Isn’t it shocking? 

11 June 2012

When we started Transdiffusion online over a decade ago, we set our ‘mission statement’ (ugh) to be to bring accuracy to the field of broadcasting history.

The problem back in the wilder days of the WWW was that presentation enthusiasm and pop television history had little in the way of concrete facts to work on. The clips that were available were – and often remain – divorced from their context, so the intrepid band of pres geeks and historians had to make a lot from a little. Clips chosen because they were a rare example of something were often the only example of that thing and indeed of the entire period in question, so were soon seen as being a definitive record of normal practice – the fact that they were posted because they were rare soon fell away.

GeoCities and other such cheap hosting allowed anyone to put up a website about TV pres and dozens, if not hundreds, did. They took things like the existence of a black-and-white version of ATV’s Zoom 2 (the “IN COLOUR” favourite ident of millions) and, lacking a place to put it in the history of presentation, slid it into 1964-1968. Who would appreciate that new monochrome programming existed after colour was introduced and that it was used simultaneously with the colour Zoom 2? Taped copies of breakdowns were passed around as being typical of the time and these sites filled with them, to the point that documentaries today represent television before about 1980 as being little more than apology captions.

We, however, were arrogant. Actually, I was arrogant. As Transdiffusion’s first modern Editor-in-Chief (a title I preferred to General Manager as used by us in the 1960s) I thought our USP could be accuracy. I’m still of that opinion (and it’s still probably arrogant) even in my second stint in the the chair. There’s no crime in using the word “probably”. There’s nothing wrong with “maybe”. We’re part of the Report an Error Alliance because, frankly, we want you to trust us and you’ll trust us most if we respond to mistakes and admit to them. There’s a button to press to report an error on this blog post if you find one. Please do.

We weren’t aware – I wasn’t aware – that the wild days of the WWW still continued. The sites full of well-meaning assumptions promoted as fact disappeared as quickly as the people who analysed our every word and took great delight in posting to forums about spelling errors or weasel words in our articles (oddly they never came to us directly asking for corrections or clarifications, despite the big notices saying we wanted them). But such things still exist online and hell, thy name is YouTube.

We’ve posted a selection of clips on “the popular video sharing website” as Radio 4 always calls it with a teaspoon of distain. And generally we’ve watched amazed as people have used software to download each clip, then edited off our modest frontcap, added something in the region of 15 minutes of bollocks to the middle of it and present the results as fact. And then complain in one way or another that our video, sans the bollocks, is a rip off of theirs, or that they are presenting things with “technical accuracy”. Yeah – specifically dated, almost plausible (occasionally), stolen guff, often with our branding still present in the middle. And then they report us to YouTube for stealing their work.

It is, I’m sure you can imagine, a bit dispiriting. The gap between posting something new on YouTube and it being turned into a nightmare parody is now about 30 minutes. Alas, alas, we’re going to have to start “watermarking” (ie putting a great big ugly dog on the clips) or find other ways of frustrating these people: not because of the theft – although that riles, obviously – but because the thieves are passing off what we do as real and people, especially new young pres fans, are falling for it.

The next time you see a BBC4 documentary that confidently asserts that television before 1989 was amateur rubbish and could barely be kept on air, remember that the researcher for the piece spent his or her day surfing YouTube and finding genuine Transdiffusion archive presentation re-edited to include insane breakdowns and ‘announcers’ with speech impediments talking in too great detail about the issues encountered, and reflect on why we’re collectively unhappy.

Update: main offender cwilliams1976 was banned by YouTube on 19 August 2012. He has since made several bogus legal threats against them, Transdiffusion and our Editor-in-Chief, amongst others.


A Transdiffusion Presentation

Report an error


Russ J Graham My website Contact More by me

You Say

258 responses to this article

Philip 11 June 2012 at 7:28 pm

Oh that’s just cwilliam1976, he does that all the time.

In fact he must upload about 10 videos a day.

Paul 11 June 2012 at 7:31 pm

In the circumstances, an astonishingly well-tempered response to the idiocy you’re encountering.

At issue is not the right of those with vast reserves of self-belief, but little actual talent, to fill the internet with their gibberish.

It’s the arrogance of not only passing off other people’s work as their own, but producing something demonstrably false, while insisting it’s true.

