Neil, my understanding of France Radio Club's (Offshore Echo's) disagreement was/is that they believed that the ship had to be kept out at sea no matter what, and that the only option for Radio Caroline acceptable to them was/is as an offshore station. A very noble standpoint, but the reality of the situation was that this was just not viable after the loss of Dutch support and the 1990 Broadcast Act (with no 'third world license' forthcoming). They are of course entitled to their opinions, as are you, and as is Hans Knot, whose reasons for disliking Peter Moore are unknown to me.

I could also suggest that you ask all the people from the offshore days who are still involved in Radio Caroline why they continue to invest their time and energy in the station. They obviously are of the opinion that it is worth keeping Caroline going, notwithstanding the different environment that the station has to operate in nowadays.

But my point is - these are all opinions, but you have repeatedly gone beyond that and suggested that Peter Moore somehow engineered all the events that befell the station in the late 80s / early 90s, with the sole intention of ending offshore broadcasts and gaining control of the station. And again I ask you - what is your proof for these extreme accusations?

Just saying "I was there" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I could make a wild accusation about you and say "I was there" but I would rightly be castigated if I didn't bring some evidence to the table to back it up. Frankly as someone who saw first hand the efforts that everyone (yourself included) went through in those desperate final years at sea, it is an insult for you to suggest that the people on land were deliberately trying to bring about an end to offshore-based Caroline.

The difference of opinion (which I completely 'get') revolves around the fact that once the point of no return had been reached, with a wrecked ship in Dover, the decision was made to try to preserve Caroline as a radio station in some form, rather that just letting it die completely. Anyone is free to disagree with the course of action taken back then - opinions will always vary on that - but to present your vindictive assertions as 'fact', just because you state them repeatedly, is not acceptable IMO.