|
|
Post by nathangeorge on Nov 12, 2023 10:11:42 GMT
I'm happy for my complaint email to the Guardian to be used as a template if anyone wants to make their own complaint. feel free to DM me.
|
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 12, 2023 11:42:59 GMT
The Prosecution of Bob Monkhouse in 1979 was entirely about copies of feature films. The Guardian reported that the only evidence against him was that he'd loaned a 16mm copy of the Bond film Goldfinger to Terry Wogan to be shown at his son's birthday party. Bob Monkhouse was cleared and awarded costs.
Bob Monkhouse is quoted: "As a result of my arrest a lot of collectors gave up and some even destroyed their collections." But TV programmes aren't mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by markperry on Nov 12, 2023 20:46:20 GMT
The Guardian article might has well be the equivalent of the youtube bloggers who put 2+2=5 and end up spreading false BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Nov 12, 2023 20:55:41 GMT
The Prosecution of Bob Monkhouse in 1979 was entirely about copies of feature films. The Guardian reported that the only evidence against him was that he'd loaned a 16mm copy of the Bond film Goldfinger to Terry Wogan to be shown at his son's birthday party. Bob Monkhouse was cleared and awarded costs. Bob Monkhouse is quoted: "As a result of my arrest a lot of collectors gave up and some even destroyed their collections." But TV programmes aren't mentioned. But the point is not whether it’s TV or films, it’s about the perception that collecting celluloid that once belonged to a corporation is somehow illicit. |
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 13, 2023 13:35:42 GMT
The Prosecution of Bob Monkhouse in 1979 was entirely about copies of feature films. The Guardian reported that the only evidence against him was that he'd loaned a 16mm copy of the Bond film Goldfinger to Terry Wogan to be shown at his son's birthday party. Bob Monkhouse was cleared and awarded costs. Bob Monkhouse is quoted: "As a result of my arrest a lot of collectors gave up and some even destroyed their collections." But TV programmes aren't mentioned. But the point is not whether it’s TV or films, it’s about the perception that collecting celluloid that once belonged to a corporation is somehow illicit. Yes agree Tim and this is once again in The Guardian. So whether it's accurate...  In the past amid copyright terms there was often talk about how copyright material couldn't be stored in a "retrieval system". I don't know what that was based on. Then when home video came along there was sometimes the suggestion that amassing a large collection might be against the law (because only timeshifting was allowed?) Much depends on what you're doing. People who build large YouTube channels of broadcast material ARE breaking the law because it's the widespread illegal distribution of copyright material. And it's the case even if they aren't profiting financially. But if they are making money that moves it to a different level. Anyone who is making copies for friends (widespread with video I would say) or giving public screenings is breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by davetudor on Nov 13, 2023 20:48:16 GMT
Sadly the reporter, who contacted John Franklin regarding publicising the Film is Fabulous event has mangled some of what John has said and wrote an article entirely focused on Doctor Who, despite John telling her he knew nothing about it. It has been pointed out to the reporter that the headline (reluctance to return material) is untrue. It is simply not a priority for one collector who doesn't really care about DW. The whole 'amnesty' aspect was introduced by the reporter and not John and the fact that there has been a general amnesty for BBC material in private hands for at least 35 years could have been checked by the reporter by contacting the BBC Archive, which she obviously did not do. A correction has been requested by John, but whether they will correct it, who knows. They should because the sections in quotes and attributed to him are not direct quotes at all and therefore not what he said. I guess that's the press for you. Indeed. Re-reading the article, I was going to make the point that not a single direct quote from John Franklin mentions 'Doctor Who'. But to then learn that these are not even direct quotes... well, yet another example of poor journalism but that's the sort thing so-called journalists get away with in order to fill column inches. |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Nov 13, 2023 22:38:16 GMT
A pity that, as with with so many of the Guardian's articles nowadays, no comments are allowed. It could have been genuinely useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by George D on Nov 13, 2023 22:51:24 GMT
While the article is misleading and untrue. We also don't want to go the opposite direction which discourages them from writing articles about missing Dr who.
A good response would be appreciative but sharing additional information .