Your blog points out a real danger with this – the corrosive effect of starting to bend history, just slightly out of place at first, but enough to make it wrong.

If someone broke into your house, stole your TV and then insisted it was theirs all along, you’d take pretty robust action.

No reason not to take the same approach here.

Richard 11 June 2012 at 8:06 pm

I read this from twitter and specifically came to my desktop to flag the ‘fake’ version as inappropriate and theft… But I can’t do this as I’m not a registered youtube user…

Aside from the factual errors (as can be seen from the original, seriously 10 minutes of music before news in Welsh? The news is the UK and international news on top of the news from Wales) the announcement in Welsh is cut mid-flow, S4C never used two announcers like this and never have announced a Welsh language programme in English …

I have no interest in joining YouTube, but am soooo close to just to report this characters theft and misrepresentation…

There are good and bad spoof of continuity, but they don’t misrepresent themselves as the real thing…

*goes to lie down and returns to the twitterverse by mobile*

Stew Fisher 11 June 2012 at 9:29 pm

ive encounted this idiot couple of years ago just the qulity of his videos are well crap. he lives in his own little world ive lost count the amount of people have told him that he is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. his arrgoence shows no bounds he doesnt get why he should label is mocks as such. hell ive even done 3 videos (2 public) regarding him on youtube.. ive tried to report him for his lewd comments his abusive comments and the fact he breaks the youtube guidelines. just it annoys me that youtube wont take any action agaist him despite he is breaking all the rules and making peoples life on there hell.. though he says its the other way around.

Jonathan 11 June 2012 at 9:31 pm

There must be something about a particular generation of You Tubers who just cannot see anything wrong with reuploading other posters’ videos under their own name and butchering them in any way they see fit. I had a problem a couple of years back with an account purporting to represent Saturday morning TV on the BBC. In fact, it simple combed YouTube for relavent clips, ripped them, and then reuploaded them with their own shoddy opening and closing sequences with a nasty DOG all the way through. I had great pleasure telling subscribers to my channel which videos were my own and that they could see the original, unedited clips on my own channel.

What links this person and the tosspot tagged by this article is that they would never, ever admit that they were stealing clips. I wasn’t doing it from any kind of possessive approach – we all know we have no copyright on these things – just that it was a bit bloody cheeky for me to take time to record, store, encode and then upload videos and then for someone else to take credit without even saying thanks. I contacted them many, many time and pointed out that they were my clips – even down to the same analogue ghosting effects and cut-off points – but they maintained that they were drawing from their own archive. One that seemed strangely similar to me and a few other channels.

I suspect this person was just a child who didn’t know better. In your case the clues point to it being someone with extreme learning difficulties, so perhaps we shouldn’t lose faith with humanity just yet.

Andrew Bowden 11 June 2012 at 10:53 pm

Keep wondering if we should be using YouTube’s video response system to link the originals to his – he can’t delete video responses…

Of course that could just help him with his clear publicity “hate figure” cravings.

Chinnyhill 12 June 2012 at 11:08 am

I produce corporate videos. A few years ago someone stole one of our tourism videos from Youtube, plastered their logo on it and re uploaded it as their own to another now defunct video site.

I sent a very heavy handed email to the video site. Within 24 hours I had the offender begging for mercy. But I owned the footage and could prove it easily (the endcap did the work for me).

But the problem Transdiffisusion faces is abit different. They don’t own the original material So it’s always going to be harder to enforce people nicking their footage.

The mocks are really annoying, they are a pain in the backside, but they are hard to prevent because of the grey copyright area. If Transdiffusion actually owned the material they could have WCilliams77 bricking himself in no time as the solicitors letter wings its way through his letterbox. Alas I fear he isn’t going away.

Philip 12 June 2012 at 11:51 am


Is that you, JB1601? I remember they had a lot of clips ‘saturdayCBBC’ stole.

Jonathan 12 June 2012 at 12:42 pm

@ Phillip

Yes that’s me, and saturdaycbbc was the culprit. Ironically given WC67’s actions they also went on a bit of a crusade against “You Tube bullies” at one point, rather missing the point of why we were complaining against them in the first place.

Christopher Williams 12 June 2012 at 1:27 pm

May I make it clear that I do find this extremely offensive. I do not steal clips from anywhere, thank you.

