Talk:Radio Caroline: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
"An event in this article is a selected anniversary" HTML comment has been deprecated. This information is already listed on the {{OnThisDay}} talk header template
Bschott (talk | contribs)
Line 65: Line 65:
::It is not possible to prove any financial or legalistic continuity, as said above. However, it is also not feasible to prove seperate entities. It can be said there is a distinct turning point at the time the operation became "legal", in the 1990's, when Pete Moore assumed overall control, but as can be seen from the stations own history, he has the backing of O'Rahilly. See [http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/#history.html].--[[User:manstaruk|Keith]] 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
::It is not possible to prove any financial or legalistic continuity, as said above. However, it is also not feasible to prove seperate entities. It can be said there is a distinct turning point at the time the operation became "legal", in the 1990's, when Pete Moore assumed overall control, but as can be seen from the stations own history, he has the backing of O'Rahilly. See [http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/#history.html].--[[User:manstaruk|Keith]] 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Righto, I'll have a read of that some time. Hadn't realised there were ''links'' on that page! Some independent sources would be nice though. Thanks again. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] ([[User talk:Kingboyk|talk]]) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Righto, I'll have a read of that some time. Hadn't realised there were ''links'' on that page! Some independent sources would be nice though. Thanks again. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] ([[User talk:Kingboyk|talk]]) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

== The entire first section needs a revamp... ==

I have tried repeatedly to wikify the first section of this article, but a 'nanny' user refuses to allow anyone else to make modifications. The entire first section is riddled with weasel words, POV issues, no citations, vague dates and awkward phrasing. My attempts to help clean up the article have been reverted. At this point I give up. If the nanny user "keith" wishes to have the article his way and no other, I don't care. I have pointed out there are issues in the article. --[[User:Bschott|<font color="Purple">Brian</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Bschott|<font color="Green">view my history</font>]])</sub>/<sup>([[User_talk:Bschott|<font color="orange">How am I doing?</font>]])</sup> 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:18, 8 March 2010

WikiProject iconRadio Stations B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidateRadio Caroline is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

Summary

What exactly is radio caroline; a radio station? One? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the article ? 86.112.254.192 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did Radio Caroline make its money?

While it was a "pirate" station? Who advertised on it? Were the advertisers comfortable with the unlicensed nature of the station?

In the 60s, what they did wasn't illegal, so they ran adverts like any commercial station would do today. By the 80s this had all changed; the UK had introduced 2 different Acts and it was impossible to advertise British companies. I was able to pick up Caroline 558 a few times and I only ever heard an advert for one company, an international brand of (if I recall correctly) vitamin pills. I've read that the 1980s operation was funded by renting studio space and airtime to Dutch broadcasters and through broadcasting religous programmes. A rich backer may or may not have been involved, too. This is all off the top of my head, so it's not an encyclopedic answer, nor was I around in the 60s :) --kingboyk 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caroline had various sources of income post 1967. A big one was being paid to carry religious programming during off-peak listening hours and/or on secondary frequencies. Payola (payments by record promotors to play their records) was another particularly in the 1967/68 period when Phillip Solomon (one of the directors) owned a small record company (Solomon and Pears/Major Minor Records) and a chain of record shops (Caroline Music). It was initially hoped that multinational companies would advertise on the station but most of the advertisments turned out to be for overseas mail order businesses. The biggest advertiser during the 1980's was an agent engaged in the legally dubious practice of reselling Canadian lottery tickets by mail order. Apparently quite a lucrative business before the establishment of the UK national lottery. Another trick was to run two stations (one in English and one in Dutch) from the one ship and subsidise the loss making English service from the profitable (even post 1974) Dutch one.
It does beg the question though how after 1974 the Dutch service could continue to operate profitably when post 1967 the English one couldnt 80.229.222.48 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video

a video taken aboard the ship at the time by Nigel Harris is widely available

I would like to see this video. I can't find it. Can we have a link to it? The Wednesday Island 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Registraion of ship

