BBS, and > forums in 1995, unsurprisingly first to alt.conspiracy.
> "And amongst many other covers of the Mike Corley phenomenon > there has been a modern opera about this usenet legend:" > http://www.thecorleyconspiracy.com/
> The problem is amplified by posters who reply to Mikes X-post floods > without snipping, and without removing the crossposts. > But also Mike Corley sets "follow-up" groups to his MI5 posts, this is > where he hasn't actually posted to a specific group but it's listed as > "follow-up" in the crossposts, the lusers who reply, their posts show > up in groups that Mike wants flooded. > Mike Corley has set uk.misc as follow-up to all his posts, (which I've > removed) it gets flooded with the replies, and of course the X-posting. > Mike Corley has been doing this since 1995, and he knows what he is doing, > he avoids killfiles/plonk/block by morphing and using pay-as-you-go > dial-up. > Filters rarely have an effect as in this example, if you set the criteria > as > "MI_5", then the flood morph to "MIfive" or whatever. He dosen't post > via google dispite the headers, nor are the email addies valid, he dances > between proxy servers such as altopia etc, filtering has no effect. > The simple rule with Mike Corley floods is to ignore and not to reply. > Mike will take his medication and eventually stop.....until the next time. > But if lusers do the foolish and reply/x-post/fail-to-snip, then Mike > Corley > sticks around. So don't a Bobby and spam your pointless replies across > dozens of groups.