Talk:Radio Caroline/Archive 1

Archive 1

THIS ARTICLE

Due to the undue length of the original article and the ongoing dispute about linking it to a licensed broadcasting company now trading in Britain under the name Radio Caroline, but legally unrelated to the original stations by that name which began when their sales, production and management operations were not illegal in Britain. Other stations calling themselves by this name have also appeared over the years and currently there are still other stations that either are or who have recently used this name in other countries. To bring this article within Wikipedia guidelines for length and for clarity and to end any dispute about the current operation, this subject has now been divided into appropriate eras and each of these eras are referenced at the top of the page of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fk27jh (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is journalistic vandalisim - they are now reverted --Keith 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

THE SINKING OF THE MV MI AMIGO

I added a reference for the the following statement in the article:

The Mi Amigo's 160-foot (49 m) mast remained erect, pointing skywards out of the sea for a further six years in what some fans called a gesture of defiance.

During a training mission on a HH-53 rescue helicopter from the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron out of RAF Woodbridge, UK in 1983, we flew over the mast of the MV Mi Amigo as identified by the aircrew. --Majormadmax (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM

This article is currently (June 17) being vandalized by used "C Osbourne" who is removing text and substiting both factual error in the text and inserting a massive advertisment. This matter needs to be addressed immediately. --Fk27jh (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to earlier attacks on the authentic and documented history of Radio Caroline as reported in this article there are people who are once again promoting myths for a variety of reasons and consequently they have once again taken to destroying this article. The origins of Radio Caroline were reported at the time by the staff writers for Queen magazine and documented in The Economist of that era. Radio Caroline was started in order to revert the findings of the Pilkington Report and it was financed by City of London money. Its format was originally to be that of an audio version of Queen magazine. Another station, Radio 390 did come on the air and it did adopt this same format under the name of "Eve". Academic papers have been written on this subject. Unfortunately the mythology surrounding Caroline is of a much later date and for some the mythology has turned into a quasi-religion. The facts are as stated and I am willing to stand by them if anyone has a question. For those who are most interested in this story they should read the sources cited within the article. I have returned it to its status prior to the current attack in November. Fk27jh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

To quote a magazine article of nearly 50 years ago is not giving any information to the reader without quoting the precise issue that can be verified!. The fact that the "story" you say is fiction, is quoted in a number of locations, including the stations own site. How the connection can be made by a design artist for a magazine, 3 years earlier is beyond this readers comprehension. The concept you indicate above, is for a station of an entirely different nature than the one that appeared at Easter 1964.

I seem to be repeating myself because you are a vandal using abusive language on my own page which I do not appreciate. But because you raised issues here I will answer them here: 1. Radio Caroline first appeared in 1964 and so your reference to a magazine 50 years ago does not make any sense, because that is exactly where you would go to find this information. 2. The Economist magazine of that era ran an article about Radio Caroline, tied it specifically to Jocelyn Stevens and his magazine (Queen) and said that the magazine had previously used the name "Caroline". 3. Articles by Queen staffers, also cited, explain exactly how the name "Caroline" came to be used. 4. If you will go to You Tube you can see an old TV interview with Jocelyn Stevens in the Queen magazine office concerning the start of his radio station. 5. The original format of Radio Caroline was non-rock and roll and non-top 40. Top 40 offshore radio did not arrive in the UK until December of 1964 with the arrival of the Texas financed and Texas formatted station called Wonderful Radio London. 6. Please stop tearing up this article in the way that someone might tear pages out of a book that they disagree with. Fk27jh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

