• M,I.5'Perse cution t he BBC, televisio n an d r adio

    From mfvmieif@mfvmieif@lycos.com to alt.bbs.allsysop,alt.bbs.doors,alt.bbs.internet,alt.bbs.lists,alt.beer on Tue Jan 1 08:22:00 2008
    From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.doors

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

    24

    --- Synchronet 3.17a-Linux NewsLink 1.108