Christopher Williams 12 June 2012 at 1:33 pm

I did not steal.

Russ J Graham 12 June 2012 at 1:40 pm

Hello Mr Williams. Please can you explain the *startling* similarity between the two videos shown on this page?

Chinnyhill 12 June 2012 at 2:10 pm

Cwilliams1976… Chris. I can call you Chris can’t I?

I’m sure there’s lots of things people would like to raise with you. I for one would like to raise the issue of accuracy.

Your videos are inaccurate. Not just a little bit, but hugely. Why would an ITV company leave a caption up with 15 minutes of production music?

You did pay to use the production music and paid the relevant MCPS fees didn’t you?

I also find it remarkable that footage that appears on Youtube so quickly appears in an altered format on your own channel. It’s as if people are stealing your footage, travelling back in time and posting it before you do. This is of course appalling behaviour and I suggest you report them to the Timelords.

Tanya Jones 12 June 2012 at 2:16 pm

Also, Mr Williams, can you explain why a continuity junction would last 15 mins, especially when the announcement clearly says that the news will begin ‘in a couple of minutes time’? Can you also comment on why S4C would have a rundown of programmes in Welsh, but would then cut to an English announcer?

Christopher Williams 12 June 2012 at 2:38 pm

Because it is a bilingual service

Christopher Williams 12 June 2012 at 2:39 pm

I did

Russ J Graham 12 June 2012 at 2:55 pm

Welsh language programmes on S4C are only ever announced in Welsh.

This is part of the point I’m trying to make about videos like yours muddying the waters of broadcasting history. If it was labelled as a mock, then okay. But you’re passing it off as real when it has a gaping flaw like an announcement in English into a Welsh language programme.

Sean Cooke 12 June 2012 at 2:55 pm

He can’t explain himself because he genuinely seems to believe that his videos are legitimate. His behaviour is appalling.

Engleheart 12 June 2012 at 5:03 pm

I just don’t understand why he is doing this. What is the point of stealing videos and pretending that they are your own? I can’t understand the “THRILL” of it. If he did what some people do and invent their own “ITV” comapny such as “Antarctica Television” then at least there’d be no more confusion with his idiocy and genuine clips of vintage television. Chris Williams, please just stop what you are doing and find yourself a real creative hobby. Imagine what could have been achieved in the time that you’ve wasted in uploading 1600+ videos.

Rob Francis 12 June 2012 at 6:00 pm

Chris, WHY ARE YOU DENYING THIS?? You ARE stealing videos from other websites. THE PROOF HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THIS PAGE, yet you seem to deny this.

Give up Chris, you will not win this battle.

Christopher Williams 12 June 2012 at 10:04 pm

My behaviour is only ‘appalling’ if people like Sean didn’t drive me to it. Also Rob, I have no intention of giving up making videos and don’t intend to start now

Jon 12 June 2012 at 11:09 pm

I don’t know why you’re getting so worked up over this guy. He’s clearly a little bit loopy so any attempt at reasoning with him is probably never going to work.

I would guess the gentlemen in question doesn’t have many pleasures in life and it’s a little mean spirited to attempt to take this away from.

It’s clearly futile to ask this guy to stop, it’ll will just annoy you even more.

Mike W 12 June 2012 at 11:52 pm

Chris – there is no use denying you’ve stolen (which, I suppose is technically wrong – how about copied, does that suit you better?) people’s videos, the best part about the one’s on this page is you can HEAR THE TRANSDIFFUSION FRONTCAP fade out, so don’t deny it.

You’ve been a blip on the internet landscape for many years and quite frankly you’re docile and horrendous tones have no place in continuity announcing, by all means make your own fake announcements but DON’T post them as real nor deny that you’ve benefitted from somebody else’s effort.

I’ll ask why but we’re all allowed a hobby, just your hobby is bending history and misleading many – some people like to pretend to be paramedics, firemen and police officers – you like to pretend to be a continuity announcer – that’s a new one! But put it this way, if you were in charge of a TV station you’d have no viewers left, far too many breakdowns and long junctions you’d bore your viewers off, if your vocal chords hadn’t done that already!


I could be really cruel and ask if you’re working whilst you’re making these stupid YouTube videos, but we all know the answer to that!