DELETING WITHOUT CAUSE

In fact, with the inclusion of material relating to the house style of Queen magazine in 1961 (I see you now use a 1962 date instead of the orignial 1961), and the references to the Atlanta project and its inception, I just wonder who is orchestration the vandalisim? --Keith 07:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you do your homework and stop making wholesale deletions to articles without cause! The history of how Radio Caroline originated is thoroughly documented. You posted commercial advertising links on my comment page and I took time to answer you, but obviously you did not bother to read it. It would seem that you do not know that Radio Caroline was an offshoot of the Radio Atlanta project and not the other way around. The money for Radio Caroline came from investment bankers in the City of London and their aim was political - to overturn the Pilkington Report. At the time the Tories were in power but shortly afterwards Labour came in by a very slim majority and dashed all hope. Then in the next General Election Labour got such a big majority of the vote they pushed through the Marine Offences Act and it was not until the 1970s when the Tories came back to power that commercial radio was introduced. Queen magazine is key because its publisher and owner Jocelyn Stevens used the style sheet for the magazine that was drawn up by his editor Beatrix Miller as the style format for Radio Caroline as an extension of the magazine. The name that she was using in late 1961 but certainly by 1962 was "Caroline" and the radio station was to be an extension of the magazine. The first Labour victory dashed all hope of success. Later when Radio 390 came on the air its managing director (who I met and knew) used the same format and called his station "Eve, the woman's magazine of the air.) I also met and knew Alan Crawford and many of the other key players. This account is verified by The Economist of the day, by journalists of the day, by academic studies and even early dj Colin Nicol has written on the Offshore Echos site and on the Hans Knot site that the name Caroline had nothing to do with Caroline Kennedy. When research is undertaken into the claimed magazine origin you can find the exact issue of LOOK with its award winning photo essay showing John Jr playing under the White House desk - not Caroline. Even Christopher England on his Anorak Nation blog has debunked the Caroline Kennedy story and Hans Knot has reproduced the actual picture on his site. The World in Action TV series available on You Tube shows early Radio Caroline in the offices of Queen magazine and Jocelyn Stevens being interviewed. The reason why Ronan O'Rahilly began his fanciful tale later on is because the original people ran for political cover following the first general election of 1964. I think that I have been very fair in documenting all of this again for you: Please do not vandalize Wikipedia with wholesale and unwarrented deletions. Thank you. Fk27jh (talk)

MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARTICLE Part 1

1 - Radio Caroline is not the name of a single radio station and neither can the current station that is listed show any direct link to the first offshore radio station company that operated Radio Caroline from 1964 onwards.

2 - The article states that Radio Caroline was started in 1964 by Ronan O'Rahilly and Oliver Smedley. This statement is untrue.

3 - The article states that Radio Caroline was named after Caroline Kennedy. This statement is untrue.

4 - The current Radio Caroline is not a full-time radio station that is transmitting to radio receivers via radio transmitters.

5 - The article reflects more of a "fanzine" approach rather than a historical approach that can be supported by credible sources of published historical reporting and as such it is contradicted by other Wikipedia articles that deal with similar or related matters.--Fk27jh (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrections and clean-up

I have cleaned-up the text and in some instances rewritten the text dealing with the original era (1964-1968) to set the documented and historical record straight while allowing for the false tales that were already on this page. Some untangling was also necessary in some paragraphs due to repetition and confusion of the original text. I have not attempted to go beyond the original phase except to clarify the caption under the Mi Amigo and to clarify the box relating to the current 2009 operations by Radio Caroline Ltd. --Fk27jh (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARTICLE Part 2

First a response to the part one above. Where is the basis for this information from? 1) As far as I am aware the current main Radio Caroline operation although not directly connected, stems from the eighties operation, which in turn was an offshoot from the original Ronan O'Rahilly operation. 2) Oliver Smedley was involved, around that time, as Chairman of Project Atlanta - the opposition. - cite Pop Went the Pirates II by Keith Skues ISBN 978-0-907398-05-9 2nd ed. 3) Who is trying to undermine what has been known and said for 45 years. Why would a fashion designer suddenly come up with a priate radio name when there was no pirate radio station??? This statement is rubbish. CITE [1] 4) What is that supposed to mean? Shall we redefine radio to mean the broadcast of audio material, recievable by equipment of some nature. 5) Unfortunately the original statments above have no references, so none of the information can be verified. Having read the main article through again, there is a distinct need to seperate the origins on offshore radio in the UK, from the history of Radio Caroline. The idea that Radio Caroline was created because of the Pilkington report is ludicrous. It is mixing of the origins to give a false opinion. --Keith 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Why Did Beatrix Miller call the style she designed for Queen Magazine "Radio Caroline" - it seems most unusual --Keith 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

MORE POV ADVERTISING THAT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED

This editor (User:manstaruk|Keith) has recently begun an all-out POV attack on several Wikipedia articles in an attempt to turn them into advertising tracks for a very small British company that now uses the name "Radio Caroline" but which has no connection to the commercial operations between the years 1964 and 1967. It seems pointless to keep on addressing the same points over and over again only to have this person ignore the answers and to keep on trying to turn this part of Wikipedia into a POV journal.

