Because this is a Blog, and because the information revealed here has been expensively obtained as a result of very careful and painstakingly slow forensic research, we cannot reveal at this time what we now know for a fact about the start of 'Radio Caroline'. The problem is with thieves who steal our work, twist it and rush into print with botched versions of the 'real' and the 'true' stories of 'Radio Caroline', when in fact, they are nothing of the sort. They are more lies published by disciples of deceit.
The appearance of these thieves, for that is what they are, has made it necessary for us to divide our research under two different headings. The first one could be simply labeled 'WHY', and the second one labeled 'HOW'. The 'WHY' research addresses the problem of why was it necessary to lie and mislead and not tell everyone exactly what happened back in March 1964 when 'Radio Caroline' first came on the air.
Answering that question is a massive task because it is story that in itself is built upon one lie after another in order to misdirect anyone from being able to answer the second body of research titled 'HOW'. The deception did not begin by accident, it began according to a plan which we have begun to reveal, but which for a long time we did not understand.
The existence of that plan was initially hinted at in the book 'Radio Man' which was itself wrapped in a confusion of more lies and distortion. So, with the help of Chris Edwards we began the lengthy and tedious task of trying to find the original documents behind what was essentially one paragraph on just one page of that book. Unfortunately, when we found those documents they merely raised more questions that they did not answer.
Then Chris Edwards decided to drop out of the research because at the time he was under tremendous family-related problems concerning health issues, and this research was not only time consuming but it involved a degree of travel to inconvenient places. So we thank Chris Edwards for his help in uncovering that part of the actual and factual story behind the creation of 'Radio Caroline'.
While that research was going on we opened up our investigation to Paul Rusling who merely turned around and stole what he could and hammered it into an existing sea of lies to which he added a few more of his own. His actions were tied to a variety of other plagiarists who did not understand what they were doing to the truth, only to advancing money into their own pockets.
Ray Anderson fits into that description when he teamed up with the now deceased Chris Elliot. Others have dipped-in such as Robert Chapman with his thesis in which he attributed our work to Chris Elliot's jingle enterprise. On that front entered Steve England who produced a mocking story about our now deceased friend and colleague Don Pierson.
We played Steve England's tape featuring Johnnie Walker, to Don Pierson. That resulted in us making the only full-length interview with Don Pierson in order to answer the nonsense on Steve England's commercial tape. The result was that Steve England merely took a portion of our interview and tacked it onto the end of a second commercial edition.
So with all of that and many more attempts to steal from us and ignore our copyrights, we have to make sure that what we publish here, has already been published by us elsewhere to protect our own commercial and copyrighted interests so that if the thefts continue, we can launch a total war against these thieves in the courts. In this way, legally, we will have already done all in our power to mitigate our financial losses.
So although we gave you clues in yesterday's Blog, we will not be providing more information today in this Blog about 'HOW', only 'WHY". Concerning the paragraph above, we are currently working on a deadline for the fourth in our series of part-works which will indeed fulfill our need for protective copyright publication, and when complete, that series will be published as a series of volumes due to the fact that our body of work is now extensive.
With regards to the title of this edition of the Blog, we refer to our edition of yesterday and how the British Broadcasting Corporation is boasting that it now has a legacy of 100 years, and not just 95 years.
Or is it making that boast?
This is where the Devil really is in the detail (singular), because the current BBC logo refers to the BBC logo itself, and not to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
There is a big legal difference.
It is the letters in combination of alignment rendering 'BBC' in conjunction with the subject of British broadcasting, that are being touted as having reached 100-years old. It is not the British Broadcasting Corporation which is only 95 years old.
Splitting legal hairs?
Someone within the legal departments (of which there are many) at the British Broadcasting Corporation appears to have taken steps not to make the connection between those 100 years and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps some uniformed junior in the promotion departments of the British Broadcasting Corporation has already, or will eventually make the mistake of claiming those 100 years for the British Broadcasting Corporation, and if they have, no doubt one of our readers will bring this to our attention.
In other words the British Broadcasting Corporation is not claiming to be 100 years old, and neither can it make that claim because it is only 95 years old. This is why it is necessary to insist that 'Radio Caroline' only lasted from 1964 to 1967, although the name 'Radio Caroline' was picked up by many others and exploited. In the background was a gadfly named Ronan O'Rahilly who attached himself to a name which today, even Malcolm Smith only acknowledges in O'Rahilly's gadfly connection, but not to any connectivity regarding the limited registered company that Malcolm Smith associates himself with, and which uses the name of 'Radio Caroline'.
It is all one big game of deception.
The British Broadcasting Corporation have played this same game of deception with their initials, but they are not alone in this game of obfuscation. It also surrounds the story that swirls around the name of the Independent Television Authority.
We have repeatedly pointed out that when the Crown's GPO agreed to the creation of a rival television channel to the one operated by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Crown gave birth via government legislation to only one additional television service. That was the service operated by the Independent Television Authority or ITA.
It was ITA who transmitted all programming, because ITA owned all of the transmitters. There was no duplication of service areas, only geographical overlaps so that a viewer close to the periphery of one ITA transmitter's coverage area, could also see the ITA coverage in another geographical ITA area.
ITA did all of the transmitting, it was an ITA service.
But ITA franchised off its programming, including the sale of advertising via sub-sales of the franchisee. The franchisees varied from geographical location to geographical location. In some instances, ITA franchised the weekends separately from the weekdays so that more than one franchisee's name appeared on the ITA screen within a geographical area.
The ITA stations also allowed franchisees to share their expensive production costs by licensing another franchisee in another geographical area to carry some of their programming. From this arrangement came the misleading use of the initials 'ITV', which referred to an 'Independent Television Network' which as a linked series of transmitting stations did not exist.
An example of what ITA had created is to be found in the McDonald's hamburger chain of franchised stores. There is one trading name but there are many franchised companies allowed to use that name. A quick search for McDonald's franchisees in the London area reveals "Capital Arches Group Ltd, a franchise of 29 McDonald's restaurants in the West End, City of London, East and South East London." That search also shows that Capital Arches Group Ltd., "is owned and operated by Claude Abi-Gerges." But neither Claude Abi-Gerges or his company Capital Arches Group Ltd., owns the McDonald's parent franchising company. Neither did franchisees such as 'ABC'; 'ATV'; 'Associated-Rediffusion' or 'Granada', for example, own the Independent Television Authority (ITA).