Ruth Brownrigg 13 June 2012 at 3:32 am

Christopher, my son David has been watching his videos, and has been going into spastic fits when he discovers the titles of the videos are wrong.

He is very autistic and has considered travelling down to your house to help correct the titles of your videos. I told him he can’t afford it on his dole money, but he said he’d walk if he had to.

He’s having a fit right now after viewing your “Thames Schools Outro into Testcard Junction (20th June 1977)” video after he found the inaccuracy in the title. Me and Colin are sick of this, and we demand you stop this heinous trickery.

Ruth (and Colin) Brownrigg

Rob Francis 13 June 2012 at 6:25 am

Well then Chris, if you don’t intend to stop making videos, why don’t you stop stealing other people’s videos?

Oh that’s right, you don’t steal apparently. :(

Christopher Williams 13 June 2012 at 9:54 am

I am not in the hbit of tricking people and feel you have all misunderstoodme to an extent. Ruth, I really don’t feel it’s necessary for your son to come over here and “sort” me out. If people don’t like my videos, don’t subscribe and don’t watch them.

Russ J Graham 13 June 2012 at 9:58 am

You have a very good chance here to explain away this misunderstanding, Chris. What everyone wants to know is:

(a) Where do you get the originals of the videos that you post to YouTube?

(b) Why don’t you label them as mocks?

Christopher Williams 13 June 2012 at 10:03 am

I don’t feel comfortable in labelling them as mocks; there is no rule within YouTube which tells you you have to and also I am offering people a choice, there is no place for commercial breaks on my channel either and am not in the process of making money. ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5 are better funded by the licence fee or by an ITV Regional Tax.

Russ J Graham 13 June 2012 at 10:14 am

And the answer to question (a) is…? Repeated here for your convenience:

(a) Where do you get the originals of the videos that you post to YouTube?

Christopher Williams 13 June 2012 at 10:16 am

Certainly not from your site!!!! They were recorded on videotape years ago.

Sean Cooke 13 June 2012 at 10:17 am

But they ARE mocks and further to that, they are AWFUL mocks! Your hobby is ruining other people’s enjoyment of YouTube. You don’t seem to care how your behaviour affects other people. That is a selfish and sad state of affairs.

Rob Francis 13 June 2012 at 10:30 am

I give up, there’s just no reasoning with this man…

Russ J Graham 13 June 2012 at 10:30 am

Ah, I see. Now watch this:

It’s one of your videos that you recorded on videotape years ago. Watch what happens between 0:40 and 0:45 seconds into the video.

Can you explain how that got into there?

Stew Fisher 13 June 2012 at 11:21 am

Chris ive told you time and time again.


starpoemswithmichaelfish 13 June 2012 at 12:21 pm

That kept him quiet…

ETP1 Forever 13 June 2012 at 1:00 pm

To say that cwilliams misleads people into thinking that his videos are the real thing is an understatement.

A few years ago, I watched a BBC2 start-up from “2004” of his, which contained about 4 minutes of test card and tone at the start. I was rather new to TV presentation at the time and had rather weak knowledge on it. At the time I was led to believe that it was real when I first saw it, and then after I asked Chris if the video was real, he told me it was!!! For about a year, I considered it to be a genuine recording, although having seeing proper genuine material from that period from other users, it was clear that the majority of his videos were nothing but BS. What I described here wasn’t really a major mislead, but it just goes to show what Chris is capable of doing.

And a quick mention on mocks. I have been a fan of TV mocks, providing they are of brilliant quality (you know, the gems from people like Dave Jeffery, Presheaven, Mark Mcmillan, AntarcticaTelevision, TVmocks2010 etc.), and cwilliams mocks certainly bring shame to the many good mocks out there.

Robert Sminge 13 June 2012 at 1:24 pm

Christopher, your channel breaks the following YouTube community rules, which must be followed under Section 6E of the YouTube terms of service (“You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or other material that is contrary to the YouTube Community Guidelines, currently found at, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws and regulations.”):

“Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorised to use. This means don’t upload videos that you didn’t make or use content in your videos to which someone else owns the copyright, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programmes or videos made by other users, without necessary authorisation. Read our Copyright Tips for more information.”

Your videos use copyrighted material and content from other users. This is further elaborated in section 6D of the YouTube terms of service:

“You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the material or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.”