In view of the above situation and because this article is now over the average Wikipedia length, it would be a good idea to separate the article into its different areas - especially since the period between 1964 and 1967 has nothing in common with anything that followed, with the exception of the New York and Philadelphia events of the 1980s which resulted in a USA criminal case and trial. That too could be separated. But this wholesale mutilation by one person who seems to be a part of a very tiny fan-based radio operation of today, which this person is trying to advertise on Wikipedia, needs to be stopped because it is wasting too much time and effort in attempts to prevent these POV attacks which seem to be continuing. Help from Wiki Admins would be appreciated. Fk27jh (talk)

Defunct??

Why is Radio Caroline - broadcasting 24 hours a day on Sky Channel 0199 and at radiocaroline.co.uk (this isnt an ADVERT im just emphasising the point) listed in the Wikipedia Defunct Radio Stations category?

2004

I went over this and corrected spelling, and grammar as best I could. Also added some links where I thought it would be helpful.--Mr. Snow 03:30, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Radio Caroline: additions and corrections

I am making substantial additions and a few corrections to the entry of Pirate Radio and adding other information where appropriate on other entries. There are some basic errors with this article on Radio Caroline which clash with existing entries elsewhere.

One entry requiring correction is where the name of the radio station came from. The name came from the family of President John F. Kennedy, not from the pop group known as the The Fortunes. Their record was not used until much later as a signature tune. Although their recording of "Caroline" (which was the "B" side of "You've Got Your Troubles" and entered the British charts in 1965), it was originally released in the UK during March, 1964 (on Decca F11809). However, when Radio Caroline first began broadcasting in March 1964 its first theme at close down was Jimmy McGriff's "Round Midnight" (an LP track on "I've got a woman", Sue ILP 907 1962 United Kingdom; Sue 1012 USA).

While the article states that Caroline was the first to begin broadcasting from offshore all day, it was not the first offshore station to begin broadcasting to Britain in English. That award goes to CNBC (Commercial Neutral Broadcasting Company) which transmitted from the same ship as "Radio Veronica" which was broadcasting to Holland in Dutch.

There were also other attempts two years before Radio Caroline and Radio Atlanta and these were spin-offs from CNBC called GBOK and GBLN (also known as the "Voice of Slough". GBLN even had the backing of Herbert W. Armstrong's daily sponsored program called "The World Tomorrow". But unlike CNBC, neither of these two stations made it on to the airwaves - although they generated a lot of publicity in the UK national press at the time and for this reason alone they deserve a mention. MPLX 21:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made several additional minor corrections to my copy ...

The reason for the sudden number of changes is due to the fact that when I tried out the links to LOOK it directed me to something other than to LOOK magazine. I found that LOOK is listed as Look and there is a note there about a new publication using all capitals. However, I am almost certain that original also used capitals in their masthead, but rather than add to more confusion I changed my link to reflect the correct entry. I also added a comma by mistake in the link to "Oval Office" and as a result no existing entry turned up, so I had to remove that comma. There were a few other items like that which were very minor. I am mentioning this in case anyone becomes concerned about why the number of changes were made in such a short period of time. MPLX 23:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Updating of status and addition of several important internal links

I have made a slight alteration to the wording of the first paragraph in order to reflect the current (2004) status of this radio station, while adding several important internal links.

Until 1990 the status of "Radio Caroline" was deemed to be illegal and unauthorized and therefore a pirate radio broadcaster. Since 1991 the station has operated both from land based studios in Southern England as well as from its ship, the MV Ross Revenge under terms of a series of low power and local ("RSL") Restricted Radio Licenses that have been issued by appropriate British Government licensing agencies. Today "Radio Caroline" also uses satellite transponders, cable affiliates and Internet streaming to distribute its programs to the rest the world. This is what my modification to the first paragraph was intended to reflect. MPLX/MH 04:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Murder"?

