🚀 go-pugleaf

MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk wrote:
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
> -= 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.
> 
> 537
> 
> 

And you are spamming newsgroups with this shit becuase...???