However, over time the letters 'ITA' began to appear as 'ITV' or even 'ABC'; 'ATV'; 'Associated-Rediffusion' and 'Granada' (and additional franchisees of ITA), in newspaper and magazine television program listings. Capital Arches Group Ltd is not the name that everyone sees at a first glance on their buildings, it is of course 'McDonald's'. The reason being that single name recognition is one of the advantages of the shared cost of advertising a single brand name.
The British Crown GPO did the same thing when it launched the Independent Television Authority stations, and it was no coincidence that the illusion of multiple choice viewing came to be accepted by the public when the brand name of 'Independent TeleVision' was substituted in the press , complete with a pseudo trade mark in the display of the word 'TeleVision'.
In reality there was only one ITA station per geographical area (except in the instance of unintended overlap of transmissions), and it was franchised off as a commercial monopoly. No one else could compete if they did not own the franchise. It was also a political illusion that portrayed the impression of multiple choice in viewing. But there was in reality only the BBC station and the ITA station. There was no 'Burger King' competing with 'McDonald's'.
Not only that, but the British Crown GPO pulled the same trick twice: it had forced companies to band together to form these television franchises just as they did when they forced the biggest British and American electrical companies together in 1922 to create the British Broadcasting Company Limited.
The Independent Television Authority began its franchised operations on August 4, 1954, just four days after the Television Act came into legal effect after the Queen signed off on its creation.
On May 1, 1958, approximately four years after ITA began transmissions, a company was registered under the name of the Independent Television Companies Association Limited, (ITCA). This entity represented the franchised program contractors.
On July 12, 1972 changes in British law allowed the the Independent Television Authority, (ITA), to give birth to licensed commercial radio broadcasting as well as television. Consequently the Independent Television Authority, (ITA) was replaced by the umbrella regulatory body called Independent Broadcasting Authority, (IBA). It initially operated on a similar basis as ITA in order to govern commercial radio broadcasts. This body kept evolving in both regulatory names and functions, however, those changes are not within the scope of this edition of this Blog.
To make the name game involving initials more confusing, but not impossible to follow or to explain in precise and correct detail, on September 25, 1987, the name of the Independent Television Companies Association Limited, (ITCA), was changed to Independent Television Association Limited, (ITA). This would have been very confusing if the Independent Television Authority (ITA), was still in operation, but it had become swallowed up in 1972 by the IBA.
Then on October 5, 1998, Independent Television Association Limited, (ITA), changed its name yet again, this time to read ITV Network Limited, and so in 1998, the initials ITV legitimately came into use and the old franchise names disappeared from view.
This name game washes over the heads of amateur writers who call themselves anoraks, because to them it doesn't matter since many of them did not shun the name of 'pirate' which means thief, but they embraced it. There has never been a better example of their kind of antisocial and anarchistic behavior than in those who have supported the fictitious story about 'Radio Caroline' being an ongoing venture.
The facts state quite clearly that 'Radio Caroline' died at midnight on August 14, 1967.
In this Orwellian Age of 'Newspeak' (see our article ), the practice of changing the record of past events by replacing one set of documents with another set of documents, is nothing new. In U.S. legal parlance it is referred to by the Latin term of 'nunc pro tunc'. In theory, that legal device is intended to make it possible to correct clerical errors in previous legal documents that are on file which undermine current legal findings due to a conflict within the factual basis of evidence presented to a court of law. But in practice, it is not a joke, as illustrated by the Monty Python sketch above, it can be used politically to undermine the factual record of the past that is on file.
A case in point is the British Broadcasting Corporation. It was created on January 1, 1927, which makes it 95 years old in 2022. But, according to BBC television transmissions, this is what viewers are shown:
Just in case you missed the full meaning of what this fast-moving logo says, here is the final screenshot: It clearly states, even though the art object does not, "100 years of our BBC". But is this a true statement, or is it a lie?
It is a lie.
More than this it is an example of using 'nunc pro tunc' to achieve on an educational front, what could not be achieved in a court of law: The claim in not supported by the facts.
It is a work of propaganda!
On its own pages, the current BBC presents its own version of 'revisionist history' by using sleight of hand. It does not actually claim that one entity became another entity, but it implies that it did, and that both of them are one and the same. It confirms this intended meaning by using the logo illustrated here, which clearly states "100 Years of our BBC".
Legally, the question then becomes one of who does the word "our" refer to?
Well, since the logo and the text is copyrighted in 2022 by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the intended meaning is that "our" refers to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Then there is this additional text on the BBC site:
This banner above is linked to this text below that appears via a link on the same British Broadcasting Corporation web site:
The British Broadcasting Corporation 'BBC Story' begins with a notation that in 1922, on October 18, the British Broadcasting Company Limited was formed.
Then in 1927 it notes that on January 1 of that year, the British Broadcasting Corporation was formed.
Clearly, in law, the British Broadcasting Company Limited is not the same as the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are two different entities with only their initials in common.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has been around for 95 years, not 100 years.
The relevance of this issue is that the British Broadcasting Company Limited was a forced monopoly cartel created by the UK Crown General Post Office (GPO). Rival electrical manufacturers, both British and American in origin, were forced into a relationship in order to get a GPO license to manufacture and sell radio sets and their components in conjunction with a GPO license to broadcast from an assortment of independent radio stations using the collective name of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC).
The UK Crown GPO has a very interesting legacy stretching back to 1660, and the sleight-of-hand used to create a monarchy in England and another in Scotland after both of these countries had been shoved together to form a united republic. To overcome the problems associated with that time period a law of 'Oblivion' was enacted to forbid anyone from discussing what happened between 1649, when King Charles I had his head chopped off, and the appearance of his son as King Charles II in 1660. That missing part was dubbed the 'Interregnum' - the "interruption" of the monarchy in both England and Scotland which were two separate nations.
So we are not just talking about the fiddling of the past in broadcasting, but the fiddling of the past in a whole array of subjects, including the current quest for the nation of Scotland to regain its independence, if in fact it ever legally lost it to begin with.
But with regards to the British Broadcasting Company Limited as an entity, while it had been formed under duress by independent British and American companies, once it had been formed, it acquired its own body of shareholders. One of them was the original PYE company, before Charles Orr Stanley stepped on to the stage and bought its interests in broadcasting.