I don't think a killing for which the accused was aquitted on the grounds of self-defence (not a technicality in any sense) should be characterised as a "murder". I would encourage someone to provide a better heading. While this unfortuante event certainly deserves mention in the context, I don't believe it deserves an unmeritedly sensational topical heading

Rlquall 17:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong place to explain the Crown

This statement was poorly inserted into the flow of the article so that it destroyed the theme and even created disruption over spacing: "(The Crown is a term which is used to separate the government authority and property of the state in a kingdom from any personal influence and private assets held by the current Monarch)." There were links to the term "Crown" for an immediate reference to further reading, should. the reader find it necessary. MPLX/MH 05:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

Photos

A picture speaks a thousand words... and this article is sadly devoid of photos. Does anyone have any images with suitable licences that they can upload? I'm thinking a picture of the 60s vessel, a picture of Ronan and some of the DJs, the Ross when she still had her 300ft mast, anything really! --kingboyk 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be belated, but I'm considering adding a couple of book and CD covers with photos of the ships. Lee M 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio Rainbow

I will be reverting Radio Rainbow references until such time that there is a) evidence of Radio Rainbow's offshore status (e.g. a photo of their ship at sea) and b) a citable source stating that they have or are suspected to have strong links with the Caroline organisation. --kingboyk 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS PLEASE FROM EVERYONE ON THIS REVERT WHICH IS REALLY ANOTHER AND POV APPROACH

In order to bring this article into a reasonable size it has been divided into four basic parts. The current article now deals with the present and legitimate status of Radio Caroline as a licensed entity. There is now plenty of room to expand this article and to add new events as they occur.

This article is linked to a trilogy of history concerning the unlicensed offshore era. All pages are linked, all are self-contained and all of them can be further expanded now that space is no longer a problem. Phonographic

I don't support this change, and I think such a radical change should have been discussed here first. Radio Caroline is, to most people and as far as most incoming links are concerned, a 1960s pirate radio station that was located on a ship. The present day operation is but an interesting footnote to most readers. If anything is to be split out and moved to a new article, it is the present day "fake Radio Caroline". I feel sufficiently strongly that my position is "correct" that I will have to see if this change is revertable somehow. --kingboyk 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree with you but on the other hand you have now introduced POV and you have also undone ALL OF THE CORRECTIONS made in clean up - which you have not bothered to fix. Try telling the Caroline Supporters that their venture is "fake" - well, you have. Now either fix the text that I fixed and leave in two sections or put it back the way that it was, but you have not presented a clean-up or provided a means for adding new copy and pictures to each of the sections I created. I would welcome further discussion on this and a vote on whether your approach or the encyclopedic and non-POV approach that I took is better.

I simply pasted back in your new articles, so nothing should have been lost! My reversion faces the enyclopedic facts: if "Radio Caroline" the satellite station didn't have a hugely famous past, it wouldn't even be notable enough for an article here! In this age, small digital broadcasters are ten a penny. The fact is that Caroline is legendary in this country - including to persons like myself who were born after the 60s - as the soundtrack to the swinging 60s, or (to people able to receive it) as a 70s/80s offshore station. I've no objection to you merging the "new Caroline" article back in; my objection was to have readers who type in "Radio Caroline" end up at an article about the satellite station! That's laughable. --kingboyk 09:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Next time, discuss such a change first. And, the LOUDER SOMEONE SHOUTS the more irate and the less open to reason they are. Think about it. Is this even debateable?!

The article required clean-up and it also required some means of adding new material because it was too long as it was. So I cleaned it up and divided it into logal and self-contained segments. (The segments were self-contained because the eras were divided and they are not entwined.) You claimed that you have reverted my work when in fact you did NOT revert but created your own new version in two NEW articles, one of which has a new heading.

However, you also reincorporated pre-existing old typos that I had already taken the time to fix in the clean-up. So what we really have is your new version that replaced my new version, only your version reincorportes old typos, etc. Obviously you are determined to have it your way and that is fine with me since these will be my final comments about this.