We all know there are factual errors but hopefully it gets someone to check their sock drawer
|
|
|
|
Post by markperry on Nov 14, 2023 8:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by davetudor on Nov 14, 2023 9:17:14 GMT
While the article is misleading and untrue. We also don't want to go the opposite direction which discourages them from writing articles about missing Dr who. A good response would be appreciative but sharing additional information . We all know there are factual errors but hopefully it gets someone to check their sock drawer Oh absolutely, I agree. Anything that keeps missing television in the spotlight is useful - as long as it's more accurately reported. I've said before that I'm a Doctor Who fan first and foremost, but I do understand why collectors and enthusiasts of different shows get frustrated that Who seems to take the attention away from other programmes and returns. However, I also totally understand why Doctor Who is the most high-profile series with missing episodes and why it gets most of the attention!! It's just a shame that if the Guardian reporter had wanted to go for the DW angle, as appears to be the case, that they didn't take John's advice and speak to Paul V as well. Let's see if there are any corrections or apologies forthcoming. |
|
|
|
Post by George D on Nov 14, 2023 12:28:41 GMT
One thing this all reinforces to me is you can't trust the news.
Most video news I find, not to be objective facts, but commentary. Experts, who share opinions that are meant to create lynch mobs of hated rather than objective unbiased facts to guide us how to love one another and help ourselves neighbors and country.
Many years ago a friend was interviewed by a major US newspaper. While not negative, the article was far from the truth. When the author was contacted, he was indifferent.
Sadly the quote of hearst still remains...
"You supply me the pictures, I'll supply the War"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 12:29:50 GMT
While the article is misleading and untrue. We also don't want to go the opposite direction which discourages them from writing articles about missing Dr who. A good response would be appreciative but sharing additional information . We all know there are factual errors but hopefully it gets someone to check their sock drawer Oh absolutely, I agree. Anything that keeps missing television in the spotlight is useful - as long as it's more accurately reported. I've said before that I'm a Doctor Who fan first and foremost, but I do understand why collectors and enthusiasts of different shows get frustrated that Who seems to take the attention away from other programmes and returns. However, I also totally understand why Doctor Who is the most high-profile series with missing episodes and why it gets most of the attention!! It's just a shame that if the Guardian reporter had wanted to go for the DW angle, as appears to be the case, that they didn't take John's advice and speak to Paul V as well. Let's see if there are any corrections or apologies forthcoming. I doubt it, The Guardian has done something similar to this in the past, and so has the Daily Mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Nov 14, 2023 17:46:11 GMT
"Well,Baldrick, did you learn anything about collecting old TV shows on film?".
"Yes,my Lord; it seems they used to hang and quarter the villainous villains, and then draw them; and pretty revolting pictures they must have been, too.
I can't remember what they do to 'em nowadays, but if it's worse than wot they did back then, it must be extremely gristly."
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 12:17:47 GMT
Aside from actors Roddy McDowall and Bob Monkhouse - who were trading copies of films primarily - I've never heard of anyone else of note being charged, arrested, hassled, etc for possession of reels of film cans. We also know that all this missing stuff was junked - Once the BBC junked it, it all became public domain. The BBC wilfully disposed of these episodes, and I'm assuming there's no room for doubt about that - the paper trail will also confirm this. Nobody is going to do anything bad to anyone who has something. At best they'll return the reels (although 'return' is probably not appropriate here - how do you 'return' something to someone who intentionally threw it away? But I digress) Or at worst, they'll be a celebrity for a day and probably appear on Pebble Mill at 1 (if it still exists) I'm guessing they needed this 'amnesty' bit to give this much recycled story a new spin. I also love how the Australian article, clearly inspired by the Guardian's effort, has expanded on the two or six missing episodes to now refer to them as 'many episodes'. All we need now is the Ex-Pat Cyprus Daily News to announce all missing episodes have been located but they're being stored in a bunker (along with the owner) out of fear of a visit from the BBC's "Missing Episodes Death Squad" This is almost like a new take on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Anyone know what temperature celluloid burns at? But let's not forget the fundamental fact that in this case - any publicity is good publicity  Errors and poor research aside, we should still be saluting these news stories popping up in major newspapers. I mean, it's free, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Nov 15, 2023 12:23:50 GMT
We also know that all this missing stuff was junked - Once the BBC junked it, it all became public domain. What absolute rubbish!  |
|
Errors and poor research aside, we should still be saluting these news stories popping up in major newspapers. I mean, it's free, isn't it?
