M'I`5,Persecu tion ' t he BBC, telev ision and rad io
vfev...@lycos.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.
1204
vfev...@lycos.com
quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to
set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further need of God.
78. Descartes useless and uncertain.
79. Descartes.--We must say summarily: "This is made by figure and motion,"
for it is true. But to say what these are, and to compose the machine, is
ridiculous. For it is useless, uncertain, and painful. And were it true, we
do not think all Philosophy is worth one hour of pain.
80. How comes it that a cripple does not offend us, but that a fool does?
Because a cripple recognises that we walk straight, whereas a fool declares
that it is we who are silly; if it were not so, we should feel pity and not
anger.
Epictetus asks still more strongly: "Why are we not angry if we are told
that we have a headache, and why are we angry if we are told that we reason
badly, or choose wrongly"? The reason is that we are quite certain that we
have not a headache, or are not lame, but we are not so sure that we make a
true choice. So, having assurance only because we see with our whole sight,
it puts us into suspense and surprise when another with his w