It is this foundation in fact, and not a story based upon untrue propaganda, from which the story of Charles Orr Stanley emerges and eventually leads to the creation in 1964 of 'Radio Caroline'. But getting from 1922 to 1964 is difficult because the GPO, which was originally founded in 1660 as the censorship arm of the new English Crown, has buried the true record of British broadcasting.
In that pile of shredded knowledge about the past is the story of two Irishmen, and both of them are part of the real story about 'Radio Caroline'.
There are two key strands threading through this story from the dawn of the Twentieth Century to 1964 and the creation of 'Radio Caroline'. It is after the UK General Election of October 15, 1964 when the best laid plans of several men began to go awry in several ways, and then many other people intervened to the point that the original purpose of 'Radio Caroline' was lost in a ball of confusion.
In one sense this is the story about two Irishman who had a huge influence on the destiny of British publishing and broadcasting.
The first of these Irishmen in order of birth, is Alfred Charles WIlliam Harmsworth who was born on July 15, 1865, at Chapelizod, in County Dublin. After 1905, he became known as Baron Northcliffe of the Isle of Thanet, which is now a part of Kent. He was born on July 15, 1865, just outside Dublin. Northcliffe became "one of the most successful newspaper publishers in the history of the British press, and a founder of popular modern journalism."
The second Irishman is Charles Orr Stanley. He was born on April 15, 1899, at Cappoquin, in County Waterford. He created an electrical conglomerate which had a tremendous influence on the development and manufacturing of British WWII defense systems; wireless telephones; popular records; and commercial television and radio broadcasting.
These two key individuals, Harmsworth and Stanley helped to bring about the world that is now associated with the music of the Nineteen Sixties. But their story is not merely a story about the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or the fashion of Mary Quant. They are but a few of the names which made headlines in that decade when the influences of Harmsworth and Stanley were only noticeable to a few behind the scenes.
Harmsworth had been deceased for many years, but his lasting influence was felt as a result of the actions taken by his primary press representative. The influence of Charles Orr Stanley was expressed through the actions of his son John Stanley. But these two have remained in the dark with regards to the reasons why and how 'Radio Caroline' was created back in Nineteen Sixty-Four. That was by design, and not by default. In fact, their agents provided the gloss on propaganda which redirected attention away from them, and away from what really happened, and why it happened.
In one sense what the fandom base views as a failure brought about by the Marine Offences Act of 1967, when 'Radio Caroline' was finally killed-off, was in fact a victory in the minds of the Harmsworth-Stanley financial interests of the day.
Consequently the more that fake histories are churned out by anoraks, the more the already entrenched false memories of a yesterday that never happened are rammed into minds containing distorted memories. The time has now come to begin to reveal what really happened during the so-called 'Swinging Sixties'.
[This material is redacted from the fourth in a series of published and to-be-published part-works by the authors of this Blog. Copyright 2022, all rights reserved.]
Each day on this Blog we have been analysing a story that is still being 'passed-off' as broadcasting 'history'.
We continue to look into the authenticity of claims made in support of statements by a vast congregation of collective interests who have been, and who still are, telling the public that what they see (and read and hear) from various sources is the truth, the 'real story', when in fact it is not the 'true story' or the 'real story' because the version currently in circulation is a fake. It is a make-believe ramble of nothingness in order to support a variety of hidden interests who dare not let the actual story be known.
This is a story about the foundation of individual liberty and personal freedom from birth to death.
There is no "we" in the birth to death process other than the two human beings, one male and one female, who caused another human being to come into existence. Here we are discussing the biological aspects of reality. We are not discussing the existence or non-existence of an ethereal component added to that human birth that some claim and some deny, sets human beings apart from other biological life forms on this Planet.
The problem with lies and liars is that they depend upon the "we" factor to have any effect. The more numbers that can be added to believers and promoters of a lie, the more 'weight', the more credibility in the minds of the "we" population that it gains. The lie becomes an "everyone knows" factor, which really means that many believe, not that "everyone knows".
As part of a group of three individuals, "we" are peering behind the 'Oz-like' curtain to see if what can be discovered is documentation, or as in the movie, just a human being who is nervously trying to prevent anyone from peering behind the curtain. The reason for this act of prevention is because what will be discovered is a void that exists between what is stated as fact, is in reality, a myth.
The Crown of the United Kingdom is one of the greatest 'Oz-like' myths in existence, and all that it creates now, or has created in the past is based upon that same foundation of mythology. In the past our academic series - which is preserved on line at http://foundthreads.com - has dealt in depth with the makings of this mythology. Here we are focused upon one aspect of that mythology which is covered by broadcasting.
On July 13, 1960, the British Crown authorized the creation of a body of people called the 'Pilkington Committee' to examine the subject of broadcasting in the British Isles.
As we have begun to reveal in this Blog, the story of broadcasting, and not just the technical aspects of electrical broadcasting, began back at the dawn of the Twentieth Century. It soon erupted into a pitched battle between individuals advocating mass distribution of the printed word, and individuals advocating the scattering of signals containing messages that could be received by anyone with the means to do so.
This 'war' of methodology centered upon timing.
To instantly scatter a message bought about instant death to those who belatedly wanted to scatter that same message in print. One was newsworthy and the other was worthy of decorating the liner of a temporary floor covering.
Prior to the intrusion of broadcasting there had been no doubt that news came from reading newspapers printed on expensive presses. So the bottom line of this story reveals that it is all about money: Those who have it, and those who seek by competitive means to take money away from those who have it.
That is the world of laissez faire.
But this French phrase, which when translated into English means "allow to do", poses the question of it is that is allowing something to be done, or not done? This is where the mythical "we" resurfaces under the banner of religious and political organizations. No longer is the issue a straight-forward commercial question about who can and who cannot make money to create with profit, but one in which, for non-commercial reasons, the "we factor" decides that "they" will not allow an 'uncontrolled' profit to be made.
In the instance of mass communications in the UK, it becomes a murky issue indeed. In the USA, which is the home of modern capitalism, the 1791 First Amendment to its federal Constitution, forbids the federal U.S. government from daring to to tread where the British Crown has always walked with impunity and trampled individuality under its feet. That process is revealed in the way that the British Broadcasting Corporation came into existence.