“Everyone hates spam. Don’t create misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails in order to increase views. It’s not okay to post large amounts of untargeted, unwanted or repetitive content, including comments and private messages.”

You are making a huge amount of untargeted, unwanted, and repetitive content, with titles that mislead people into thinking that the videos they are watching are real.

Unless you can refute these claims with evidence, you are clearly breaking YouTube’s terms of service.

Chinnyhill 13 June 2012 at 2:03 pm

How did that logo get there?

Time travel. Or Smurfs. Both of which are more plausible than them being taken from an original tape.

Tanya Jones 13 June 2012 at 2:30 pm

I think the most easily resolvable issue here is Chris Williams’ claim to be ‘providing an alternative’. You can’t provide an alternative of an actual event. So, I take this to be an admission from Chris Williams that his submission is something that he has altered. Fine: then label it as a mock, which is the true state of affairs, and let others upload the actual piece of continuity, labelled correctly.

Phil 13 June 2012 at 2:56 pm

There’s no point speaking to him. Really, there isn’t. He has no interest in anyone else’s opinions, he makes fake YouTube accounts to post abuse on other people’s channels, he blatantly steals content from others, he responds to any request (whether polite or aggressive) with the same sort of thing as my five year old does – basically just “It’s mine and you can’t make me.”

All that will work is reporting his videos, and I doubt anyone has the energy to report them all even if he wasn’t slinging out new bullshit every day like a diharretic bull that’s been forcefed prunes for a month.

C, what you do is utterly without worth, makes life harder than it should be for people researching telly, is badly composed and is the product of theft. I live in hope that you’re actually an elaborate prank being played on the world by Tim Worthington, but I’m not sure even he has the patience to continue for this long.

Starpoemswithmichaelfish 13 June 2012 at 3:51 pm

I think Chris doesn’t realise what ‘using’ clips is doing to the genuine users. I won’t say who I’m really am but I get very depressed when I see my clips being ‘used’. I wish he could understand this. Oh wait he has very liitle emotions! (bit like a Cyberman then).

Stew Fisher 13 June 2012 at 3:58 pm

its true the guy doesnt listen and has the maturity of a toddler. what makes me laugh that he “likes” his own videos.. there are 2-3 other “likes” which i think are from fake accounts. i dont get why he keeps on doing this when people are just taking the p**s out of him. tried to reason with him.. and tell him that his work is poor at best. any normal person would of given up and presured something else.. there are things i like but im not really good at.. for example playing bass guitar but i would never dream of putting on 16k videos of me playing for 15mins and telling everyone where to go cos they said i was not good.. or even give me tips to imporve..

Engleheart 13 June 2012 at 4:06 pm

I have just reported him to YouTube. It wasn’t easy as YouTube seems to not want to communicate with the poor old public but I found a way! My fervent hope is that they take this muppet’s channel down from the site, thus making life so much easier for the rest of us that enjoy genuine TV presentation clips. I urge everybody to follow on and report him. The more we do that, the greater the chance that we can get rid of those awful Here’s what I wrote:

This person has been taking material belonging to others across the UK and placing very poor voiceovers on top of them whilst claiming that the videos “belong to” him. He has over 1600 examples of this blatant theft on his YouTube channel at the moment and when challenged on it, he becomes very abusive. I and many others, would be grateful for a full investigation and a possible closure of his account.

Thank you.

EVIL GAS BOTTLE 13 June 2012 at 4:36 pm





Andrew Bowden 13 June 2012 at 4:39 pm

Alas Engleheart, he’d just set up a new account. Would take time to restore everything but then he’s clearly got time on his hands!

Christopher Williams 13 June 2012 at 7:26 pm

Nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my videos. You Tube cannot close my account unless they had good reason to so please stop telling me what to do with my videos; it is none of your jobs to do so. Please leave me alone and stop using Transdiffusion as a court case.

Christopher Williams 13 June 2012 at 9:10 pm

I think you are all cruel, one-sided, biased and unfair and are all only prepared to see one point of view.

Russ J Graham 13 June 2012 at 10:26 pm

I want to see the other point of view, but you won’t give it.

I asked you to watch this:

It’s one of your videos that you say you recorded on videotape years ago. Watch what happens between 0:40 and 0:45 seconds into the video.

