-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= -= 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. 839