The British Broadcasting Corporation was born in January 1927, although it pretends to the world that it came to life on October 18, 1922. According to BBC propaganda in 2022, this means that the current BBC is now 100 years old. In fact, it is only 95 years old because the current BBC is not the original BBC.
This raises the question of "does it matter"?
The answer is yes, it does matter because it is the difference between reality and fable, or in the terminology of the law, passing off a lie as the the truth. But since the law in the United Kingdom all falls under the skirt of the Queen as its sovereign who represents the Crown corporation sole. It cannot be a lie since the law only exists if the Crown says that it exists, and that is because all law has to be signed-off by the Queen. It is a classic example of one law for "them" and another law for "us".
But who is this "us", is it not the same as "we"?
Not at all, because the United Kingdom is ruled by an Establishment, and they are the "we", while the "them" are the hoi polloi subjects who were once pretended to be European "citizens". But now, post-Brexit "them" are now back to being an unclassified herd of people reacquiring the politically incorrect title of "Subjects of the Crown".
It is a mess that no one wants to discuss.
No one wants to call anything for what it is and where according to some, "pregnant women" are now "birthing persons" (or something similar.)
Consequently when it comes to the subject of 'Radio Caroline', it easy, very easy for a small group of primarily aging men to claim that 'Radio Caroline' is now 'born again', yet not 'born again', because it never died on August 14, 1967. It is a silly game of language obfuscation mixed with a New Age kind of religious cultism.
Therefore trying to untangle this mess in a precise manner is very difficult, yet not impossible, and that is exactly and precisely what our small group of individuals is now trying to do by reexamining how the British Crown has again and again created the mythology of independent broadcasting in the United Kingdom. The myth is a lie and the foundation of those lies is now being documented right here, right now.
Back on May 1, 1964 a promotional announcement about Woburn Abbey being opened to the public was broadcast over the original 'Radio Caroline' station.
Once again it was Ian Cowper Ross who told anoraks that he was the person responsible for what they heard over the air in support of the Duke of Bedford. It was claimed as the first commercial broadcast by 'Radio Caroline', but no one seems to have asked 'WHY'?
Of course the chorus of absurd anorak voices will arise to tell themselves it was because advertising works and the Duke of Bedford needed more fee-paying customers to keep his own venture afloat. But the Duke of Bedford, and Woburn Abbey?
Why not 'Queen' magazine, or a bakery in Harwich?
We can see an insider's joke, and we can see it because we know who some of the people were who put money into creating this secret PYE operation managed by John Stanley, son of Charles Orr Stanley. If you don't understand the joke, then you don't know what we are referring to regarding our reference to "some of the people". If this includes you, then you will have to wait until we are ready to explain in detail, the actual story behind the creation of 'Radio Caroline'.
It all goes back in time, way back, back to the dawn of the previous Century and the origins of what would become the 'war' between BBC and PYE during the early Nineteen Sixties.
To understand how and why this 'battle' took place, it is necessary to understand who the players were that masterminded the actions of the two entities labeled BBC and PYE, and the foundational drive that they both used to misdirect and conceal what each one was doing. Their playbooks had the same root authorship, and they were both the products of typically British reliance upon deceit in order to win.
At the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, the rumblings of radio as a means of mass communication had not begun to be heard, but by the dawn of the Twentieth Century they began to send waves of warning signals to the press barons who controlled British publications. Those early events turned into a pitched battle between new sounds transmitted by ethereal electrical signals, and the ink-on-paper reading impressions of newsprint, which by the middle of the Nineteenth Century were becoming firmly established and creating print media empires. Some saw it as a fight to the death of one of the parties in this war of mass communication methodology.
Their comparative methodologies within the field of mass communication did not take place in a sterile world. Their fight was fought against the backdrop of a world at war. The First World War, called 'The Great War', because there never could be another one like it, or so its observers claimed - merely bled over into the Second World War.
Both world wars were fought to confound, to deceive, to confuse, to mislead and to make a mockery of diplomacy where vital issues of the day are discussed and then resolved around a table, or two, or three, or as many tables as peace talks take to achieve their goal. Politicians were, and still are, similar to media rivals who resist new ideas, rather than relate to new ideas, and often, the press barons are also the politicians.
Politicians were and are pig-headed, vain and essentially stupid people. They huff and they puff in order to build themselves up, but knowing deep-down that they are all born to die. Not as a group, but as lonely individuals. As a group they are not immortal and they were not born with unlimited knowledge of everything that once was or that now exists. They are not even a unified body. They are but groups of individuals who individually come and go on Planet Earth.
This is our message and 'we' are but three individuals who seek knowledge to share, because knowledge and not propaganda is the path to human understanding of both past and current events. We are sharing our knowledge base with you, free of charge. There is nothing for you to join or buy.
Fear mongers hate knowledge and so do vested interests, and both attack the perceived messengers rather than the messages they are perceived to have delivered. However, while the human messenger will eventually die, their message lives on. Truth survives like a seedling in a forest ravaged by fire. Soon the seedlings appear above ground for all to see. The arsonist or lighting strike that began the blaze, is long gone from the scene.
In terms of what happened with the Pilkington Committee at the dawn of the Nineteen Sixties, Charles Orr Stanley who bought out the original PYE company and turned it into a group of companies, had begun his own attempt to show that there was room on the British radio band for many stations. To prove his point at the close of WWII, Stanley hired America's top experts to produce a plan to make this idea work. It was immediately shoved aside by the government of the day.
PYE found it easier to force open the television market by getting the government of the day to create an alternative channel to the monopolistic BBC, and thus ITA, the Independent Television Authority was born. It was one service, not many, and ITA controlled all of the television transmitters. Then in a game of smoke and mirrors it created the illusion that British viewers now had multiple choices in programming, but they did not.
The ITA merely franchised off both its programming and advertising sales in its various regions. That gave the impression that there were many 'Independent TeleVision' (ITV) stations for viewers to chose from. If a viewer lived close to the edge of more than one region it was possible to see more than one region's programs, and providing that the programs were not networked (shared), then there was a degree of choice for a few. But ITV as such was a myth, it never existed, even though it became commonplace to say that it did.
However, the same practice was and still is going on over at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) who currently claim to have been on the air for 100 years. They haven't. They have been on the air for 95 years, but the current BBC wants everyone to forget that there was an earlier BBC.
