|
|
|
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:57:00 +0000 (UTC),
group: uk.music.misc
back
M`I 5-Persec ution . the B BC, television 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.
722
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:30:03 +0000 (UTC)
author: unknown
|
M-I 5`Persecut ion - b ugging an d counter-surv eillance
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= MI5: bugging. and counter-surveillance -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PO: >Did you ever look for the bugs in your house ? If. not, why not ? I mean if
PO: >I thought that was happening to. me, I'd search the place from top to bottom,
PO: >I mean I live there I would know if anything was. out of place. If I was
PO: >really suspicious, I would call in one. of those bug detection teams which
PO: >have those machines. that pick up the transmitted radio waves. This
PO: >reminds me of BUGS,. that new programme on BBC1 on
That's exactly what. we did. We went to a competent, professional detective
agency in London, paid them. over 400 quid to debug our house. They used
scanner devices. which go to over 1 GHz and would pick up any nearby
transmitter in that range, they. also checked the phones and found
nothing... but if the. tap was at the exchange, then they wouldn't find
anything,. would they?
CS: >Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs to be. found?
You can assume that they've done this. sort of thing to other people in more
"serious" cases,. where they would know the targets would suspect the
presence of electronic surveillance. So they will have. developed techniques
and devices which are not readily detectable either by visual. inspection or
by. electronic means. What those techniques might be, I couldn't guess.
In this case, the existence of bugging devices. was clear from the
beginning, and they. "rubbed it in" with what was said by the boy on the
coach. It was almost as if they wanted counter-surveillance. people to be
called in, who. they knew would fail to detect the bugging devices, causing
loss of credibility to the other things I would have to say. relating to the
harassment.
I did all the things someone in my situation would do to. try to find the
bugs. In addition to calling in professional help. using electronic
counter-surveillance, I made. a close visual inspection of electrical
equipment, plus any points where audio. or video surveillance devices might
have. been concealed. Of course, I found nothing. Normal surveillance
"mini-cameras" are quite noticeable and require visible. supporting
circuitry.. It seems to me the best place to put a small video surveillance
device would be additional to a piece of electronic equipment such as a. TV
or video. It would be necessary to. physically break in to a property to fit
such a. device.
3152
date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:57:00 +0000 (UTC)
author: unknown
|
|
|