A Free Radio voice? The dream & the reality

A guest article from months ago, revisited, republished as-was, and worthy of reconsideration:

Chris raised the possibility some time ago when we were talking about the Global Warming con, of a network of illicit radio stations all fed from a central point. It certainly is a wonderful concept.

Both Chris and I had dabblings in unlicensed radio many years ago. Sadly, in most cases, the operators spent much time squabbling with each other, making it easy for the authorities to pick them off one by one. I always wondered what may have happened if all the operators had got together and structured a system where each one would go on air for a short while and then hand over to the next operator etc. The broadcasts would have lasted longer and detection would have been more difficult. But, it never happened.

Now we have much more technology, so let us see the dream scenario.

In all the major cities in the UK a transmitter is installed, tuned to a good clear AM channel. At a certain point, fed from a web stream, all these transmitters go on air.

The programmes consist of notable speakers talking about the issues of the day that the Government ignores, suppresses or skirts around. Issues such as Law and Order, Crime and Punishment, the collapse of our manufacturing, mining and fishing industries, health and safety madness, political correctness, immigration, overseas crime consortiums, health care, the creeping absorption of the UK in to Europe.

The messages are interspersed with rousing music. The speakers could be celebrities such as Jeremy Clarkson or columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, Quentin Letts etc etc.

Of course with Ofcom, the radio regulator, being a commercial organisation, the machinery for finding unlicensed stations is already creaking trying to catch the FM tower block pirates. It may take a while to start closing our AM network. Of course the broadcasts could say ’ If we go off air go to http://www.UKtruthandfreedom

This of course would have to be streamed from Argentina or some such and hidden behind proxy servers. So, it is all exciting stuff.

But….. It is illegal to listen to an unlicensed station and the public are frightened rabbits these days. Have you seen the vicious paperwork that gets sent by the TV Licensing authorities ?

Would the media publicise our Radio Freedom, or would someone have a series of ’ quiet words ’ with Editors and Programmers. The law that threatens ( for instance ) any media who publicise a marine pirate station with two years in jail is still in force. As for the notable broadcasters, how many would look at their employment contracts and decide that they could not take a chance. How many would be warned that they were part of a criminal conspiracy. How many would be reminded that they could be banned from conventional radio/TV for five years.

Then of course, the Government system is to smear the message and the messenger. How long would it be before allegations were made that these dreadful broadcasts were interfering with vital radio communications and that aircraft were crashing to the ground, ambulances were driving round in circles.

Would the legitimate user of our chosen frequency be persuaded to complain even if they were based ten thousand miles away. Would commercial operators either side of our frequency be ’ invited ’ to say that we were interfering with their signal.

Could it be suggested that we were terrorists, could a connection with the BNP be inferred. Could we be infiltrated with a high profile person who would bring the whole thing in to disrepute, like Robert Kilroy Silk in UKIP.

You have to remember the very popular and justified fuel protests of years ago. There was hardly a voice raised against it in spite of the major inconvenience. Devoid of any counter claim, what did the government do ? They decided that the pickets had used ’ intimidation’. They did not say who or where or who had intimidated who. They just let the opinion spread that the protesters were bad people. So nowr our fuel costs 10/15% more than even when the protests started and we just quietly pay up.

Of course if I say these days that I do not want to spend £100 filling up my car, the answer is that I should not be driving the car and that clearly I am a monster who wants to destroy the planet.

So, behind the dream is a depressing reality and I am concerned that I am actually stating why what is basically a good idea will not work. Part of this is experience I have gained over many years, but have I, like most of the population, been conditioned to feel that protest is pointless.

All I have to do is press a button and I can watch pretty girls skating in skimpy clothes. I can check my Lottery ticket, or see what is the latest with Jordan or Cheryl Cole and Ashley. Will Daisy Lowe or Lily Allen accidentally show a nipple on stage. Who will Amy Winehouse throw up over. Oh, there is so much comfortable distraction out there.

I used to wish that I had enough money to buy every house in the country a copy of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. Now I fear that I am actually starting to love Big Brother, not the reality show, the one who watches you out of your TV.

