Prince Charles explains 'pebble theatre'.
|
PEBBLE
|
Don Pierson [right] explains how a young Prince Charles made a request to join the Radio London fan club. |
|
Prince Charles explains 'pebble theatre'.
|
PEBBLE
|
Don Pierson [right] explains how a young Prince Charles made a request to join the Radio London fan club. |
|
We originally saw this story as a single pebble that was thrown into a pond causing ripples to radiate out in all directions. It has now become obvious that we are witnessing multiple pebbles of varying sizes. These multiple and overlapping ripples are also of varying sizes, and that is why it has become necessary to introduce a 'Narrator' named Caroline Brooks to provide a single storyline for readers to follow.
Because this partwork is primarily created from the autobiographical work products of three people, a 'big picture' has to be created in the form of links to join up all of the various accounts. This is the part played by Caroline Brooks as editor, although she is not a part of the storyline itself. Because a new section or chapter will be added on a regular basis until Volume One is completed, the text will first be published here, on this Blog, and readers are invited to assist with the rapid editing process by notifying us of typographical or textual problems. A link to do this is already active as a sub-link on the main Menu bar under 'Yesterday Never Happened'. The text for additional sections or chapters is then replicated in sequential order on the book link, and that is why some text that first appears here, may differ from the end product that appears there. This process also gives us time to make final corrections before a finished volume of this book series is sent to the printers. This book is the result of a research enterprise undertaken by three people, more by serendipity than by a planned approach to a planned project. Because authorship involves more than one person, it requires a Narrator to present some aspects of this story. However, it is not a story about the Narrator who appears in these texts as Caroline Brooks, a pen name used by the daughter of one of the co-authors. To the reader, this story may not seem to have a beginning as such, but what it does have are several starting points, each one involving the three authors. Therefore this story entangles itself in both the individual and co-venture lives of the participants. It moves forward in time as events unfold, and it moves back in time by way of explanations as to how and why aspects of this story came to be. Moving on to the authors, Mervyn Hagger's interest in broadcasting began as a boy when his father took him to BBC Bush House in London where he interviewed him about their holiday in front of a massive BBC table microphone, while an 'uncle' cut a recording of the interview on a transcription disc in the adjoining room. In the early Sixties Mervyn Hagger attended an American college where he and a fellow student made a weekly half-hour commentary called 'Focus'. It was transmitted over a student radio station with a signal radiated from the electrical wiring that covered the campus. The signal was picked-up on radio sets just like any other station, provided that the receiver was within relatively close proximity to any of the campus electrical wiring. On Wednesday, June 22, 1966, the London Daily Telegraph reported a sensational story on its front page which featured details about the death of Reginald Calvert by a shotgun blast. He had been fatally injured inside the home of Major Oliver Smedley as a result of a dispute over a transmitter which had been transported to Radio City, a so-called 'pirate' station squatting on a mostly disused World War II fort complex situated off the coast of southeast England. Radio City was one of nine active radio broadcasting stations operating off various offshore locations around the British Isles within the social framework of the so-called 'Swinging Sixties'. As a result of reading the Daily Telegraph story about Smedley and Calvert and the controversy over Radio City, and noting the misinformation contained in the article, Hagger tracked-down the reporter to a pub on Fleet Street. He asked about the perceived errors and where the misinformation had come from. Hagger was told that the writer had been assigned the job by his Editor, but because he knew nothing about the background to his subject, he turned to source who worked for one of the Independent Television program contractors. With this story as his inspiration and with an existing interest in the subject, Hagger was moved to write his own freelance article about offshore broadcasting. The resulting half-page feature was published by the Wolverhampton Express