Please explain how that got into there?

Engleheart 13 June 2012 at 10:32 pm

You, CWILLIAMS, never see anybody’s point of view other than your own. Your arrogance is staggering! Your blank refusal to do anything at all to appease the situation is intolerable. We are not being cruel, we are just amazed that you will not change your ways at all. 1600 videos is an incredible amount and to my mind, that just means that you do nothing else BUT make these videos. In all that time that you’ve spent on them they have never improved in quality and you refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the other users of YouTube. People have tried being reasonable with you but that failed so the only course of action is to report you to YouTube and the copyright holders of ITV, Channel Four and S4C. Trust me, I am reporting you to ALL of them.

Phil 13 June 2012 at 10:44 pm

Hi C!

I’ve tried to engage you in a reasoned discussion before and it doesn’t work. You are incapable of budging from what you’ve decided reality looks like and you don’t discuss – you just state over and over again that you can do what you want and we don’t have to watch it.

While this is true, as has been pointed out, you’ve blatantly stolen work from others and infringed on YouTube’s terms of use, which we are more than entitled to point out and indeed report to YouTube. If you don’t think that breaking the terms of use is enough cause for YouTube to remove your videos then I imagine we can add “not understanding what terms of use are” to your many and varied list of failings.

As for being cruel, one sided, biased and unfair, that comes of you repeatedly ignoring simple requests, failing to answer questions and continuing to steal things that aren’t yours. It doesn’t make people disposed to like you, you see C, it makes them find you obnoxious. I can’t speak for everyone else here but I’ve tried on several occasions to ask you why you’re doing this and why you won’t make simple courtesies to others like labelling things as mocks, but you never actually answer with anything rational, you just tell me you don’t have to do it so you won’t.

Your “point of view” seems to be that anything you find on the internet is yours and that there’s no need to do the common courtesy of crediting those whose work you’ve used in the creation of the 15 minute monstrosities you pump out daily. As much as it is “none of [our] jobs” to tell you what to do with “your” videos, it’s none of your job to fill up the internet with your tedious, worthless repetitive spam that makes searching for anything relating to the commercial TV channels a veritable minefield.

Also, no-one is forcing you to come here and read these comments. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. No one has the right to tell me what to do with my comment posts. Please stop using Transdiffusion.

Peter Thomas 13 June 2012 at 11:23 pm

Christopher Williams, they aren’t exactly your videos. They’re largely based on other people’s work.

I know for a fact you deliberately took some of my work – the first scene of Tiswas Night 2009 which I directed, edited, produced and performed in – in order to annoy me.

I also know this is against YouTube rules and the law. I’m taking appropriate legal steps against you for doing this, as I think now is the time where a lot of television enthusiasts are speaking out against your despicable reality-phobic actions.

You think you can carry on like this? You’re very much mistaken.

In the meantime, I hope everyone enjoys this Facebook page about the videos of cwilliams1976…

Stew Fisher 13 June 2012 at 11:49 pm

Russ if Chris can answer a straightforward question then it be the first.

Chris we are not being crwel, or one sided we are not being biased we are telling you how it is. you dont listen you dont learn that is the point. if people didnt feel so strongly about how dire your videos are you wouldnt be flamed on and off youtube. you seem to think we are telling you what to do. for the 1000th time we are TRYING to make you aware of the rules of youtube that you are breaking. we have explained time and time again what rules you have broken so Youtube has pleanty of grounds to suspsend your account.. your only uploading now out of spite.. because ive noticed when you feel “threatened” you upload more its like your trying to distence yourself from reality.. as for your audence.. you dont listen to them. the only people who “like” your videos is you.. your fake account and some 12yr old boy called “papercuts141”

for the rest.. here are my two videos aimed at him..

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 8:17 am

I shall be reporting this website as in itself it has come from a rather suspicious company.

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 8:19 am

Hello Peter, I now have reason to believe that your own personal website is fake and intend to report you to the ICANN registrar.

I have reason to take legal steps.

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 9:15 am

I will tell you again, you are not in charge of YouTube; none of you are. Now I suggest that you stop using this website as a platform to make such baseless accusations towards me. If you don’t like my videos, don’t watch or subscribe to them. Ganging up against me will not solve your one-sided issues.

