M,I`5'Per secution ' the BB C, tel evision a nd r adio

[Guest vmefmfi@lycos.com]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=

-= the BBC, television and radio. -=

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=

 

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.

 

2259