and Star on Monday, June 27, 1966. It was this initial work that inspired several other freelance articles on diverse topics which Hagger wrote for the British press. On Wednesday, August 16, 1967, following the demise of 'Radio London'; 'Radio England' and 'Britain Radio' which had been created aboard ships by Don Pierson of Eastland, a very small town in West Texas, Mervyn Hagger wrote to Pierson and requested more information for a book. Throughout this time period Hagger had been working as an industrial journalist for a group of companies, but in 1970 a recession forced the closure of their publications and the closing down of the advertising department that employed him. So Hagger decided to relocate to the United States. After meeting Don Pierson they formed a community magazine franchise, and Pierson obtained a broadcasting license for his own town of Eastland. Hagger then began making programs for this station and Pierson made plans to syndicate it. Events moved on and this led to yet another business plan to resurrect 'Radio London', first as a syndicated program, and then as a new offshore broadcasting station. At this point in time the original idea of a book was resurrected. On Sunday, May 22, 1983, Don Pierson handed over to Mervyn Hagger his financial and legal records that related to Pierson's original offshore stations. In that collection was Hagger's letter to Pierson dated August 16, 1967 - which never received a reply, but from which Pierson's son had retrieved its British postage stamp! Meanwhile, back in 1980, the creation of the franchised community magazine had resulted in the hiring of an Editor who controlled the parent editorial content and supervised the local content of the affiliated franchised magazines. The name of this editor is Genie Baskir, and she also became a part of plans to relaunch Radio London as an offshore station, as well as the second member in the formation of the Trio which is now authoring this book. The third member of the Trio is Eric Gilder, PhD. He became a globe-trotting professor, but back in 1983 when we first met, he had independently approached Don Pierson for assistance with his thesis for a Master's degree from the University of North Texas. The title of his work is 'The History of Pirate Broadcasting in Britain and the End of BBC Monopoly in Radio Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'. Since that time, Hagger and Gilder have cooperated with each other and co-authored a number of academic articles about aspects of British and American broadcasting, as well as side-issues that are related to that topic. This is the basic background of the three authors and the reason why they are now presented in the order in which they appear on the cover of this book. Some of the works previously written by Gilder and Hagger have been included in this work, but in a modified format. The included articles have been assembled to follow more of an explanation of our progressive knowledge base, rather than as a chronological sequence in which they were written. What has emerged, and what is still emerging is a geopolitical story that is wrapped around current affairs. Therefore, far from being a simple story about ‘free’ broadcasting of ‘pop’ music during the Sixties, this project of discovery is unraveling the lives lived by many prominent persons during that time, thus the lives these personalities claimed to have lived actually took place within a ‘yesterday that never happened.’ [This last section in italics was originally written by Mervyn Hagger as part of a Preface for a textbook written and published by Dr Gilder during October 2019.] Caroline Brooks, Narrator,
December 5, 2021 UPDATED: Now that the Preface is Online and removed to a separate page as part of the structuring of the book, we will also be adding an Introduction later today. Please check back. It will first appear here, and then it will also appear on its own page as part of this partwork publication in Volume One called 'Beginnings'.
We are now inviting our readers to become proof-readers. Please use the sub-menu under the 'Yesterday Never Happened' link above. If you notice either missing words or misspelt words, please let us know. For the most part we will be using American English for the text, since this work is seen through the perspective of a transatlantic and Americanized vision, and this entire project is intended to be read by a worldwide audience. Although it is a term that is not familiar to many in the UK, in the USA where the laws of the land are rooted in a primary instrument known as the U.S. Constitution, the Latin term 'stare decisis' has great meaning for the way in which new laws are passed and existing laws are interpreted.
