Re: archive area near canteen area circa 69)
"That has nothing to do with keeping, that's removing stuff. Fine for those "But some more stuff might exist out there!" threads, but hardly relevant here."
I thought the last comment you made here was what all the threads were really about?
"'On The Margin' is only "important" in retrospect. The other three series you mention, as far as I can tell, were never sold overseas, which is often a decisive factor on whether these things survive or not. The impression I get from various sources is that the Bird/Fortune/Bron series were not terribly popular at the BBC in the first place and were lucky even to be produced in the first place. And again, their "importance", if any, is only determinable with hindsight. At the time they were minority-audience fodder for BBC2."
I suppose I was arguing taking up on Andy Hendersons line on this. His stance seemed to be echoed by an initial vocal BBC group at a point in which staff like Connie Knox were firing up enthusiasts on other threads to give the apparent BBC line at that time a taste of their own medicine. Thats when things started getting heated.
"The two Scobie series were thrillers written by Bill Craig. I don't quite see your point here..."
The point is I was mistaken on the details, so you were right & I was wrong on that. I remembered the second one being good though. It was set in an exagerratedly contemporary social setting as far as I recall (very swinging London). I thought I'd heard the critics liked it. Obviously the rest of what I thought I recalled about it got mixed up.
"One of the squirrels around here will have the full chapter and verse on this - there was a contractual requirement that the recordings of 'A For Andromeda' had to be destroyed after broadcast."
I didn't know that, so my statement was the obvious conclusion based on the pieces. I'm interested in this, do you know what happened?
"Go argue with Andy then - if he'll have you. I think you'll find I'm saying something slightly different."
Please don't assume I'm trying to decry everything you say or trying to prove I know better. All I was trying to draw to peoples attention is the cut & dried view of BBC holdings isn't realistic, and I think needs to be broken down in order to analyse & find clues as to where missing stuff might be. That was also what I was saying to Andy Henderson & that I felt he shouldn't keep debunking missing archive material as trivial just because it doesn't conform to his own taste & try to sell that ethic to others. Its very damaging. There isn't really any point in debateing with Andy as his posts have moved from being sensible & informative to being cynical. Seems to be he will always be right no matter what anyone says. I actually think you're more sensible & reasonable than Andy & I think we should continue to interact on points.
"Surely the licence payers had had their money's worth once the shows had been transmitted. Do you think that the average person in the street would have agreed to an increase in the licence fee in order to retain old shows?"
No. Mind you I would've.
"BTW, is the extension of your argument the conclusion that ITV companies were quite justified in junking their programs because they were *not* paid for with licence-payer's money?"
No, but I felt that the licence fee being the BBCs idea might rest the brunt on them being more accountable.