When Churchill is a dog that sells insurance, what hope do we really have !


Author: Peter Moore.


  1. Please note that the first 25 comments were originally made elsewhere and have been copied across from that system. Hence why their date-stamping is not representative of when they were originally made.


  2. A very small technical problem here.
    If all these small rigs fire up on the same channel they will 'beat' against each other. Maybe it would be better to pick three or four channels, (eg 783, 801, 819, 846) all in the same area of the band and all clear(ish)?

    Otherwise, I say lets go for it! The technology exists for phase locked loop transmitters, meaning the frequency can be generated from a stock crystal, and does not need to be specially cut with all the hassles that brings, the sloper or 'fuller' aerials from tower blocks work very well indeed (5 watts from an 18 storey block in east London made it to Suffolk, Sussex and Cambridgshire with only 5 watts on 783, so we know it can be done.)

    The circuit diagrams exist, so all we need do is stock up on the parts, and if these are bought in batches seperately, by different people at different locations, then they will be less suspicuous to the retailer.



  3. Interesting article. What is especially sad is that it was our Free Radio, Free Love generation which has allowed our freedoms to be whittled away by all parties. The soma we take now is indeed TV, which was once our evening entertainment with one or two channels, but is now a 24-hour soother with hundreds of channels to keep us away from anything really important. And if the ordinary person turns to a mass market paper, s/he is entertained by more stories of sex and scandal, banks and bonuses, football and fiddling.

    So long as the public is more beguiled by “Hello” and “OK”, or even “Bella” than it is by the real world, there is no chance of waking it from its easy-life, easy-money, easy-morals culture.


  4. Personally I dont care who starts it off, few presenters stay the course and in a years time the rundown is usually different; its the idea that appeals to me; a network linked to by the web; how can anyone track down the studios? Once the big names drop out, it will be for those of us who will happily present prorammes for a cup of tea; thus reducing the advertising need, which can then go entirely on the buying of parts for and construction of more transmitters.
    The feds can locate and bust the transmitters, but the real problem – studio raids – is eradicated.
    If we all had a shopping list of components we could fill a couple of lock-ups up with spare rigs so after a raid, the installer for the area simply goes out and gets another literally off the shelf.
    There are two offences… Installing a transmitter and Controlling a transmitter. this idea divides up the offence as well, reducing any charges. the installer is not guilty of controlling the rig, and the person doing the show is not guilty of installing it!


  5. 'speakers' such as Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Littlejohn and Quentin Letts? That's me tuned out, turned off and dropped elsewhere. *shudders*


  6. Have read this and thought.. why bother with all the hassle.. use the web and podcast etc…!


  7. Peter has expressed a view and opinion held by many in this day and age.

    The system of broadcasting Peter refers to was placed into operation, with total success, back in 1968 to 1970 in London by the Radio Helen Network using reasonably powerful AM transmitters to serve a specific geographical area in London.

    However, the Network fractured by 1970, and with newer stations like Radio Jackie from 1969 remaining outside the Network the demise of the Helen Network was inevitable.

    As Peter clearly indicates, using modern technologies and a sense of common purpose, and the overstretched regulators, this system would be highly succesful.

    The article just reminded me of the halcyon days of AM pirates in London when the Helen Network was first established and my own station, though powerful by late 1960's land based terms, was too far West to be involved.
    So, I used to promote and run jingles for the Helen Network so that drivers entering London on the, then, relatively new M4 would be able to tune to 227 metres and hear Free Radio.
    I was on the air for 24/7, only raided twice, attended court once, and the judge was in my favour. He made E A Gotts hand back the kit and to seek a warrant the next time they wished to raid in Bucks/Berks.
    Our signal, in daytime, was clearly audible from Marylebone/Regents Park in the East of our range, to Newbury, Berks in the West, and our night time skywave was awesome, we sent QSL's to most parts of Europe, from our studios in Burnham, Bucks.

