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.]
Copyright 2022 with all rights reserved.