The World of Then viewed by The World of Now ....

There was a man who called himself Lewis Carroll who wrote gibberish either for children, or about children, with an emphasis on very young girls. Today, such interest would be deemed 'unhealthy' and even suspicious of intent to either commit a crime, or even as an indicator that a crime may have been committed. That crime is generally described as paedophilia, which is further explained as being a psychiatric disorder involving adult fantasies about prepubescent children.

Lewis Carroll, who lived between the years 1832 and 1898, wrote his poem 'The Walrus and the Carpenter' as a part of the text in his book called 'Through the Looking-Glass'. At the time that he wrote it in 1871, the Twenty-first Century laws against the creation and even the possession of materials classified as paedophilia were a long way off into the future.

Lewis Carroll was a strange person because he was obviously intellectually gifted in many areas, while religiously attached to the Church of England. But it was others who came after him who took a look at his works and began attributing meanings that defied the advice of 'Occam's razor'. Given the known factors about Lewis Carroll, he might have been considered as more than a mere suspect of pedophiliac activities, had he only recently begun writing about a young girl named Alice.

But what this man wrote, was, on its face, mere gibberish. Others have placed all kinds of interpretations on his words, and perhaps one of the most interesting is in the identity claimed for the Carpenter in his poem:

"The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax --
Of cabbages — and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.'

But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that."

According to one author who has researched the works of Carroll, his instruction to the man who was hired to illustrate Carroll's work, makes a mockery out of the philosophers who came later and began attributing a religious identity to the 'Carpenter'. Martin Gardner who wrote 'The Annotated Alice', claims that Carroll gave the illustrator John Tenniel a brief in the form of several drawings from which to chose one of them.

There were three such pictures: a carpenter, a butterfly and a baronet. The character in the poem could have been changed by Carroll to reflect any one of them, because it is not about a specific person. Tenniel picked the carpenter. But that did not stop others from coming along and identifying the 'carpenter' as being a reference to Jesus! Yet the author of the poem was not Tenniel, but Carroll. Had Tenniel picked 'baronet' instead of 'carpenter', the allegorical subliminal connection to Jesus being a carpenter could not have been inferred from the text written by the author of the poem.

This business of attribution by those who were not there and had no part in the event, is extremely mischievous, because it advances an interpretation that never existed when the original event took place. This is especially true when it comes to the study about the origins of broadcasting, which by way, seems to have attracted a number of paedophile disc jockeys.

Too many books and articles and even radio and television programs have been made to assert various storylines about broadcasting, and many of them are totally untrue. One classic example concerns a random reference to a character named 'Jimmy Ross'. The original reference appeared as part of a short news item in connection to another person. No other details were given about 'Jimmy Ross', other than in 1964, he was supposedly one of the two main financiers behind the original 'Radio Caroline'.

Decades pass by, and then in 1990 a novel appeared that referred to a fictitious family named Shaw. The husband was identified by the wife as 'Jim', and a stranger who had never met Mr. Jim Shaw began to call him 'Jimmy'. Naturally the reader was then given to assume that Jim Shaw and Jimmy Shaw are the same person, because 'Jimmy' is but a variation of James.

Now the author of that novel is named Ian Cowper Ross, and the real father of Ian Cowper Ross is Charles Edward Ross. The real mother of Ian Cowper Ross is Phyllis Ross. We know this for a fact because we hired a private investigator to research this family, and we bought a copy of the marriage certificate of Ian Cowper Ross in which both of his parents are identified.

Neither of his parents ever had the surname of 'Shaw', either before or after their marriage to each other. We investigated Census Records and a lot of other authentic and official documentation to learn who Mrs Charles Edward Ross was before she got married. We discovered who her parents were and that her husband had been married before in New Zealand and then got divorced in London. We know that their son Ian had a step-brother who came from the first marriage of Ian's father. We tracked the Ross family residences until the time that Ian left home. We know all about his two vehicle accidents, his hospital stay and his court appearance for reckless driving. Then we traced the entire career, marriage and offspring of Ian Cowper Ross and wife, throughout their lives. In other words, we know all of the essential details about this family.

We also know where Charles Edward Ross worked.

But those who want to create a fictitious account of how 'Radio Caroline' was financed in 1964, then claim that the author of the novel who is Ian Cowper Ross, is the true identity of the person named Paul Shaw in the novel written by Ian Cowper Ross. They do this in order to claim that Paul Shaw, who in reality is the fictitious son of a fictitious father named Jim or Jimmy Shaw in the novel, is really the son of 'Jimmy Ross' - a compound faked name made-up to fit a bogus scenario.