    The article just reminded me of our hopes to set up a Network free of Government control, with an eye on Free Speech and Free Radio. But, as more London station's came on, ego's became the order of the day, and they refused to assist. I think 'Radio Free Helen' in late 1970 was the last of the Network I ever heard.
    I think a number of Jackie and Kaleidoscope staff had their roots in Helen, and Peter reminded me of those pioneering and unsung heroes of Free Radio in late 1960's London.
    Of course, they were all inspired by Radio Free London, broadcasting from the BBC in 1968, now that was a great broadcast.


  8. Podcasting will always be alien to some people. Radio is not alien to anyone. I just hope this was not some theoretical pie-in-the-sky talk, and is an actual proposal.
    It is always easier to talk a good story than to carry it out, and there are plenty of internet “radio” stations that never broadcast and are therefore not Radio at all.
    Re the Helen Network; they got round the issue of 'beating' by turning their rigs on and off at pre-agreed times all on the same channel. This in itself is fine, and maybe it may be possible for a tone to be broadcast to turn on and off different rigs automatically now, but this did and will result in a suddenly weaker or stronger signal for the listener.


  9. The names were suggestions. It is highly unlikely they would be involved due to the consequences with their employers.

    And so what if they did do a 'one off' show? Are now censoring people who are allowed on mainstream braoadcasts just because we don't agree with them? Some freedom of expression that would be!

    And where does it say the new station would be called Radio Caroline? i only see a Radio Freedom!

    Radio Caroline closed down for good before the Ross ran onto the goodwins, and in my humble opinion should have stayed there, as the plethora of idiots trying to rehash the past from it with RSLs paid into the organisation that spends that money on raiding land based free stations is sickening.

    Caroline is dead. Live with it!

    Now, to the future; I like the idea a lot, (although would caution against Argentina as a place to stream the signal from – Falklands 2, the sequel is brewing up) and would love to be a part of it. I like the fact it can be compartmentalised, the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and believe it will work.


  10. Jeremy Clarkson or columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, Quentin Letts-followed by Hitler, Goebbels, Goring, Eichman….
    Straight away it's a right-wing agenda with no mention of left wing speakers to give balance, or even moderate speakers to give a fair overall view.
    Richard Littlejohn openly hates Gays & Lesbians (among 1000 other groups) and to let him loose without any control is tantamount to raising a national lynch mob. Do you want to be responsible for the first “Gay hanging”?

    Followers of Radio Caroline tend to vote in a right wing way because of what the left wing under Wilson did in the Sixties.
    What is not remembered is that it was a right wing Conservative government that finally killed Caroline at sea with their, “Nuclear Weapon”…..

    Radio Caroline is supposed to have a consciousness of Love, you are advocating Hate.


  11. Amazing, Christopher, how many people with barely two brain cells to rub together that you manage to bring out of the woodwork 🙂


  12. Last year a DJ on Caroline said he was listening to Nova-FM in Perth, Australia and to his surprise heard them utter the “sh” word and the “wa#*ker” word, among others.
    I couldn't help thinking of how “fearful” Caroline has beome if as “the biggest free radio of all time” it is amazed at the flowery language here in OZ. Try Ireland for carefree use of the language.
    Then last night (morning here in OZ) I heard some religious nut called Roy cut some girl off a phone call 'cos she wouldn't completely absorb his self-righteousness. I switched off too.

    Yes, I think the idea above is an excellent one. We've all been “taught” successfully by Big Business and Big Money as to how they want us to be entertained and informed.
    But Caroline has too. No freedom of language. No real fun. No anti-this or anti-that. Just serious album tracks, interpersed with right wing religious nazi bastards to pay the bills.
    Even Veronica in Holland has a jingle “It's Friday night, lets fucking rock'n'roll” and it's not even a pirate anymore, in fact its owned by the borg too.

    The idea is a great one. It reminds me of the “battle” that Caroline was always prepared to fight.
    But why not start at home, with the service you have and spice it up, start planting the seeds.
    And in the “off-peak” hours of that new service, blast Caroline through the cities (albeit on AM) maybe in time consider AM-DRM.


  13. Can anyone actually tell me what good idea Cameron has had? I can't think of any, but then I'm not an expert. Mind you, sometimes I feel that the present lot are so much easier to criticise because we can see the cock-ups clearly. But what is it exactly that the other lot want to do? The one or two ideas I have heard have been absurd.

