M,I.5'Per secution ' t he BB C, televisio n a nd rad io   

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

1892

date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:43:00 +0000 (UTC)   author:   unknown

Re: M,I.5'Per secution ' t he BB C, televisio n a nd rad io   

Code do not exist in Hong Kong,
    and that the penalties would apply, if in China, to all such
    transactions as I have denounced in Hong Kong, of that I have no
    doubt. Dr. Eitel's vindication is of a system as recognized in an
    express exception to the Penal Code in China proper, which may,
    for aught I know, work well in China. What I have said is that the
    practices in Hong Kong do not come within the cases which are only
    the exception to the penal enactments in the Chinese Code against
    all such bondage in China. I have never said ... that all buying
    and selling of children for adoption or domestic service is
    contrary to Chinese law. What I have said is that all such buying
    and selling of children as has come within my cognizance in Hong
    Kong is contrary to Chinese law; but I do think that buying and
    selling even for adoption and domestic servitude under the best
    circumstances, constitutes slavery; legal according to Chinese
    law, but illegal according to British law. Reference is made to
    Chinese gentlemen; I believe that not one of them has his 'house'
    in Hong Kong; the wife (small-footed) is kept at the family home
    in China. Each of them has his harem only in Hong Kong. There may
    be an exception to this rule, but I have never heard of any such
    exception. (I know of only one, of a Chinese gentleman, who, for
    certain reasons, was afraid to return to China.) ... I have not
    known a single case of adoption by a Chinaman in Hong Kong. They
    may exist in China proper, and possibly in Hong Kong ... They are
    not in China proper a sacred religious obligation, except in
    rare cases indeed, in which the conditions of clanship and other
    stringent conditions are precisely complied with; and they have
    as much to do with the necessities of the poor, and no more, than
    would be the case in England or Irelan

date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:13:52 GMT   author:   unknown

Re: M,I.5'Per secution ' t he BB C, televisio n a nd rad io   

domestic slavery. Slavery in China grows out of the fact that the
    father has all power, even to death, over his family. The father,
    on the other hand, "has many duties as well as rights." Therefore
    his power over his family "is not a mark of tyranny, but of
    religious unity." "Few foreigners have comprehended the extent of
    social equality, ... the amount of influence which woman, bought
    and sold as she is, really has in China,... the depth of domestic
    affection, of filial piety, of paternal care." "To deal justly
    with the slavery of China, we ought to invent another name for
    it." "The law, although sanctioning the sale of children for
    purposes of adoption within each clan, and even without, is here
    in advance of public opinion, as it expressly allows, by an edict,
    ... the sale of children only to extremely poor people in times
    of famine, and forbids even in that case re-sale of a child once
    bought."

This last admission on the part of Dr. Eitel, a fact already pointed
out by Sir John Smale, seems to us to clearly demonstrate that a
pretext was now being sought to justify at Hong Kong a state of things
as to slavery that the laws of China forbade and which in no wise
could be justified as Chinese "custom." "The reason for this immense
demand for young female domestics lies in the system of polygamy which
obtains all over the empire, and which has a religious basis." By this
he means that it is from the Chinese standpoint a religious duty for
a father to leave a son, upon his death, to continue the family
sacrifices. Therefore if the father has no son by his first wife, he
will "take a second or third or fourth wife until he procures a son."
"A family being in urgent distress,

date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:42:30 GMT   author:   unknown