Because our work is rooted in an examination of U.S. Constitutional Law, as interpreted by actions taken by the British Crown as a corporation sole, we have been working through a minefield of obfuscation and governmental secrecy in trying to fathom what happened back in 1964 with the creation of Radio Caroline. The interpretative reporting about the years from 1959 through 1967 has settled upon a de facto account akin to a form of stare decisis. Mythology has become the settled account of what happened. Unfortunately, that account is totally untrue, and therefore it must be shaken to its foundation to discover what really happened. This problem came to our attention in two phases. The first phase was when Don Pierson gave us his financial and legal files. That was back in 1985. Those documents explained both how as well as why he had started 'Radio London' in 1964, and then followed on with his creation of radios 'England' and 'Britain'. At the time a lot of misinformation swirled around in the UK about his ventures and about him as a person. This is of importance because the shake-up of the BBC that resulted in BBC 'Radio One', had more in common with 'Radio London', than it did with 'Radio Caroline'. However, Don Pierson based his operations upon the mythology spread by Ronan O'Rahilly about the start of 'Radio Caroline', and not upon facts relating to the start of 'Radio Caroline'. The reason for his actions is related to our own investigation at this time. This investigation was also triggered by a second phase that began during the year 2014, because that is when our own understanding about the start of 'Radio Caroline' was shattered. The cause of that rude awakening came about when we read page 276 of the book called 'Radio Man' about Charles Orr Stanley and his son John. Both of them managed the Pye Group of companies. That account totally contradicted everything that Ronan O'Rahilly had ever said about the early days of 'Radio Caroline'. Stare decisis in American law is interpreted as: "to stand by things decided." That is: "The principle that a court should follow precedent established by previously decided cases with similar facts and issues to provide certainty and consistency in the administration of justice." Broadcasting is rooted in law, and in the USA, it is tied to the U.S. Constitution. In the UK it is tied to the British Crown and tradition. When it comes to the activities of offshore broadcasting, which in 1964 seemed to fall outside the domain of UK law, a self-imposed veil of secrecy and misinformation was unleashed by the people behind 'Radio Caroline'. Their spokesman was Ronan O'Rahilly. But it was not until 2014 that we began to realize the extent of the deception and misinformation that Ronan O'Rahilly had engaged in over the years. We began as if we were tugging at a stray thread on a sweater. That stray thread was one paragraph on page 276 that has now begun to reveal the true story: Ronan O'Rahilly represented the financial and business interests of his father, while he personally began morphing into the world of anarchy and daydreams to exploit the financial interests of other people for his own personal gain. Ian Cowper Ross became a part of that O'Rahilly deception, but he was not the creator. He was only the inventor of an extension to the O'Rahilly mythology. Ian Cowper Ross' myth telling only began to blossom in 1994 when he wrote a roman à clef novel. The following year in a BBC-TV documentary, he began to imply that his novel was really a true story about himself, and how he came to meet his wife. Part of that story also includes a tale of how Ronan O'Rahilly first met Ian's father, and then addressed him as 'Jimmy' while asking him for money. Christopher Moore became by accident, the third person in this original scheme to spread misinformation, only it was more of a scheme than it was a story because it had several authors. Consequently, Chris Moore was the first person to become disillusioned because he was never a party to the plans of O'Rahilly and Ross who were in turn 'useful fools' to the people with the money. So, Chris Moore disappeared quite quickly and began filing a legal complaint against O'Rahilly in a court of law in England, because Chris Moore was taken in by the stories spun by Ronan O'Rahilly. We have now begun to uncover the true part played by Ronan O'Rahilly. He was working with his father while pretending that he was not. However, his father had him on a very long leash so that Ronan O'Rahilly found time to engage in several mischievous antics of his own which were unrelated to his father's business or to Radio Caroline. It took us a long time and quite a bit of money to eventually discover who Ian Cowper Ross' father is, and what he did for a living. His name is Charles Edward Ross, and his story has nothing to do with broadcasting, but everything to do with dry-cleaning. He was also involved with an automated car wash franchise operated by his eldest son who is the now deceased half-brother of the younger Ian Cowper Ross. This dry-cleaning operation connects all of the dots to John Sheffield and Jocelyn Stevens, who as far back as 1960, was a director of a subsidiary company joined to Sheffield's Norcros operation. Stevens had previously married Sheffield's daughter, and Stevens was heavily connected to a British printing conglomerate which unwittingly ponied up the money to get Radio Caroline off the ground. The financial