    So … On a PM station, we'd only get right-wing ranting, would we? Well, I wouldn't be listening. Nor would I be listening if it were just left-wing diatribes. What I want are clear, coherent speakers who are able to explain what it is they are putting forward as policies, and what the differences are between their policies and those of other parties.

    I also want a proper debate about the pros and cons of the EU. (Mr Moore, it did change name from EEC some years ago. Try and keep up!) And I want to know what the alternative would be if we were to come out of the EU. And I want to hear what businessmen and financiers think of those arguments.

    Do you ever listen to Prime Minister's Questions at noon on a Wednesday (on those few weeks a year when Parliament actually sits, that is!) Well I've never heard Cameron do anything but snipe. It's so, so easy to stick the knife in. It is so much more difficult to be the guy upfront, the one who has no choice but to make decisions, some of which are bound to be wrong, or at least, perhaps not the best choice. Cameron may soon find that out for himself, and I'm sure the Labour benches will have great fun obtaining some revenge! But perhaps in the meantime, Cameron could present a few policy statements and say exactly what his lot would do that is not only different, but better, and how, and why. It's the least that a company boss would have to do!

    Mostly what I want is to hear both/all sides of any disagreement, so that I can come to my own conclusions on the basis of real, hard evidence.


  14. Hi, Peter Moore here again.

    Interesting response to my musings, but a few things need to be clarified. I am posting as me, not as Radio Caroline. The job I do and the jottings I sometimes put down are quite separate.

    Technically I think one could have a series of transmitters on the same frequency so long as the geographical separation was sufficient, but that is a detail.

    As for my suggested speakers, I just plucked names out of the air as persons known to the public, but I think that Mr Letts writes brilliant observations of the daily goings on at Westminster. As I know from Caroline, if people can only devote say three hours a week, you need a lot of people, even if programmes get repeated, to fill each week of broadcasting. For ' Radio Free Britain ' you would need a dozen presenters or even a score of them. I suggested a token three.

    Talking about Caroline just for a moment, someone denounced Roy Masters. OK, it is true that there are some programmes on the station that get sent on the basis of need rather than choice, but there are 168 hours in a week and dear old Roy gets only two or three at the most. So what is that ? about two or three per cent of the output. It is a trade I will tolerate if it enables us to continue.

    Further, why does highlighting the subjects I raised for discussion ( again as a ' for example' ) make me right wing. Is it right wing to worry about health care ?

    But, I readily state that I think the EEC is a disaster, falsely sold to the population of the UK many years ago. So no, I would not want to invite speakers who held a neutral view or a positive view of the subject.

    Who said that there has to be balance. Newspapers do not have to deliver a 'balanced' view.

    Or consider Gordon Brown, let us imagine he gets up to make a big campaign speech as the election looms. What if it went like this :

    ' People of Britain, I really think that the Labour party with me as leader, is the party that you should vote for, to bring us out of recession and back to prosperity but , having said this, we did mess up big time over the years and actually, that David Cameron has some pretty damned good ideas and that Vince Cable is one smart cookie when it comes to finance so, do you know, you ought to at least consider voting for them rather than us '.

    People would conclude that Gordon had gone quite mad, but it would have been a ' balanced ' speech. But if Cameron had the best ideas in the world Gordon ain't going to say so, since he has to be absolutely focussed at getting himself and his party re-elected.

    You cannot have a balanced view of everything. Some things are inherently good or inherently bad. In my view, getting mugged on the street is inherently bad. Should I seek out someone to tell me that it is a neutral experience and yet another to tell me that there are positive aspects such as redistribution of wealth and to bring home to me the realities of social inequality.

    Of course, the probability of Radio Free Britain appearing is remote in the extreme and I could not be involved in any case since I personally hold the Radio Caroline broadcast licence. Proven involvement in such a project would surely make me an unfit person to hold an Ofcom licence and it would be revoked. So, I'm a toothless tiger in this matter. Does not prrevent it being a nice idea though.

    Peter Moore.


  15. Peter Moore's idea is an excellent one. Infact it is identical to the one mooted by myself almost two years ago.
    Is anyone seriously interested in joining me,Peter Moore included, to make it a reality?
    Let me know if you are.


