KEYWORDS: ha, family, bbc, issue, letter

Answer to BBC, An

May 30, 2003

4/12/79DO 583

(Typed copy of Roy Wallis' letter re: his BBC interview—with Dad's comments!)

(—Underlining by Dad.) (Here's a good way to answer'm nowadays!—Dad.)

4 December 1979

Dear Path,

Yesterday in London I spoke to the man from BBC's Nationwide programme who is interested in doing something on the way the Family has developed since they did a brief piece on a home in Scotland about 18 months or so ago.

Their interest has been sparked again by a guy who has left the Family (Some do!) (Jeremiah Tartan?) but whose wife & child(ren?) stayed. (Many still do!) They realise that he has an axe to grind & they also feel is not altogether reliable & honest, but think it might be worth going ahead. If they did go ahead, they would want to talk to people in the Family as well as this backslider. (Good.—Let'm talk!—We've got nothing to hide!) I think they'd like to talk to their informant's wife to chew over the issue of whether she is staying without him of her own "free will." (—HA!—Will they ever believe us?)

So part of what interests them is in the familiar "brainwashing" area, & it would be good for you to have a very large audience opportunity to Scotch that one again.

They are also interested—who isn't—in the sex aspect. They have heard that the girls have been encouraged to go into such things as working for escort agencies. (Yes!—Why not?—Others do!—It's a living & a ministry!) In any interviews therefore this is an issue which would have to be faced, not ducked. They would be interested in interviewing a girl who is doing work of this sort. (They could read letters from them in FN) I explained that there might not be anyone who was working in an escort agency or anything similar in Britain (Have we, Path?); but whatever the situation about that, this is clearly an issue they would want to pursue.

My impression is that they were not "out to get" the family (—They were when I saw their show on us 5 years ago!—By an MP.), although in their questioning they would undoubtedly seek to put people on the spot (in the hot seat, or whatever the vernacular is!) (—They always do!—Why?—Read'm the "Guru" Letter!—Ha!)

I suspect they don't have a lot to go on with so far‚ except the defector, if you decided not to cooperate they might just show his allegations or say that although they gave the family a chance to do so it would not answer the charges made. This probably would not be good PR, so I think that you might find it a good idea to face up to the issues squarely as you have in the past, & put over the best impression you can. (—Sure!—Why not? "All things work together for good!")

Let me know what you feel is best‚ & if you decide to work with them, write to me as soon as possible with the name of someone who has responsibility now for this part of the world (Got a Ph. No. Path?—Ask Peter—or A/B.) & who could deal with the BBC (is it still Arthur & Becky?) (—Is it?) And of course I'd need information on how to reach them in a hurry. (—Amen. GBY!—Love, D.)

Best Wishes, Roy.

(Path—19/12—You wanna answer like this?—Or send this back as is? It's up to you!—Hi, Roy.—Ha! (—I know what she'll do) GBY!—LY! Hope this helps!—I stay pretty much outta the limelite, administration, etc., now.—The kids're on their own since we disbanded in face of the persecution of sects this year.—All we do now is pub the FN Mag which you read, so you know as much as I do!—Ha!—They still report, support & keep stats, but there's no other org.!—We're just a family who still like to witness & fellowship—mostly by mail now.—We fired 300 officers of the "Chain" in '78, including "Queen" Rachel, for mismanagement by some, no Org. since!—We've even ditched the KQSs!—Everybody's on his own!—We're just a "mail-order religion" now that keep in touch via the Mag only!—Mostly single families living in their own homes with jobs, but still witnessing, litnessing‚ & winning souls!—PTL!—So how could we "restrain" anybody from leaving?—Leaving what?—Only their own home or mate?—Ha! What a joke!—And whatever "brainwash" they get's via the Mag only!—Same as you—Ha! So whose fools are our critics? "Yesterday's Kids are Today's Parents!"—Responsible‚ independent, hard-working citizens!

(—Please pardon this messy Letter, but I really didn't intend to write it!—Ha!—But now you've got it straight from the Ol' Horse's mouth!—And you can quote me if you like!)