-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= -= 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. 96