  16. This is going to be my last post on this topic as there are too many idiots trying to make political points when the idea was about a radio station.

    Personally I dont give a flying **** who does or does not appear, or if they vote Lib, Lab, Con or Monster Raving Looney. He/She/It can be asexual, bisexual, trisexual or – heaven forbid – straight. That is just a distraction from the meat of the post.

    Use The Web as a main link for a set of transmitters.

    I think this already happens on a small scale, but for a nationwide coverage a lot of rigs will be needed, and sites, second hand laptops or pcs and dongles.

    It can be done, and I was hopeful this was going somewhere.

    But then Mr Moore let his personal cat out of the bag.

    Stuff the political rubbish, he holds a licence to run something calling itself radio caroline [deliberate lower case].
    And this has fettered what he can do, has it?

    Ok, well the idea is a good one, but we don't actually need to set up studios in Argentina, do we? All we need do is tune the pcs to the caroline stream and rebroadcast THAT!

    After all, it is Mr Moore's idea, and his 'station' claims to be Fighting For Free Radio, does it not?

    You see, what people dont understand is a licence is unnecessary, look up article 19 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1949.
    However, Mr Moore is giving Ofcom money to run his sorry excuse for a 'station', and Ofcom are using that money to bust the genuine article. So 'Caroline' is p;aying the government to bust free radio stations!

    Lets put him on the air from his stream and see what happens!


  17. Peter, this is the article referred to. On the face of it it would appear to suggest that you can broadcast what you like, where you like, but it does not necessarily negate the need for a broadcasting licence in the first place.

    Article 19.

    * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


  18. Oh Dear !

    Hello person calling himself ' Only Me ' you just don't get it do you. I try to illustrate points by giving examples. I was suggesting what sort of speech Gordon Brown might make if he was obliged to give a balanced view. In such a case he would be obliged to give honourable mention to his opponents. Of course he would do no such thing since all he wants ( understandably from his position ) is to re re-elected. So in the event that the Conservatives or the LIb's or indeed UKIP actally had the answers to the probems of the nation, he wold not say so. I was not actually suggesting that Cameron is the man to vote for.

    Regard it as a parable. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, you are not supposed to get up and start shouting that there may also be good Egyptians or Damascans who are not getting mentioned. In the Feeding of the 5000 would you say ' but what about vegeterians or those with gluten intolerance ?'.

    It's just an example OK?

    As for 'Betrayed' I keep saying that this thread is not about Radio Caroline, unless you make it so, which you seem to have done.

    I guess ( I do not have time to look it up just now ) but the declaration that you refer to, probably has to do with the freedom that people should have to distribute information and ideas across borders without hindrance.
    I cannot see how this removes the need for licensing radio stations or that it overides the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

    But, if you are sure that it does, the action is obvious. Put your unlicensed station on air full time and announce where it is based. Then, when the location gets raided, explain that you do not need a licence under the terms of the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

    Let me know how you get on will you ?

    I see no need for you to ridicule Caroline. If you want to put a local signal on for short blocks of time, then very good luck to you. If we want to send a full time service, nationally and reliably for ten years now, you should afford us the same courtesy.

    As for relaying the present Caroline ouput on unlicensed transmitters what can I possibly say. It is an activity that I cannot prevent. If it happens I cannot stop it since I do not know who the operators are. If I appeal on air for these unknown operators to cease and desist I might accused of promoting the activity. So if such transmissions appear, I would have to maintain a dignified silence.

    Now Neil, my old colleague from many years ago, I thought that your project was to raise £30.000 and with that sum to obtain, build and operate a radio station in the ocean. This has been hugely discussed on specialised web forums for some years now. I missed your intentions about a network of transmitters within the UK.


    Peter Moore.


  19. Hi, Peter Moore here again.

    I think that the deterioration of this thread shows how these message boards are ultimately of no use. Let's get back to basics.

    Chris England wrote concerning ' Global Warming' suggesting that it was fake and a cover for removing freedoms and raising fresh taxation. As the line from ' The Last DJ ' goes, ' The boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free '.