connection to the dry-cleaning operation was in the hands of Close Brothers, a merchant bank in London with its headquarters in the Shell Oil building. Shell connects with Project Atlanta Limited, and that company formed a link to a legal and financial operation in Liechtenstein with ties to the Swedish operation known as 'Radio Nord'. It is a massive jigsaw puzzle with many people writing their own scripts about the story of Radio Caroline, and those scripts were not necessarily complimentary to each other because their authors had their own self-interests at heart. The man who ran the dry-cleaning business that Charles Edward Ross was part of, moved within close proximity to the home of Charles Edward Ross, and from his geographical relocation emerged connections to the 'Debs' that Princess Margaret condemned. But that world also connected to the Duke of Bedford, which is how and why he became the first advertiser on 'Radio Caroline' via Ian Cowper Ross. In essence, the part played by Ian Cowper Ross, and to a lesser extent by Christopher Moore, were marginal. The part played by Ronan O'Rahilly was limited to the early days of 'Radio Caroline', and after 1967, even his own father wanted nothing to do with him. His father was a businessman born in England and married to an American wife, and he courted favors from the British Department of Trade and Industry. His son put himself in a war with the DTI and eventually with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Ronan O'Rahilly was a self-professed anarchist, but his father was the epitome of a businessman playing by the political rule book of both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. As for Jocelyn Stevens, while the name 'Caroline' did originate with his editor Beatrix Miller, when Stevens began to change the editorial approach of 'The Queen' magazine, she quit on the very day that Planet Productions Limited was registered in Ireland. That was on February 27, 1964. In essence, Stevens kept the name of the Beatrix Miller Style Sheet, but he changed the definition of 'Caroline' as his typical reader. Instead of 'Caroline' being an 'upper class' (aristocratic) young lady, Stevens turned her into an 18 years-old slut (to put it bluntly), although she was an 18 years-old slut fancied by the aristocracy! All of this we can now prove absolutely and conclusively plus a whole lot more! The turning around of 'Radio Caroline' into this crazy operation dominated by Ronan O'Rahilly really got out of hand by 1966, and Barry Ainley was brought in to put it back on track. He failed and quit. Then Philip Solomon saw an opportunity working hand-in-glove with the 'Jewish Mafia' in New York, and that is how and why the true story of 'Radio Caroline' was brought to a formal conclusion on August 14, 1967, and then it finally ground to extinction by March of 1968. This is the true story that we are working on, and why we are annoyed that Paul Rusling stole our research and then twisted it to support Malcolm Smith's eponymous radio station. Paul Rusling and all the rest of his anorak chums want to keep the O'Rahilly myth going. That is akin to leaving sleeping dogs alone, and in American law it is known as stare decisis. But once the covers of deceit are peeled back just a little, then the lies all come tumbling out and nothing seems like the story we have all been led to believe. Once the foundation of this anorak version of star decisis is examined, the true story comes pouring out like a flood. You can't tell just a little bit of the truth. If you are going to lie you have to lie, otherwise you get tripped up. But the Law does not deal in "truth" and neither does Wikipedia. Wikipedia has also adopted a form of stare decisis. Lawyers deal in "conflict resolution", not truth seeking, and that means trying to calm things down and keep everyone happy via compromise. But "truth" is not a part of their job, because truth cannot be compromised! However, truth seeking is exactly what we (the Trio) are engaged in. Consequently, we are stirring up a lot of conflict resulting in angry, and even hateful comments. We say that is too bad. We ask the liars to admit to their lies, and we also ask people such as Paul Rusling to stop spreading more lies. We also add this: Paul Rusling, stop stealing from us and then twisting our research to present a perverted record of the past, which is what you are doing for financial gain to the benefit of both yourself and Malcolm Smith. This overview will now be added to our partwork series of publications called 'Yesterday Never Happened'. Footnote: As of this post we have still not seen Rusling's "updated" version of his 'Radio Caroline Bible'. After we posted our challenge in response to the comment by Rod Watts (see the post below this one), Paul Rusling DELETED almost everything following his comment of November 29. That was the one in which Rusling acknowledged that we were not stupid or thick. Rusling left two posts in place. One by Rod Watts and another by Atlantisgb! That was the continued exchange in which Rod Watts began to post something about knife violence, and that post seems to have been previously deleted. Then Rod Watts started threatening the kind of act which probably befell the USA union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Right after that was a supportive post by Atlantisgb! - which makes us wonder how many 'pen names' Rusling writes under, while denying that he uses that tactic.