So when it came to advancing the cause of radio in the Nineteen Sixties, PYE dusted off its old paid-for American survey of the late Nineteen Forties and put a new cover on it with a new name. They called it the 'PYE Plan'. They gave a copy of it to the Pilkington Committee who shoved it to one side. So PYE created a local radio station called 'CBC Radio Cambridge' and put it on the air to prove their point.
This station transmitted on the grounds of the Royal Show of 1960, and when it was over, the station was moved inside an exhibition hall and rebranded as 'Radio Westminster'. So the BBC executives became alarmed, and they built temporary studios inside a variety of buildings such as hotels in which the BBC executives could demonstrate that they could also create local stations - even though they were merely studio and not radio stations.
The Crown Pilkington Committee then slammed the door in the face of the PYE executives. But Charles Orr Stanley would not fade away quietly. Just as he built a transmitting station on the private grounds of the 'Royal Show' in 1960, he began assembling a team of retired BBC engineers to put a radio station on the air from outside British jurisdiction. The location was not a foreign country. It was a ship riding at anchor.
This is the raw background story to the station that became known as 'Radio Caroline', but the anoraks want to believe in a myth instead, and so for their own pig-headed reasons, these mainly aging guys with no real assets of their own, began to wave flags in support of a fake tale about a young and broke anarchist named Ronan O'Rahilly. It was O'Rahilly who claimed that the perception of money is as good as money, and so with a pocketful of mythical money. he created the first mythical British offshore radio station.
The only problem with the O'Rahilly myth is that the ship was real. So who paid for it with real money? Who bought the studio equipment, and who paid for all of the work necessary to put 'Radio Caroline' on the air?
The best that the anoraks can come up with is a person they call 'Jimmy Ross'. So where is the proof that 'Jimmy Ross' even existed as a real person?
Well, there is one mention in one paper of a person with a similar name in connection with the financing of 'Radio Caroline'. So where are the documents in support of this newsprint reference?
They don't exist.
Now jump ahead many years to 1990 when Ian Cowper Ross wrote a novel about a man named Jim Shaw and his son Paul Shaw. In the novel the mother of Paul calls her husband "Jim", and later, another person addressed the father of this fictional character named Paul Shaw, as "Jimmy". That's it.
Then in 1991, the author of the novel began to assert with growing frequency that the novel he wrote contained bits that were factually autobiographical and therefore true. The first problem with that explanation years and years after the supposed event, is that Ian's father is not named "Jim", "James", or "Jimmy". It is Charles Edward. His last name is not Shaw but Ross.
Keeping in mind that it is Ian Cowper Ross who spread this silly story about 'Jimmy Ross', years after the event, you also need to remember that it was Ian Cowper Ross who told everyone about the Duke of Bedford and Woburn Abbey. This leads us to the possibility of an inside joke as being the real reason for that announcement over 'Radio Caroline'. If true, then it shows that the real people behind the scene had a somewhat interesting sense of humor that told the truth while hiding its meaning in plain sight.
UPDATED, REVISED AND EXTENDED!
What the dj anoraks avoid telling their readers is the truth about British broadcasting.
It was NEVER about pop music or DJs (even 'Radio 390' of the 1960s had success sounding like BBC radio of the 1930s!)
It has always been about politics with a religious coating. In World War II the British government under Churchill played this card in secret under the command of Sefton Delmer who had his own British broadcasting 'empire' of stations. They were stations broadcasting from within the United Kingdom and not controlled by the BBC!
Even Gracie Field's song 'Aspidastra' was lifted and its record label name modified slightly to read 'Aspidistra' - in order to utilize the beginning of that word for the name of a series of transmitters.
The 'greatest' of them all was the imported purchase of the U.S. RCA giant 500,000 watt 'Aspidistra'. It needed no numeral after its classification, because it was so powerful. Sefton Delmer made use of it! Sefton Delmer's output was considered to be so pornographic and mercilessly injurious in terms of 'human decency', that Sir Stafford Cripps considered that the maybe the Nazis should win, if this is what it took Churchill to prevent the UK from losing to Germany!
The Queen is head of the Church of England. She is not even the head of the Church of Scotland! She certainly is not a Jehovah's Witness, or a Hindu, nor a believer in Islam. In fact, she became very fond of Billy Graham after WWII, and during Fifties, his early style was to deliver his own 'Cold War' version of Christianity. He was even invited to preach to the Queen in her own Church building! He was able to do so in Scotland where the Queen is not the Head of its national church.
Billy Graham mixed geopolitics with religion, and he publicized his interpretation of communism under the banner of 'Satan's Religion'. His post-WWII delivery was similar to that of the well-known author who was hired by Churchill to deceive and mislead the Nazis, and it is that same idea that was employed to conceal the real story behind the offshore stations of the 1960s. More than this, at least one of the key people employed in Churchill's plan of deception, was one of the founding members of the organization behind the creation of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964!
Therefore it is interesting that while Herbert W. Armstrong had preached about a coming 'Roman Empire' over the offshore stations, Boris Johnson, yes Bojo himself, wrote a book published in 2006 called 'The Dream of Rome' - which contained ideas that have very recently been revived in 2022, and which were once the financial foundational underpinning of a warning message broadcast over the offshore 'pirate' radio stations of the Nineteen Sixties! by Armstrong's organization.
This idea of subliminal messaging has been a key part of British broadcasting since the beginning of broadcasting, all because the British Crown has tried to filter-out what it does not want its subject people to hear, while injecting ideas that it does want people to hear. In other words, broadcasting in Britain has always been a game of psychological warfare of the kind forbidden by the words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Needless to say, but essential to remind everyone, Britain does not have a written constitution.
But the PYE PLAN was not to create offshore radio that would last. In fact, 'Radio Caroline' was intended to be a very short-lived operation, but Don Pierson did not know that and he created the immensely successful 'Wonderful Radio London'. But before the BBC jumped-in during 1961-1962 with its fake studio stations (like the one shown above), in 1960, PYE had already gone on the air with 'CBC Radio Cambridge' which did broadcast using a transmitter!
Charles Orr Stanley of PYE did not want to run radio stations of any kind. He wanted to manufacture radio and television stations in a 'packaged form' - in 'containers' - just like the one used by 'Manx Radio' and even the ones made by Continental Electronics in Dallas, Texas. They were put on board the CIA ship named Olga Patricia to serve as the floating home of Don Pierson's 'Swinging Radio England' and 'Britain Radio'.