    I happened to agree with him and so I posted my own supportive comments. Nothing to do with radio at all.

    It was Chris ( certainly not me ) who then suggested that multiple unlicensed stations in the UK all linked to a central source might be a way of getting either an unbiased message to the public or at least a message that came without the assumption that Global Warming was an established fact.

    I then commented quite hypothetically about how such a station ' might ' work and what the reaction ' might ' be. I did not suggest that I would start such a station. I did not connect it with Radio Caroline.

    Very quickly the thread was hijacked by people who despise Radio Caroline amd myself. The terminology they use is most offensive.

    So, in just a few steps we have gone from discussing Global Warming ( or the lack of ) to the suggestion that I am a twat who can sink no lower.

    I order to broadcast in this country one must have a licence. I am not saying that this is a good thing, but it surely is a fact. There is no other way of sending a regular signal.

    Those who do not want to obtain a licence will broadcast illegally under UK law. Again I am not saying that this is a good law, but it has existed long before UK offshore radio started, which of course was outside the law and not in contravention of it.

    So, those who want to broadcast illegally in the UK ( and good luck to them ) will know that they risk discovery and prosecution. If they want to take that risk so be it. To minimise the risk of prosecution such stations usually broadcast sporadically and over a small area. That is a fact, not an insult. But, their impact on the public and the value of any opinions broadcast are utterly insignificant other than to the operator of the station. The public are almost entirely unaware that the activity is even taking place. Shame, but there you go.

    To have my Ofcom licence costs about £15 a week. It is a very long and unlikely connection to suggest, as has been suggested, that this small amount is specifically used to close down unlicensed broadcasters. It is a suggestion that only a fanatic would make and it is fanatics we are dealing with here.

    Some people know who I am and what I do, I cannot hide behind nicknames such as Betrayed and Only Me.

    The supposed pirate operator targetting me with such bile, ought to give us the name of his station and a location ( approximate of course ) so that we could judge his station on merit as anyone can judge mine. The multiple nick names may all be from one person. The guy may not even have a pirate station, just the fantasy of one.

    I do enjoy lively debate, but I am getting little satisfaction here.



  20. You mean he has even forgotten that!

    How low can the man sink? The Real Radio Caroline used to quote that article when giving out its position many times.

    His jumped up imitatation is not worthy of the name!

    Looking at his 'local signal for small blocks of time' dig, is that not exactly what he was proposing in his original diatribe?

    It would appear that he is a coward as well; he has replied to someone who said he would not be posting further.

    It is interesting to note he fails totally to reply to the point that the money he gives ofcom for his rip-off 'Caroline' goes to busting real free stations, but then they are below him and his attempts to run a full time national station – Bah! the man makes me sick.

    What a twit (and if you want to change the vowel to another – feel free!)


  21. It is not much use trying to get Peter Moore to be objective, after all he is the person who not only forgot to re-register the Ross, but also to get a new anchor chain, so she drifted onto the Goodwins and the rest we all know… A cynic may say this was deliberate, so he could then run his farce of a station [ab]using the name 'caroline'.

    The political side of the last poster does bear with some consideration, after all licenced statiuons have a code of practice that sets the limits of how far they can go to one or another political angle, right, centre or left. Let us not forget RNI's campaign against the Labour govt that some have argued got the Tory Ted Heath govt into power.

    From a Free Radio POV in relation to free radio stations:-
    Labour tends to want to control what the output is more than other stations.
    The Tories are a bit better, but as they usually have friends running the commercial stations, who don't like 'losing' listeners to free stations (The R Mercury -v- R Jackie issue is a case in point here).
    The Lib Dems? One of their constituent parties, the SDP was in favour of a lot more freedom on the airwaves, they in fact wrote a letter to a free station expressing a lot of support; whether this has survived the merger and proceeding years with the LDs is nayone's guess.
    The Others? I suppose a free station playing English Folk music would attract the BNP's Nick Griffin who likes that style, but another playing ragga, bangra and other 'ethnic' styles may meet with a different response. The Nationalists? Who knows?

