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.
Copyright 2022 with all rights reserved.