What the anoraks do not know, is what we discovered: PYE went into business with Continental Electronics of Dallas, Texas!
In fact, there is a lot that not only the anoraks do not know, but that mainstream historians do not appear to know. Both of these groups have been playing "follow the leader", and they merely reprint what someone else has already published. On the other hand we perform original research and that is why we also call ourselves YesterTecs. It sets us apart from the herd instinct of vanity publishers.
So the PYE Plan was for more television and radio stations in the United Kingdom. The more there were, the more products there were to make and sell to station owners. But since at least 1660 when the English Crown created the General Post Office, the Establishment has been scared stiff of letting the hoi polloi of the British Isles having their own uncontrolled ideas about politics and religion.
Music, yes. Politics and religion, and especially politics laced with religion contrary to the doctrines of the Church of England - absolutely not!
We also discovered that the original PYE company had been one of the many shareholders of the original British Broadcasting Company Ltd in 1920 - before the British Crown's GPO snuffed it out and awarded a license to its own British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927.
This is part of the totally (100%) different story that BOTH the British Establishment does not want anyone to know, and which the brainwashed, and totally absurd anoraks don't want to know themselves. They shut their eyes and put fingers in their ears and attack (us) the messengers!
But now this story will be exposed very, very soon by our own YesterTecs, and that will be for the very first time, anywhere, by anyone!
Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The current entity calling itself by the letters 'BBC' is not 100 years old. This is a sleight of hand to make you think that the previous entity which used those initials was the same as the current entity, just because both sets of initials relate to British broadcasting.
But one relates to a consortium of British-American commercial business companies, and the second one relates to an entity that was created by the Crown General Post Office. It should be noted that the GPO began its life in 1660 as an arm of the English Crown to censor the mail.
In fact, and it is a FACT, the original PYE company was a shareholder in the original British Broadcasting Company Limited, and when the GPO refused to renew its license and licensed instead the Crown corporation, the second 'BBC' tried to use the Trade Mark logo of the original 'BBC' but was denied use, because it was not a trading company! So the second 'BBC' had to keep the original 'BBC' alive in name so that it could license the second 'BBC' to use its Trade Mark!
This current 'BBC' is 95 years old but it wants YOU to believe that it is 100 years old so that YOU think that the two entities are one and the same. They are not, and the fact that the original PYE company was a shareholder in the original 'BBC' - is one of the biggest keys to understanding what happened in the history of PYE during 1964. That is when PYE created 'Radio Caroline' on a ship anchored off the coast of southeast England in international waters!
The BBC is lying and the writers such as Asa Briggs have attempted to convince the world that the story of 'The BBC' is one long sequential tale. It is a tale, but it is not factual and it is not sequential!
YesterTecs are now ripping the lid off the Establishment lies and the duped anorak parrots who think that they know the story of 'Radio Caroline'. The anoraks don't have a clue. They are brainwashed fools because it is the anorak community that is doing the work of the Crown and its lap-dog BBC by concealing the true story about British broadcasting and especially the true story of 'Radio Caroline'.
According to Paul Rusling, a person named Oonagh was able to waltz into 6 Chesterfield Gardens after paying for a lease with Ronan O'Rahilly's mystical idea that "the perception of money is the same as money".
Ronan O'Rahilly arrived in London during 1961 with £100 in his pocket, and the first thing he did was ask a bank for money to buy a suit.
Try that economic theory the next time you want something that you cannot afford!
It was all the same.
To put either on the air required products that someone had to make, and product manufacturing provided not just jobs, but money for shareholders. So in one sense it did not matter whether the BBC or independent stations provided local service.
In one sense it did.
With independent local radio it could mean competition, or more than one station covering an area. That is what the ITA stations did not allow for when they franchised off their programs and advertising. But it was never intended for more than one ITA station to cover an area, so they were monopolies and for the few who had them, they were as one press baron said, an opportunity to 'print' money. Ron O'Quinn got it right the first time in 1966 when he said that broadcasting was all about making money.
Not pop music = money.
The downside with BBC local radio is that the local area would only get one, there would be no competition and the people pushing to open the airwaves wanted to build the stations - not operate them. That is the real story behind the offshore radio story.
How and why?
Well now, that is something you will have to wait to discover when we tell you in our own good time, but of course it will be free as a public service in the public interest.
In the meantime, stay away from the anorak scam artists - they only want your money!
We say: Yes, it was!
By the real folks behind the creation of 'Radio Caroline'!
Well, you will have to wait until the 4th in our part series is published to know the answer to that question.
When will that be?
If you are a serious student of broadcasting events, you will already know the answer, and since we are not selling anything to anyone right now - because we are providing knowledge free of charge as a public service in the public interest - we are not obligated to tell those who want to steal and twist information to mislead others so that they can line their own pockets with money from their gullible victims!
In other words, until the time is right (which is soon), we are not telling!
But the big reveal begins in part very soon.
However, we have already published enough clues on this and its related Blog for our readers to begin figuring out what we have uncovered and what we will begin amplifying.
It is all copyrighted research which has been paid for by our 'Trio', with all rights reserved.
In order to defend himself and his absurd 'bible', Paul Rusling has reared his head once more like a Boris Johnson who can't see the writing on the wall: you gotta go!
Rusling has once more dusted off the 'Jimmy' myth and his made-up story about a company called 'Rosewood' being the source of all money and manipulation.
Problem number one is that the 'Jimmy' myth began in 1990 as part of a novel written by Ian Cowper Ross. In 1991, Ian Cowper Ross appeared on BBC-TV where he insidiously implied that his novel was in fact partly his autobiography, yet he never claimed that outright. He did the same thing in an interview years later with Ray Clark, and that is where he implied even more of his novel is fact.
But of course it is not.
It was a novel.
It was a work of fiction.
Rusling devised a plan to explain away the unseen hand behind everything which he has just named 'Rosewood', although it appears that he was referring to an entity named 'Rosswood' which the GPO noted back in early 1964 had tried to make a radio phone call to the ship mv Fredericia. The GPO also noted that this 'Rosswood' was without any financial backing and that its phone deposit had already been eaten into by calls made on its brand new phone service.