    Then there is the type of station.
    A music based station would not have much political interest. One in fact made no broadcasts at all the weekend before a general election in order nobody could accuse it of any form of political bias at all, and spent the weekend putting out different test tones etc, while explaining why.
    A speech based station would have heaps of problems. Even with a 5 second delay, at times of general elections the amount of 'phone in live' shows would need very careful monitoring; I heard once of a station who had pseudo-callers who would have to 'call in' to put an opposing view after a more vocifereous called had gone in the interest of balance!

    Then theres the commercials. (This would need to be seen more in relation to a potential offshore set-up, something that crops up and dies down again every few years)
    Tobacco? i am sure the temptation is there, along with pots of money
    Religeous broadcasts, Johan Maas-bach, your radio believer and the rest, but in the interest of balance, what if the money is there for a mullah or iman to preach in Farsi or Arabic? If that is turned down, what is the justification, and what are the chances of retaliation?

    I for one, would like to see an offshore station return, but I feel there are too many obstacles for this. So the next best option would be the idea suggested here by Peter Moore himslef, and kept as a screen shot in case he wants it deleted any time in future. Use the web as a relay for a network of MW stations. Of course, it should be possible to have this AND an offshore station, but lets crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run!


  22. Mr Moore, I was going to say that your reply to me was patronising (“you just don't get it, do you?” “It's just an example OK”). But in fact it just shows that you appear to be self-absorbed. It seems to me that you ignored the main thrust of my argument, perhaps stung by my criticism of Mr Cameron and his party – which I would assume I might have the freedom to mention on the kind of station you propose. By the way, it is generally good management style, certainly in communications, not to attack those you think don't understand your words (though I certainly did), but to apologise for not expressing yourself clearly enough. You would persuade me better by attacking less and explaining more.

    If I post using a pseudonym, does that affect the truth or otherwise of the points I make? (You might note, also, that I have not indulged in insult or vituperation; nor have I criticised Caroline).

    But let's get to the nitty gritty …

    In your posts here, you claim to be in favour of “free” radio, of stations which can behave like newspapers, showing bias for one party or another, or for one policy or another. And so, you say, on the hypothetical station you might set up, you would not permit presenters to give reasons why the EU might be a good thing, simply because you are against the EU.

    Well, what I want is the real freedom. I want to hear the real arguments from the real people with the real beliefs in all sides of the debate. Yes, I want to hear your point of view, but I also want to hear your opponent's. When I've heard a good range of points of view speak, I am then free to make my own mind up based on the evidence I've heard. I can then cast my vote accordingly. Presumably you don't wish me to be brain-washed by just one side, nor for me to use my failing grey cells to base a decision on simple prejudice?

    What you are advocating is a limited version of freedom. You want me to hear only YOUR side of the argument.

    Now you may say to me that I am free to listen also to Joe Bloggs' station which happens to have a different point of view, and there is my freedom of the airwaves. The trouble is that Radio PM, promoting the anti-EU view, could just be funded by some rich individual/company/pressure group, and so would treat me to clever, persuasive broadcasting from the best mercenary manipulators of opinion. Radio JB, though, might be run on a shoestring, and the best they can get is Fred the butcher, who loves being a radio presenter in the evenings, but frankly would prefer to tell me the best way to cook his chops.

    What I want is for BOTH Radio PM and Radio JB to have to share resources (within their respective organisations) between all sides of the debate. That way, I can have Saatchi & Saatchi's versions of the different sides of the debate, and I can also benefit from old Fred's version, along with Sid the Solicitor's, too (both of which might be less polished or persuasive, but might contain good old home truths and common sense).

    In that way, I am free to receive the benefit of wisdom from all parts of society, instead running the risk of the monied guys telling me what I ought to think in just the same subtle ways that you and CE are sure are currently used in controlling the ways the public thinks.

    I cannot truly be free to decide until I have heard all (or a decent range of) points of view, all presented with the same production standards, etc.

    Am I so very wrong in wanting to have evidence before committing myself? Should I really be restricted to the views coming out of Radio PM?

    I love the idea of the network of transmitters broadcasting alternative views. Just let there be more than one alternative view!


Comments are closed.