5 ms·

Why is the BBC being weird about it?

by wilg 3y ago

rodent_rodeo 3y ago
In the article: The collectors involved are ex-employees and so are terrified. The rule was that you didn’t take anything, even if it had been thrown out. But if you loved film and knew it would be important one day, what did you do? So what we need now is an amnesty,” he said.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Mindwipe 3y ago
There have been a lot of attempts to extort money out of the BBC by people falsely claiming that they have lost episodes over the years, they may simply not believe these claims are as credible as the article suggests.
- gwern 3y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. OP is about reports that BBC refuses to make any legal promises and talk only vaguely about cooperating with owners, when it would be so easy for them to simply publicly promise to not prosecute material stole before, say, 1990. Obviously, granting 'an amnesty for stolen episodes' is even easier for fake episodes which were never stolen in the first place... The credibility of the claims is irrelevant.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The BBC does not have any discretion over who is prosecuted for a crime though. They can give their opinion but it's up to the police. So a public promise doesn't actually hold any weight.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Someone would have to tell the police about it though.
    - fingerlocks 3y ago
      They don’t? In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something. Is that not the case in the UK? Can you be charged because the DA read about a hypothetical crime in the bews?
      - crooked-v 3y ago
        You can absolutely be arrested and charged for that in the US. The police just generally don't because failure in court is nigh-guaranteed with an uncooperative key witness.
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        Yeah, sure, you can be arrested for anything or nothing at all. Sorry I wasn’t clear. Do you have any examples of charges and convictions on theft without a prior claim of deprivation to a good or service from an owner? Or are we just being pedantic?
        crooked-v 3y ago
        Well, sure, here's a quick example of an uncooperative victim and the state attempting (and in this case failing) to prosecute on robbery charges anyway: https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/witnesses-stay-silent-robbery-case/64982425007/ https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/...
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        “charges and convictions” was not an inclusive-or statement
  - doctor_radium 3y ago
    Going forward, it would seem like a good idea for the UK government to stop treating the removal of items from garbage bins as a crime. I'm no lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that nowhere in the US is "dumpster diving" considered illegal.
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      Oh believe me, it's more than considered illegal. It is literally illegal.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    > OP is about reports that BBC refuses to make any legal promises and talk only vaguely about cooperating with owners, when it would be so easy for them to simply publicly promise to not prosecute material stole before, say, 1990. I'm not sure I buy the article's premise that this is the main issue to be honest. My understanding is that the main problem is simply that some of the people involved just want a bunch of money, and the BBC finds it very hard to countenance why they should pay someone for stuff stolen from them, especially at not very realistic valuations.
bsder 3y ago
Because some individual will have to sign their name on the amnesty. And no individual in a bureaucracy (British term: jobsworth) is going to stick their neck out without a really solid incentive.

Why is the BBC being weird about it?

by wilg 3y ago

Why is the BBC being weird about it?

In the article: The collectors involved are ex-employees and so are terrified. The rule was that you didn’t take anything, even if it had been thrown out. But if you loved film and knew it would be important one day, what did you do? So what we need now is an amnesty,” he said.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Mindwipe 3y ago

There have been a lot of attempts to extort money out of the BBC by people falsely claiming that they have lost episodes over the years, they may simply not believe these claims are as credible as the article suggests.

gwern 3y ago
That doesn't make any sense. OP is about reports that BBC refuses to make any legal promises and talk only vaguely about cooperating with owners, when it would be so easy for them to simply publicly promise to not prosecute material stole before, say, 1990. Obviously, granting 'an amnesty for stolen episodes' is even easier for fake episodes which were never stolen in the first place... The credibility of the claims is irrelevant.
- justrealist 3y ago
  The BBC does not have any discretion over who is prosecuted for a crime though. They can give their opinion but it's up to the police. So a public promise doesn't actually hold any weight.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Someone would have to tell the police about it though.
  - fingerlocks 3y ago
    They don’t? In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something. Is that not the case in the UK? Can you be charged because the DA read about a hypothetical crime in the bews?
    - crooked-v 3y ago
      You can absolutely be arrested and charged for that in the US. The police just generally don't because failure in court is nigh-guaranteed with an uncooperative key witness.
      - fingerlocks 3y ago
        Yeah, sure, you can be arrested for anything or nothing at all. Sorry I wasn’t clear. Do you have any examples of charges and convictions on theft without a prior claim of deprivation to a good or service from an owner? Or are we just being pedantic?
        crooked-v 3y ago
        Well, sure, here's a quick example of an uncooperative victim and the state attempting (and in this case failing) to prosecute on robbery charges anyway: https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/witnesses-stay-silent-robbery-case/64982425007/ https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/...
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        “charges and convictions” was not an inclusive-or statement
- doctor_radium 3y ago
  Going forward, it would seem like a good idea for the UK government to stop treating the removal of items from garbage bins as a crime. I'm no lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that nowhere in the US is "dumpster diving" considered illegal.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    Oh believe me, it's more than considered illegal. It is literally illegal.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > OP is about reports that BBC refuses to make any legal promises and talk only vaguely about cooperating with owners, when it would be so easy for them to simply publicly promise to not prosecute material stole before, say, 1990. I'm not sure I buy the article's premise that this is the main issue to be honest. My understanding is that the main problem is simply that some of the people involved just want a bunch of money, and the BBC finds it very hard to countenance why they should pay someone for stuff stolen from them, especially at not very realistic valuations.

bsder 3y ago

Because some individual will have to sign their name on the amnesty. And no individual in a bureaucracy (British term: jobsworth) is going to stick their neck out without a really solid incentive.