Ian Cowper Ross had a father named Charles Edward Ross who sold franchises for a dry cleaning business out of Scotland, and which had recently moved to Chelsea. His father did not work for John Sheffield of Norcros, but his son Ian Cowper Ross seems to have been employed by Jocelyn Stevens. He was not a very good employee. Ian's father had recently kicked him out of his house at Reynards Wood and sent him packing to Chelsea. The reason being that Ian had dropped out of public school, crashed a rare motorcycle and then driven an expensive Jensen car head-on into a bus. He was 19 when he limped out of hospital and into a court room, and then out of his father's house and into a flat in Chelsea where he met Stephen Christopher Moore in a basement night club.
So what has any of this to do with the story of 'Radio Caroline'?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Rusling made all kinds of silly claims based upon the absurd story spun by Ian Cowper Ross. Silly claims and absurd stories are not intended for a courtroom.
Academic research parallels the demand for strict foundational proof as required by a court of law.
Therein is the difference: Rusling's childish lies sold for his personal monetary gain, and our research which we have to date, provided in part free to you the reader.
In fact, you would be really surprised at what we told Rusling before he stole our work and forced it into his fictious narrative. At that time we had not completed our research (which is still ongoing), and Rusling had the nerve to tell us that he does no research and then complained that we had not written a basic draft outline about the start of 'Radio Caroline' so that he could copy it and claim it as his own work.
Therefore Rusling took what he could, twisted it, and self-published a book which he calls a bible.
Unfortunately the world is awash in rumors and people like Rusling, and very few dig deep and want to know what really happened to the point of cross-examining the source material.
Well no sooner had yesterday's Blog appeared on line, when hack writer Paul Rusling snapped back with his answer to our editorial, and here is what he wrote:
"Posted by Paul Rusling on July 4, 2022, 12:49 pm
"Those who aren't sure of their own sexuality or identity are bound to get their knickers in a twist sometimes, especially over timelines.
Nothing specific about the topic, or the actual subject matter to begin with, just another childish comment attacking the messenger and not responding to the message.
"I've been in and around a fair few projects and one thing I do know is that the over-riding concern is to get the project operational, the funds in, the team looked after and a hundred and one other essentials. Few will worry about getting the paperwork correct, fewer still will make reporting the finer details to the authorities a priority. And especially when it concerns an offshore radio station and even more so if it was the first off the UK."
Rusling began a general response about his own general experiences, which the record shows has resulted in a lot of wasted money, time and effort from those who had the misfortune to engage the services of Paul Rusling. But even so, he wants everyone to know this ....
"The use of the 'branch of foreign company' loophole used by Caroline was an excellent choice - they didn't need to impress prospective shareholders, as these had all been recruited in Autumn 63 and Caroline had plenty of dosh in the tank - certainly enough to bale out the limping Radio Atlanta in June 64.
Notice that Rusling begins writing about a "the use of the branch of a foreign company loophole used by Caroline ...." but, as we have previously pointed out, 'Radio Caroline' did not exist as a company, and if it did not exist as a company, then it could hardly exploit "the branch of foreign company loophole"! For that matter 'it' could not "bale" out anything?
An educational note for Rusling: "Bale is a large bound stack of material, such as hay or leather; Bail is the security deposit that's paid if someone who's been temporarily released from jail pending a trial doesn't appear in court."
If 'Radio Caroline' did not exist as a company, it did not exist as a "branch" of what Rusling calls a "foreign company loophole." Note: It didn't "bail out" 'Radio Atlanta'.
Rusling has sold his misinformation to idiotic anoraks in order to put cash in his own pocket. Rusling has no scruples, he is a literary thief, a hack writer and a peddler of absolute rubbish! But, he goes on ....
"The timeline of Radio Caroline has been known about for some years and is chronicled in the Radio Caroline Bible (and elsewhere). Oonagh was queen of the admin and ensured the legals were observed. Caroline's selling agents (Planet Productions of Dublin) were hosted at Chesterfield Gardens by UK company Rosewood, who had leased the property from its owner.
Rusling begins by shamelessly pushing his absurd book 'The Radio Caroline Bible', and relating it to unnamed sources that supposedly support his sales pitch for his own rubbish. He refers to a "queen of admin". Now the logical question to ask is this: What exactly is this "queen of admin" supposed to be administering? If there is no company, how can this phantom that does not exist have an administrator? Rusling also says that this "queen of admin" was a person qualified to ensure that the law of the land was observed. Well, that was not hard to do, was it? If there was no company to administer, then the non-existent company could not violate the law, any law, could it?
Now this is where Rusling engages in bait and switch. One minute he is talking about a non-existent company and the next minute he is referring by name to a company in Ireland. It is called 'Planet Productions', he says, and it is "Caroline's selling agents". Now this is where Rusling strips himself bare of any pretense that he has the slightest, the vaguest idea of what he is talking about! He says that this company called 'Planet Productions of Dublin' were "Caroline's selling agents". But, no, they were not!
Clearly, Rusling has never read the documents created and filed by that real company. We have. In fact they are sitting right here as this is being typed! First of all that company was not created as "Caroline's selling agents". In fact, and it is a fact, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in that file relating to that company which even mentions 'Caroline' - with one exception. That exception has to do with the later addition of Phillip Solomon and another company that he had formed, and that information appears after Solomon's name to explain what Solomon did for a living! But it was totally unrelated to the company in question. But the company called 'Planet Productions' were not "Caroline's selling agents". In fact, that Dublin company was not allowed to legally trade in the United Kingdom because it was not registered in the United Kingdom, and neither was any offshoot.
Next, 'Planet Productions' were not "hosted at Chesterfield Gardens by UK company Rosewood, who had leased the property from its owner." Again, Rusling, the totally ignorant con-man who wants to sell his lack of knowledge to unfortunate anoraks, seems to be oblivious to the fact that whatever 'Rosewood' was, it was not the lessee of Chesterfield Gardens! Rusling makes 'stuff' up. Rusling is a fraudster in print for money. He is a con-man. But here is Rusling's response:
"Critics should note that "If a company's registered office is also the home of one director, it is not required to display its name at the address." Dormand companies need not display 'brass plates' either.
That statement is such rubbish in this context that clearly Rusling has not read the legal inspection documents relating to the use of Chesterfield Gardens, or what Ronan O'Rahilly said to UK government officials when confronted with the facts: the occupants of Chesterfield Gardens who were passing themselves of as having a relationship to 'Radio Caroline', were breaking the laws of the United Kingdom!