But the true identity of Ian Cowper Ross' father is Charles Edward Ross, and there is no record anywhere about him ever being called 'Jimmy'. If anything, he would be called Charlie. However, one year after his novel about Paul Shaw was released, a BBC-TV documentary was shown featuring Ian Cowper Ross, live and on screen. In that TV program and in subsequent interviews following the TV screening, Ian Cowper Ross began to 'tease' the audience by claiming that incidents relating to Paul Shaw described in the novel. actually happened in real life.

But Ian Cowper Ross tried to employ the trick of deceit by tip-toeing up to the edge of validating parts of the novel as a biography, but never conclusively asserting that it was in fact a true account. However, he could never do that because it was obvious from other parts of the novel that it was a work of fiction, and selective validation by inference, is not the same as making a statement that something is true.

Nevertheless, this novel of 1990, published years after the real time period of 1964 in which the work of fiction is supposed to have occurred, merely helped Ian Cowper Ross get over a rather difficult time in his life when he became short of money and short of new networking contacts. The book opened new doors for him as witnessed by the BBC-TV documentary one year later. In other words his novel was a self-serving project that seems to have paid off, for him personally.

On the other hand, what Ian Cowper Ross' novel did for the true story of broadcasting was open a floodgate of new publications about 'Radio Caroline', and all of them began to parrot the falsehoods in Ian Cowper Ross' novel. That included at least one academic work. Up until that moment in time, the original falsehoods spread by the press about Caroline Kennedy becoming the original inspiration for the name of the station and one its radio ships, were being rapidly demolished as invented lies designed to conceal the truth. Therefore Ian Cowper Ross invaded a void in the storyline and filled it with another lie. Because it was a void the media bought the new lie and began to spread it far and wide.

Just as some tried to turn Lewis Carroll's 'carpenter' into Jesus, so a strange cult of radio enthusiasts have now tried to identify Charles Edward Ross as a merchant banker in the City of London. These absurd assertions created a requirement for the authors of this work to digress from investigating the true origins of 'Radio Caroline'  to discover who the real father of Ian Cowper Ross is, and what Charles Edward Ross did for a living.

So that is what we did.

Charles Edward Ross was one of the directors of a parent dry cleaning business that he helped to franchise. The owner was not Charles Ross, and the owner moved to Southern England from Scotland. But none of that has anything to do with the history of 'Radio Caroline'. However, we now have a total file on the life and times of the entire Ross family and we will at some point in time reveal what we know. But since that is not the purpose behind our investigation, that will come later.

We can tell you that this business of tacking on explanations long after the fact has skewed the real story about broadcasting in a big way. To know the history of broadcasting you have to know about the creation of the British Crown and what it is. You also have to know about the creation of the General Post Office (GPO) in England. In addition to that, you also have to know your history about how and why America got its independence from Britain, and how the two nations have been at an on again, off again, on again, off again hot war and cold war cycle, up through the early years of the Twentieth Century.

Forget "special relationship". That is a joke. An insiders sour joke, and it really is a myth.

Broadcasting is an American-British story that has been separated by the Atlantic Ocean. It is a story that revolves around the development of both the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy, and the emerging dictionaries in both the USA and UK. That is where similar words used in either country can have opposite meanings.

It is within this state of confusion that misunderstandings abound. Even oft-used words in the UK, and corresponding oft-words used in the USA that can have similarity of meaning, can also have a totally different interpretation. Over the course of time, words become so co-mingled that they can sometimes cause dangerous, and sometimes embarrassing results for a speaker when the context of location is ignored. The speaker may be trying to express a meaning that the hearer comprehends as something other than what the speaker was intending to convey.

For this reason the origin of broadcasting has become totally obliterated. In fact, it is this interchangeability in the use of words that has led to a muddied and muddled story. Not only is the domestic story totally garbled and separated from reality, but the international story has just made it worse. It is such a mess that it caused us to go back in time to the origins of the laws that govern broadcasting, and that is why we became engaged in researching such obscure topics as the break with Rome by King Henry VIII of England. Those topic will be included within the context of the story which will be published as a part-series work, similar to the 'Time-Life' Library of books. The mechanics of our version will also follow  a similar page size and formula to the 'Time-Life' blueprint.

This new library will present a new storyline within its many volumes. Right now we are involved with the mechanics of that process. The books will be published one at a time and they will form part of an open-ended library collection. Readers will then be able to add additional volumes from this series to their collection.