Mersey TV

Simon, get over it. Open your front door, step out and find some real people to have a real life with or around. The closure of a fan site is hardly anything to get so angry about - if you had any respect for the show (which can only include its producers), you'd respect the decision they've made

My, you do live up to your name Mr Scrooge!

Simon

As you have removed the signature which I found offensive then I shall do the same. As I said I would.

The facts are quite plain in this case though. There are many broadcasters, production companies and copyright holders who do turn a blind eye to fan sites. This relies on a little bit of good will on both sides.

Although your site is (was) full of interesting tidbits of show information, it also carried the Loxton-style commentary about the programme makers - something you have also provided here on TVF.

You have thoroughly criticised Redmond for his choices of filming base, the characters, the storylines, whom the show is aimed at and a plethora of other things you don't like. Many, many times.

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to assume that you might well have eroded the goodwill shown to you in the past.

It is (unfortunately for you) irrelevant who in the cast (past or present) enjoys your site. Legally the copyright owner can ask you to remove your pages and there's nothing you can do. Encouraging forum readers to email a specific Mersey TV employee is not going to change anything, and in fact is more likely to make them resolute in the matter.

You should have thought this through, Simon. In order for your fan venture to succeed, you need them to like you; and you've made that very difficult.

He just needs to get rid of the two full christmas eps and mersey tv and other forumers be nicer to him.

I agree that, by criticising Phil Redmond & co, Simon has made things difficult for himself. Nevertheless, I feel that most of the criticism that Simon has received is due to the 'bully factor' on TVF. All those people sneering at Simon's life should take a look at themselves. People like Gavin Scott can post as he sees fit, knowing that his cosy clique will back him up, come what may. Simon has no such luxury.

There are real people behind the username. Some of the abuse Simon has had to take on TVF is unnecessary. You might not agree with his actions all the time but leave personal stuff out of this.

I think people on here are intelligent enough to judge each issue on it's own merit.

You had absolutely no right to hold me to ransom like this. It will not be forgotten.

Thank you Jaffa, for backing me up. There are far too many bullies who post here and as you say, they'll all have their cosy hangers-on to back them up. But as we all know, all bullies are cowards .

How dare you accuse me of bullying you. I accused you of being a hypocrit, and I stand by it.

It will be very difficult for anyone to read this thread and establish who said what, now that you have systematically deleted your previous messages. I don't think you should be allowed to do that then cry foul at me.

Do you disagree with what I wrote in my last post? This isn't about victimising you Simon, this is about YOUR comments and YOUR choices.

And to Jaffa; I'm really very sorry if you have mistaken a group of individuals who agree with some of what I say as a "gang of bullies", but I assure you, the mistake is yours. Not all of us here agree all the time by any means and you are being as unfair as you accuse me of being if you are to dismiss my points as if I were involved in a childish "clique" exercise.

<snip>

You've talked in this thread about "bitchy queens", but for some reason I'm now thinking more along the lines of "drama queens"...

A lot of it yes, I do. I've been through the site this evening and the only negative comments on the site are likely to be found;

1) in our Close Up article, written at the time the Liverpool Move was announced;
2) in any letters written to CAN U HELP? which are the views of individuals and not the site as a whole
3) in our editorial explaining the current situation, but our hand was forced.

That is not to say I haven't been critical of Mersey TV policy in the past either here or on my own forum. When Grange Hill's move to Liverpool was announced, such was the outcry from GH fans we ran a special letters page and I can honestly say, out of all the letters we published, only one or two backed the change of production company.

One of my contacts says "don't be a TV producer if you can't take criticism". And it would have been wrong of us to not to publish any viewers' letters critical the move just because a few noses may be pushed out of joint - in this respect we're no different from Points of View or any TV letters page.

In fairness, Mersey TV must have been aware when they took on Grange Hill that by making sweeping changes to a long-running show, there would be reaction of some kind by the fans. Three years on, it's a debate which continues to stir passion from both camps. In 2002 we ran an online petition against the move which drew 152 signatures; the only reason we did this is because the regulars requested it.

And yes, I believe the show prior to 2002 wasn't broke, so why fix it? What's the point of me denying it? If I say anything to back that up it's either on my own forum, where an equality is established between the admins and members, or on an external site such as this one. Nevertheless GH Online is about promoting and celebrating Grange Hill; that is what we do and we think we do it well.

Your site is not like Points of View. It is a fanzine based specifically on one property which is owned by Mersey TV. Suggesting (as you have in the past) that Redmond is "ruining" the programme is asking for trouble, given your use of images and video from the show on the site.

Again you raise the issue of the move to Liverpool. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't approve but you must accept that it is a fait accompli.

Look, you know very well that I complimented you on the site when I first saw it. Actually I said it was, "a lovely blast from the past" for me, to which you replied it, "isn't supposed to be a nostalgia site".

I must admit, I thought it was a peculiar way to respond to a compliment which was geniunley meant.

If since then the unnofficial arrangement you enjoyed has been soured, whom do you suggest is responsible, and why?

I would be interested to hear your answer.

Maybe not. Where we ARE like POV is that we don't omit sentiments for publication that might upset the management. I was unfortunately misquoted by the Daily Star who quoted the "We believe MTV are ruining GH" to me personally when it should have attached to our readership. Something I was keen to emphasize at the time.


We do accept it's a fait accompli and are continuing to promote the show as we always have done. That doesn't mean to say I'm not allowed a personal opinion.


What I was keen to emphasise is that we're about more than the Tucker, Benny and Zammo era. When I set up GH Online what I wanted was a site which brought both old and new GH under one banner, that regards the more recent shows with the same affection. At the time, there was little about GH on the web and I don't think even the BBC had much. TV and magazine features about the show tended to lean towards the earlier days and were often produced by nostalgic 20-and 30somethings. They still do. This I felt was unfair to Grange Hill and its actors; the newer stars deserve equal credit and have had to deal with more demanding roles than their predecessors.

So GH Online was meant as a "one stop" Grange Hill fan shop and I'm sorry you don't feel I was appreciative of your praise. You are not the first person I've said this to and won't be the last.