Web of Fear 3 in private hands?
Sept 27, 2015 10:51:55 GMT
Robert Manners and Jaspal Cheema like this
Post by Richard Develyn on Sept 27, 2015 10:51:55 GMT
If this is true, then I suspect that the person who stole Web 3 did it for purely financial reasons.
They only stole one episode in order to minimise their outlay, they chose a middle episode in the hope that it would cause the most disruption to the now incomplete story, and they approached the BBC at the time that negotiations were taking place in order to try to make as much money as they could from it.
For whatever reason, "negotiations" (i.e. blackmail) failed, and the story was released without part 3. There was probably an embargo on not talking about it for a couple of years just in case this person could be brought back to the negotiating table (and the BBC, who may well have had enough with the whole business), but that time has passed.
This would mean, however, that the identity of the person who has Web 3 is known.
Or if they used an agent, the identity of the agent is known.
(And if all of that fails, or if I'm wrong about my assumptions, I expect a little it of investigation and money in the right places in Nigeria could probably reveal who that person is too. Whoever "sold" the episode I'm sure wouldn't have any trouble "selling" the buyer's details.)
And if the person who did "appropriate" Web 3 is reading this message, then I would suggest they look at all the animosity that went Phil's way when people merely *suspected* that he might be holding something back, and just imagine what that would be like if people *knew* rather than just suspected.
It's all conjecture, of course, but if this is the case then the situation for this would-be investor, as far as I can see, is that the possibility for return on investment is rapidly decreasing and the possibility for being at the receiving end of an awful lot of unpleasantness is rapidly increasing.
Maybe it's time for them to consider a new approach ...
Richard
They only stole one episode in order to minimise their outlay, they chose a middle episode in the hope that it would cause the most disruption to the now incomplete story, and they approached the BBC at the time that negotiations were taking place in order to try to make as much money as they could from it.
For whatever reason, "negotiations" (i.e. blackmail) failed, and the story was released without part 3. There was probably an embargo on not talking about it for a couple of years just in case this person could be brought back to the negotiating table (and the BBC, who may well have had enough with the whole business), but that time has passed.
This would mean, however, that the identity of the person who has Web 3 is known.
Or if they used an agent, the identity of the agent is known.
(And if all of that fails, or if I'm wrong about my assumptions, I expect a little it of investigation and money in the right places in Nigeria could probably reveal who that person is too. Whoever "sold" the episode I'm sure wouldn't have any trouble "selling" the buyer's details.)
And if the person who did "appropriate" Web 3 is reading this message, then I would suggest they look at all the animosity that went Phil's way when people merely *suspected* that he might be holding something back, and just imagine what that would be like if people *knew* rather than just suspected.
It's all conjecture, of course, but if this is the case then the situation for this would-be investor, as far as I can see, is that the possibility for return on investment is rapidly decreasing and the possibility for being at the receiving end of an awful lot of unpleasantness is rapidly increasing.
Maybe it's time for them to consider a new approach ...
Richard