|
Post by Josh on Oct 7, 2005 13:24:57 GMT
Have these workers been contacted or anything? No, of course not! Nobody has a clue who they were! The only people who might possibily know would be the BBC, but as any HR department in any company will tell you, personnel information is *highly* confidential and isn't usually shared by people within a company, let alone outside of it. Even if the information was available, the BBC wouldn't exactly deem it to be a worthwhile exercise to track down the details of the hundreds and hundreds of Enterprises employees from 35 years ago on the vague off-chance that one of them might be willing to own up to theft! Richard I assumed you would have knew who they were. As for people owning upto theft, codswallop - they would actually be preserving history, the real criminals are the BBC for destroying them, I know they had there reasons but it was incredibly short-sighted. Amazing that they jump at the chance to release the audios when they only exist because of dedicated fans, at the time they couldn't have cared less about the series and had junked hundreds of episodes in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Clive Shaw on Oct 7, 2005 13:51:52 GMT
I assumed you would have knew who they were. As for people owning upto theft, codswallop - they would actually be preserving history, the real criminals are the BBC for destroying them, I know they had there reasons but it was incredibly short-sighted. Amazing that they jump at the chance to release the audios when they only exist because of dedicated fans, at the time they couldn't have cared less about the series and had junked hundreds of episodes in 5 years. No, they would have been stealing items from their employer. This is unlikely to have happened to any great extent. I am sure the BBC would not have given over the responsibility of handling archives etc over to someone untrustworthy. I am sure that everyone would have known the consequences of being found pilfering. As for the BBC being criminals for destroying them, you really need to understand why they HAD to junk them. What would you prefer your license fee to be spent on ? A warehouse full of films that your will never be able to see ? Or using the cost of the warehouse to invest in new programmes / new Doctor Who... It is always so easy with hindsight to judge what should have happened, to judge using modern day perspectives etc, but in the 60's / 70's cash-strapped dyas it was just uneconomical to rent floor space just to store film cans containing episodes that you did not have the rights to show anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 7, 2005 14:16:36 GMT
I assumed you would have knew who they were. As for people owning upto theft, codswallop - they would actually be preserving history, the real criminals are the BBC for destroying them, I know they had there reasons but it was incredibly short-sighted. Amazing that they jump at the chance to release the audios when they only exist because of dedicated fans, at the time they couldn't have cared less about the series and had junked hundreds of episodes in 5 years. No, they would have been stealing items from their employer. This is unlikely to have happened to any great extent. I am sure the BBC would not have given over the responsibility of handling archives etc over to someone untrustworthy. I am sure that everyone would have known the consequences of being found pilfering. As for the BBC being criminals for destroying them, you really need to understand why they HAD to junk them. What would you prefer your license fee to be spent on ? A warehouse full of films that your will never be able to see ? Or using the cost of the warehouse to invest in new programmes / new Doctor Who... It is always so easy with hindsight to judge what should have happened, to judge using modern day perspectives etc, but in the 60's / 70's cash-strapped dyas it was just uneconomical to rent floor space just to store film cans containing episodes that you did not have the rights to show anyway. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, though tecnically the engineer who took Day of Armargeddon pilfered it and yet he still returned it and was congratulated for doing so. He was told to clear a room and decided to keep the dalek episodes he found - this is stealing isn't it, yet he came and owned up, the BBC is completely different today and couldn't care less about what someone did 40 years ago, the fact would be that missing material had been found and that is all that matters. It just makes me very angry how people could throw pieces of their own corporations history and tv history away in such a callous manner. I know why the had to dispose of material, but that does NOT justify the destruction of countless thousands of programmes nor will it ever do so. I think it is a worthwhile avenue to explore as people may discreetly return missing material
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 7, 2005 14:38:08 GMT
I think it is a worthwhile avenue to explore as people may discreetly return missing material How do you then propose that people explore this avenue if the information upon which it relies is not to hand? Richard
|
|
|
Post by Gary C on Oct 7, 2005 14:59:25 GMT
FYI : over the years I have been in contact with quite a few retired ex-BBC employees from cameramen to people I used to work with in the VT Library (don't forget I used to work in Radio too) and haven't come across ANYONE who took anything home with them! (and a few of them actually had the chance!)
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 7, 2005 15:14:30 GMT
I think it is a worthwhile avenue to explore as people may discreetly return missing material How do you then propose that people explore this avenue if the information upon which it relies is not to hand? Richard You said earlier that the BBC might have the required material. It is just a thought, there is no harm in making suggestions and such like.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 7, 2005 15:32:06 GMT
You said earlier that the BBC might have the required material. And I also said that such personnel material is treated as being highly confidential. Richard
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 7, 2005 15:43:16 GMT
You said earlier that the BBC might have the required material. And I also said that such personnel material is treated as being highly confidential. Richard Yes, but to people who work in the BBC = Steve Roberts/ Paul Vanezis may have access. You do like being Pessimistic about everything, don't you Richard, do you ever feel that however crazy or mad an idea sounds that it may pay off. You always seem the first to "poo poo" an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Chadwick on Oct 7, 2005 16:06:23 GMT
Maybe 'realistic' would be a better word than 'pessimistic'?.
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 7, 2005 16:13:14 GMT
Maybe 'realistic' would be a better word than 'pessimistic'?. There is nothing wrong with having some hope, Richard almost seems certain that nothing new will ever turn up. That is being very pessimistic not realistic, though I bet he was implying similar things before Armageddon showed up.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 7, 2005 16:34:11 GMT
There is nothing wrong with having some hope, Richard almost seems certain that nothing new will ever turn up. Care to point out to me where I have even slightly implied that? No, though not... Richard
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 7, 2005 16:41:34 GMT
There is nothing wrong with having some hope, Richard almost seems certain that nothing new will ever turn up. Care to point out to me where I have even slightly implied that? No, though not... Richard Yes, as far as I am aware you have not said that, but the way you phrase your replies it seems to me that you are implying that there isn't anything else left to find. What you see as being realistic, I see as pessimistic- but you do seem to poo poo anyones ideas. All normal avenues to find missing episodes has been exhausted so more extreme or unorthodox routes will have to be considered. Surely you can see what I am saying?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 7, 2005 16:42:35 GMT
Yes, but to people who work in the BBC = Steve Roberts/ Paul Vanezis may have access. No they won't. As I have *already* explained, HR departments simply do not, and will not give out that sort of information. If you don't believe me, try walking into the Personnel department of the company you work for and ask for that sort of information! We do live under the auspices of the Data Protection Act you know! As Peter says, it's about being realistic about things. Pessimism doesn't even enter into it. Richard
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 7, 2005 16:45:29 GMT
Yes, but to people who work in the BBC = Steve Roberts/ Paul Vanezis may have access. No they won't. As I have *already* explained, HR departments simply do not, and will not give out that sort of information. If you don't believe me, try walking into the Personnel department of the company you work for and ask for that sort of information! We do live under the auspices of the Data Protection Act you know! As Peter says, it's about being realistic about things. Pessimism doesn't even enter into it. Richard Fine, thanks for showing me what is wrong with my idea, that is all what it was: an idea. I didn't ask you to go and demand details. Don't condemn people for ideas, I like most people have little idea how the BBC works or such.
|
|
|
Post by ethantyler on Oct 7, 2005 19:04:37 GMT
Was the junking systematic over the eight-year period or was it an occasional occurance? For example, were prints junked every day or just every so often?
|
|