Posted by efeifie on 01/01/08 08:28

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
-= 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.

568

[Back to original message]