|
|
|
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:31:14 +0000 (UTC),
group: microsoft.public.games
back
M I`5,Persecut ion ' the BB C, televis ion and radi o
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
-= 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.
830
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:31:14 +0000 (UTC)
author: unknown
Re: M I`5,Persecut ion ' the BB C, televis ion and radi o
What, pray tell, has this got to do with Microsoft Office Publisher?
If it was possible to persecute, or even prosecute you, I would.
wrote in message news:vm0800010831148506@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.
>
> 830
>
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 18:50:47 -0800
author: Charles W Davis
|
|