Radio Caroline claimed their broadcasts were legal as they took place in international waters from Panamanian registered vessels (Despite the registration being revoked in 1964 at the British Governments request and in 1987 due to them neglecting payment of registration fees). However surely to be legal the broadcasts would have needed a licence from the Panamanian Government ? Also (Given that the UK Government did prosecute Radio Scotland and most of the Fort based stations when they found them inadvertently broadcasting in British waters) how come nobody raided the ship after the Panamanian Govt revoked the registration in 1964 ? And was the Mi Amigo registered in any country during the 1972-80 period ? 213.40.227.50 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the vessel was in international waters? --kingboyk (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989 raid

Dutch staff were arrested and taken back to the Netherlands...Although the British staff were not arrested and were left on the ship

Were any of the Dutch staff (or the individuals caught up in the raids on land in the days/weeks prior) ever actually charged and if so what was the outcome ? 213.40.104.250 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a lot of Dutch people are also very fluent English speakers did any of the Dutch staff attempt to avoid arrect by pretending to be British (or Irish etc) ? 213.40.128.2 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role of James Murphy

However, the following day James Murphy, an investigator for the Office of Official Solicitor acting on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, led colleagues and counterparts from the Netherlands Radio Regulatory Authority to carry out an armed raid on the Ross Revenge.

Is this an exxaguration of the role of Mr Murphy in the raid ? The operation was in the main carried out by the Dutch RCD (Radio Controle Dienst) with some assistance from the British authorities. Murphy was working for the British authorities and was therfore hardly "leading" the raiding party. His main role seems to have consissted to have attempting to question the "English" crewmembers on board the Ross Revenge having bluffed/exxagurated his legal powers/authority to do so. The guy in charge of the RCD operation appears to have been a guy called Martin Roumen #. 86.112.254.192 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was misleading. In effect it said a British official led a group of Dutch PTT people, backed by the Dutch Navy, which resulted in the British staff walking free, and the Dutch staff being arrested. I think you will find Murphy was an observer, and his attempts to get the British staff to incriminate themselves was decidely useless. Changing one word "led" to "joined", and clarifying by adding the word UK twice made the context correct --Keith 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please clean up the article Radio Caroline Ltd and move the onshore era stuff there, or merge the contents of that article back into this one? (Note we previously forked to Radio Caroline (onshore) but ended up with one article again for some time).

I suppose the important thing is: is there any connection between the current "Radio Caroline" and the old pirate station other than the name? --kingboyk (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your two points:
1) Yes you may. It was creatd by User:Fk27jh who tried to rewrite the station history, and as such is an orphaned article - it would be better deleted. Apart from one link which you placed, no other article relates to it. That will be removed shortly, as irrelevant.
2) Please read article. Due to the legality of the station, no official/legal continuing connection may be traced from 1964 to 2010. However Ronan O'Rahilly, as originator, although now getting on in years, is still connected and supports the operation. --Keith 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've read (and edited) the article many times but this question has always bugged me :) Do we have any documentary evidence of O'Rahilly's support or indeed any evidence other than the name that the modern day station is a successor to the offshore Caroline and not just branding? (see Team Lotus and Lotus Racing for an example of the latter :)). I'm not doubting your word or wanting to cause trouble but just wish to be clear that these two "Radio Caroline"s belong in the same article. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to prove any financial or legalistic continuity, as said above. However, it is also not feasible to prove seperate entities. It can be said there is a distinct turning point at the time the operation became "legal", in the 1990's, when Pete Moore assumed overall control, but as can be seen from the stations own history, he has the backing of O'Rahilly. See [1].--Keith 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, I'll have a read of that some time. Hadn't realised there were links on that page! Some independent sources would be nice though. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first section needs a revamp...

I have tried repeatedly to wikify the first section of this article, but a 'nanny' user refuses to allow anyone else to make modifications. The entire first section is riddled with weasel words, POV issues, no citations, vague dates and awkward phrasing. My attempts to help clean up the article have been reverted. At this point I give up. If the nanny user "keith" wishes to have the article his way and no other, I don't care. I have pointed out there are issues in the article. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]