What Rusling has written and even misspelt, is total and utter rubbish which demonstrates that he knows nothing about the story behind 'Radio Caroline', and he knows nothing about the laws that apply to British business! Rusling is a fake legal expert because Rusling lacks any qualifications to render legal explanations of this type. Consequently his advice is totally in error and therefore worthless! But typical of Rusling, he then blames his wife for his own lack of knowledge!:
"My wife (who trained as a charted Company Secretary) informs me that the rules have change nine times in her time doing this - the 2008 law has most to say about it as it now allows rotating multiple companiy names to be shown on a screen. inside a building. The notion of 'brass plate on an outside wall' companies went out many decades ago.
Spike Milligan in his book 'Silly Verse for Kids', once wrote: "String is strong but rope is thicker. Therefore the higher the fewer." Spike makes more sense than Rusling's analogy. His wife and his wife's comments are totally unrelated to this topic. Rusling might just well explain why today, coal mines are a booming business in Asia, and they are! But that information is unrelated to anything being discussed here.
Now Rusling switches gears again and wants to talk about the BBC, but unfortunately Rusling does not understand the history of the BBC either! It would appear that Paul Rusling does not even know how to spell the abbreviation for a person hailing from north of the country border of England!
"The first broadcasting transgressor was the BBC, which began broadcasting in November 1922 (almost 100 years ago) but didn't get a licence until January - 2 months later. The dour Scott (Reith) and his 3 henchmen had far too much on their hands, setting up radio stations and recruiting staff to bother about filing the paperwork with the correct Executive Agency of the Government."
How anyone can treat this fool like an educated man and be so foolish as to buy any sort of a published work from him is just beyond intelligent belief.
Unfortunately there are several unintelligent people out there who are buying Rusling's unintelligent publications, and no doubt, they are getting hurt as a result.
We begin with the fact that anoraks do not undertake original research. They listen to blather and then repeat it. If they did original research and undertook critical analysis they might wonder why their "Jimmy Ross" story relating to a car ride involving three people who arrived at Hindhead, did not emerge until it first appeared in a novel in 1990 about a man name "Jim Shaw", who obviously did not exist, because he was a character in a work of fiction.
That novel was first published in 1990. So where was this story before then? Obviously it was still in the head of its inventor, Ian Cowper Ross. Then there is a question why Ronan O'Rahilly never told that story and why Ian Cowper Ross admitted to Ray Clark that Ronan O'Rahilly did not like it.
The switch from novel to fact began on a BBC-TV program in 1991, and yet, Ronan O'Rahilly had to be filmed separately from Ian Cowper Ross so that Ian Cowper Ross could tell his absurd story and claim that it was really about Ronan O'Rahilly. Obviously Ronan liked his own lies better than Ian's.
Then there is the strange tale of Planet Productions Limited that was not registered in the UK, but in Ireland by a lawyer and his two secretaries.
Where was Ronan O'Rahilly? Good question.
Answer, he did not show up in PPL documents until April.
When was PPL registered? Answer: February 26-27, 1964.
When did 'Radio Caroline' begin broadcasting? At the end of March. So who bought the ship and the transmitters and paid for their installation?
Anoraks don't know.
Anoraks are really stupid people who have spread lies like treacle.
Anoraks obviously can't think at all, let alone critically.
Anoraks can only attack the messengers who point out their empty-headed stupidity and try to swindle more stupid people into buying their non-thinking childish books and into supporting a rusting hulk while paying for transmissions over a tin pot station which they fraudulently claim is 'Radio Caroline'. - even though it was killed off on August 14, 1967.
Do you know where?
The deadline for the 4th manuscript in an ongoing series already published, is due. Publication date is with the publisher. Have you read the previous three articles? If you have then you know what we are about to reveal.
It is a fact: In sixteen days time (including today), we are scheduled to meet yet another publishing deadline for the fourth manuscript in our part work serialization. Yes, we successfully met the previous three deadlines and our work was published according to plan.
It has been a time of revealing, not just the story behind the story about the creation of 'Radio Caroline', but presenting the total destruction of the story that everyone thinks that they know about the creation of British broadcasting.
This new dateline was established some time ago, so this publication is going ahead. Where and how it will be published we are not revealing at this time on this site. Those 'in the know' are well aware of the previously published parts one through three.
This fourth part couples to the previous three parts to provide a different kind of a narrative. It is not a dry recycling of key dates and known events, but a pulling back of"The Curtain of Oz" to reveal that anoraks believe in a yesterday that never happened.
Anoraks seem to be unable to fathom what our publishing strategy is, and what it has been up until this date. Consequently they have fretted on various forums about our seemingly fragmented approach that dribbles out information, and not necessarily in sequence. This causes the non-thinking anoraks to become overly frustrated into making absurd demands and claims that if we don't publish according to their timetable, then nothing we are claiming can be true.
In turn, this causes the anoraks to launch into personal attacks against us.
The reason for not publishing in sequence is two-fold:
One we are still, as of this day and time, conducting deep research and uncovering more amazing information. Two, because of people like the deceased Chris Elliot and his still-alive publishing buddy Ray Anderson; not to forget Steve England's 'Tapetrix' and a string of others such as plagiarist Paul Rusling, and the head-in-the-sand Ray Clark with and his fantasy source Ian Cowper Ross, helped of course by BBC-TV who avoid the true story where possible - we have learned that these people do not respect the concept of not stealing the work of others. So it would not be wise for us to tip them off. Instead, we give them enough rope to hang themselves, or to put it another way: enough time for them to reveal what they have stolen to date, and what they still do not know.
Depending upon how much we reveal in this fourth part (which depends upon restrictions of available space), will determine how soon we will begin combining all of our previously published works in textbook; academic monologue; mainstream press articles; broadcasts and interview formats, into the first in a series of volumes. But the clock is now counting down to this new deadline. Whether the anoraks are aware of what we have been doing and what we are about to do, well, that remains to be seen.
We will be watching to see how they respond. So far our teases on this Blog have been designed to draw out responses from the plagiarizing anoraks to see what they know about our research, and publishing agenda, and when and how they first learned about what we have discovered. To date, it seems, they haven't a clue, which is fine by us.
In case you have not noticed, today is July 1, 2022.
Copyright 2022 with all rights reserved.