I wanted to see if anyone else cares - particularly since you introduced your own POV into your approach by calling the current Radio Caroline a "fake". That is hardly a neutral Wikipedia position! Why not ask Peter Moore for his opinion on your comments? Also please notice that I have not even attempted to revert your own new version. No one is shouting, its just that when someone claims something that is obviously incorrect, that error requires highlighting. Phonographic

There shouldn't be any old typos in the articles because I just pasted your split versions back in! If there is, I don't know how that happened - please fix it by going back into the history and using copy and paste. I haven't introduced any POV into the article other than making Radio Caroline contain the details of the famous old offshore operation rather than the new one. NPOV isn't necessary on a talk page. Don't misunderstand me, I wish the new operation well and of course it is legally Radio Caroline. However, I'm positive that readers clicking a link to Radio Caroline will expect to find an article on the offshore station. We don't have any article length warnings when hitting edit, so perhaps the best approach would be simply to merge the details of the new station back in too. The tag was cleanup, not split. Finally, I totally agree that let's see what other people have to say, that's what consensus is all about; however, consensus was formerly to cover all eras of the station in one article. If there's a consensus to split it and have the new Caroline in this slot I'd be extremely surprised but would honour it! --kingboyk 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not debating further the matter of the split and already noted same (above), however, you should know the following of which you appear to be unaware: 1) the current Rado Caroline has in the last few hours now appeared on SKY for the first time with a numerical link to its original beginning. Radio Netherlands reported this on its blog and far from going away, Radio Caroline appears to be gaining strength for the first time in a long time so that it can reach new listeners in the UK.

Next - I am NOT going to redo my own correction work that you undid! You did not cut and paste my work but the original before corrections were made. So, friend - you do it since I already spent the time to do it once only to have my time wasted by your actions.

Finally, you state that clean-up was the only tag and that there is no warning about length of Wikipedia articles which again incorrect on your part. The warning was on the edits of this page when I began to clean it up, but those warnings only appear to the person who is spending the time and bother to edit a page - readers do not see them (unlike the clean-up tag.) I just wish that you would stop being so dogmatic about everything when you are obviously being dogmatically wrong.

Now unless you are going to make another incorrect comment that I have not previously addressed, THIS will be my final response about this article with this reminder: go and clean-up the errors that you reinstated! Phonographic 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Frequency quibbles

Removed comment from page code:

1562 kHz <!--probably 1565, to be 9*n-1-->

This is incorrect because frequencies at the very top of the mediumwave band were separated by 8 kHz at the time instead of 9. Caroline was on 1562, Capital in London was 16 kHz down at 1546, etc.

Deleted text

I deleted the following on the grounds that it is POV and inaccurate. Lee M 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In reality though, most of what was played was merely the 'single from the album', and soul music followed by rock music followed by soul etc proved to be a lame format which appealed to very few. By 1975 Caroline played mostly disco music.

Whitelist request

Requested whitelist for primary streaming link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Radio_Caroline Charles 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ross Revenge

I've created this article, please help flesh it out. Remember that any juicy facts in the article could be eligible for the front pagve (Did you know?) but the article needs to be a bit better than it is now for that to happen.

We also need a free image of the Ross, please, or, better still, images (with the mast, without the mast, and now).

I'll now look at Radio Caroline (onshore) again, as, with the material about the Ross moved from that article, it may be small enough to merge back here. --kingboyk 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Ownership Controversy

I rolled back a statement on 23 Dec 2007 regarding future intentions of carionlineinternational.com. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum, unsubstantiated statements about future intentions probably fall under "original work" which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read up on the Wikipedia policies. Any references to future intentions need to be supported by reports in public news media, e.g. newspapers or official press releases. Charles (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citations

Is it just me, or are there large parts of this article without any citations? This isn't to say that it isn't very good (because it is), but I feel that the article would be much more credible if everything were sourced appropriately. For example, the "Mi Amigo sinks" and "1989 Joint Anglo-Dutch Raid" sections describe critical historical facts but have no references to back them up. Are any of the main contributors in a position to add appropriate references to those sections? 88.106.188.226 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Registraion of ship

Radio Caroline claimed their broadcasts were legal as they tok 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)

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)

Malicious Edits

Various edits have been made in the past 6 months of material which, shall we say, has not appeared in the normal course of the last 45 years. An attempt has been made to rectify this, but unfortunately the purveyor of this information is reverting to tactics which I am unable to counter. That is, making edits using IP addresses. I wont be making any more changes - why bother - the article is now substandard rubbish. --Keith 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Leading Sentence

Deleted the following: "Before reading further the reader should be aware that this article contains misleading and incorrect information. This article is not sanctioned by Radio Caroline. To read the official history and to find out about the station today visit their website here. "

As this is not an appropriate lead off and is certainly not NPOV. 141.165.121.190 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IP edits are reverted, considering this article is under constant revision by "revisionists" --Keith 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)