M`I'5.Pers ecution - the BBC , te levision an d rad io

From: <fefemvm_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:31:58 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <eh0800010831583831_at_4ax.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.

897 Received on Tue Jan 01 2008 - 09:31:58 CET

Original text of this message