We know that Rusling has the power to delete messages on the Garry Stevens Forum, and his deletions point to a person who does not like to be challenged. It seems as though Rusling began deleting as soon as the post below this one, appeared on line. While we are still awaiting delivery of the book by Paul Rusling, which is preventing us from tipping our hand to our latest research, we want to take on the person calling himself 'Rod Watts', in relation to his own post on December 3, 2021, at 5:31 pm, and ask him this:
Today you wrote this: "I Reject your version of Reality, and Substitute my own." No matter where you first heard that statement, you repeated it because you agreed with it. Therefore, leaving aside all of the nonsense, and accepting for the moment that this Blog represents the work of three people who have undertaken years of research, which they have paid for, what specifically do you disagree with when it comes to that research? Clearly we do not agree with the words, however assembled, that were written by Paul Rusling in which he claims that Radio Caroline began in 1964, and continues today. We have stated that Radio Caroline began regular broadcasting in March 1964, and that it died at midnight on August 14 1967, because the people who had funded Radio Caroline all bailed out, and after that date, the two Radio Caroline ships were taken over by an ad hoc group and run from Holland until March the following year. After that they were both towed away. The mv Caroline was never to broadcast again, and the mv Mi Amigo also remained silent until it was rescued from a scrap yard by some radio enthusiasts who had nothing to do with the people behind Radio Caroline 1964-1967. Using the same name of Radio Caroline does not prove association. If someone else came along and called themselves Rod Watts, that person would not be you. It would be another person using the same name as you, but the two of you would be two different people. So Rod, what part of that do you disagree with, and where in our extensive research that we have already published on our two Blogs and in both journalistic articles and academic papers, do you find errors? Please be specific. We are not interested in sham statements such as "I Reject your version of Reality, and Substitute my own." We claim that we are dealing in factual reality supported by documentation, while we do claim that Paul Rusling is doing exactly what your statement implies. He is dealing in gossip. So show us up using our by citing own words to prove that we are in error. Because this is an ongoing research project we continually correct our own errors, so please cite our latest statements as proof of your own statement. It is easy for anoraks to throw around slogans, but Rusling has already told us that he does not undertake research of his own. He is engaging in gossip. We are engaging in demonstrable and provable facts. Reality is an event that takes place at a specific time in space. Any claim made to something else that does not occur in that same time and in that same space, and then claimed to be the same event that took place in that same time and space, is not reality. It is a lie. Over to you Rod. Well, it's getting tiresome having to report that we still don't have Rusling's book, and we still can't find anyone else who has authentically reviewed it.
No book from Rusling.
We believe that he recently printed off a handful of books and rushed them around to various book stores who operate chains. The one we ordered a copy from back in October told us that a copy had just arrived at their warehouse, so we expected delivery. But we still don't have it, and neither do we have word when we will get it. Maybe at least one other person bought a copy and that single copy which arrived at a warehouse went to them. So are we now waiting for Rusling to claim that due to enormous demand he has had to print a second run of his updated book? (I guess that means at least one other copy when he prints on demand.) It is very interesting that not one of his five (?) fans who each write under about 20 different names do not seem to have a copy of this magic book. Magic because Rusling touts it as real, but no one has been able to review it by citing chapter and page number. After the last time we pointed this out we expected Rusling to orchestrate a flood of reviews, but no, so far not one review has been brought to our attention. Until Rusling does one of two things, we can't move ahead by publishing our own work because we do not want him to keep stealing our research and then after twisting it to suit Malcolm Smith, and then print off even more books (one at a time), and slapping his name on it. We want to stop the thefts and enable us to print the truth without becoming associated with Rusling and Smith. So here are the two things Rusling can do: 1) Stop stealing and apologize in public for the financial harm you have caused us,. 2) Give us a copy of the book you claim to have published so that we can inspect it and publicize your thefts by citing chapter and page number. In that way we can at least distance ourselves from you and your plagiarism. But until then, you have put our own publication, on hold. Your move Mister Rusling. |
Our team produced this free radio program for PCRL in Birmingham.
It was repeatedly broadcast on and after October 20, 1985. Click & listen! Blog Archive
August 2023
Copyright 2021 with all rights reserved.
|
Index |
Library |
|