Sean Cooke 14 June 2012 at 9:16 am

Well, it’s seems that the weight of public opinion is against the work of CWilliams1976 and if he is any kind of thoughtful and decent individual, he will now cease his activities before the copyright law book is thrown at him. It’s time to end this nonsense and just play fair, Mr Williams…but until then, here’s some music.

Ian YouTube 14 June 2012 at 9:19 am

It IS my job to tell you what to do with your videos! TAKE THEM DOWN.

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 11:26 am

Ian, you are not from YouTube. If you don’t like what is going on, why have you invented the YouTube Downloader and Converter then?

Russ J Graham 14 June 2012 at 11:26 am

Chris, you’re welcome to report this website to any imaginary internet police organisation of your choice.

While we’re waiting for them to get back to us, why not watch this:

It’s one of your videos that you say you recorded on videotape years ago. Watch what happens between 0:40 and 0:45 seconds into the video.

Can you explain how our trademark got into there?

Third time of asking.

Phil 14 June 2012 at 11:27 am

You can’t be a real person, C. You just can’t. No human being reacts like this to anything.

Anyway, if you don’t like the comments stop reading them.

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 11:30 am

Phil, I AM A real person. If you don’t like this fact, all of you are no longer welcome to watch my videos or place them without my permissionb.

Russ J Graham 14 June 2012 at 11:30 am

Er, Chris, not meaning to be funny or anything, but if your YouTube videos are all your own work, recorded on videotape years ago as you have said above, why are you familiar with YouTube Downloader and Converter software?

Would that explain how this video of yours somehow got our trademark in it, perhaps?

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 11:32 am

Probably not.

Sean Cooke 14 June 2012 at 11:36 am

Ha! You expect us to seek PERMISSION to watch your videos? You never sought anybody’s permission when you swiped their material and pretended that it was your own production. You are hopeless! You are suffering from a strange delusion and I hope that you manage to get your head out of the clouds one day and see just how much of a fool you have made of yourself!

Russ J Graham 14 June 2012 at 11:36 am

So how do you explain how our trademark got into this video ?

Fourth time of asking.

Peter Thomas 14 June 2012 at 11:41 am

Christopher, the only personal website I have is

You can believe it’s false if you like, but it definitely isn’t. I own all the material on it and have paid for the domain and hosting personally. Not sure how your complaint to ICANN is going to work, but then you’ve never silenced any of your critics, your actions just encourage even more criticism.

Still, to help you on your way, ICANN can be found at . You’ll be wasting their time and your time (something you’re adept at) with your blatantly false and irrelevant complaint.

My website will still be standing next week, the video you uploaded that infringes my rights, won’t be.

Also you may care to see that the more you pretend you’re not in the wrong, the more a campaign is growing against you. See for example.

Christopher Williams 14 June 2012 at 11:46 am

Peter, think what you like. I have done my research into that site of yours and got the following: Whois Record

Whois Record

Reverse Whois:

“Domains By Proxy, LLC” owns about82,996 other domains

Registrar History: 1 registrar

NS History: 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 2 years.

IP History: 4 changes on 2 unique IP addresses over 2 years.

Whois History: 12 records have been archived since 2010-10-13 .

Reverse IP: 383 other sites hosted on this server.


Domains By Proxy, LLC

15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

United States

Registered through:, LLC (


Created on: 11-Oct-10

Expires on: 11-Oct-12

Last Updated on: 11-Oct-10

Administrative Contact:

Private, Registration

Domains By Proxy, LLC

15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

United States

(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:

Private, Registration

Domains By Proxy, LLC

15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

United States

(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:



Site Profile and Search Rank

Website Title: Pete Prodge

Title Relevancy 100%

AboutUs: Wiki article on

SEO Score: 74%

Terms: 101 (Unique: 76, Linked: 0)

Images: 0 (Alt tags missing: 0)

Links: 0 (Internal: 0, Outbound: 0)


1 ( Parts of page not indexable by most search engines. )

Similar Domains:,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Search Engine Preview (View details)



Created: 2010-10-11

Expires: 2012-10-11

Updated: 2010-12-23

Registrar Status:





Name Server:

NS1.BLUEHOST.COM (has 1,692,039 domains)

NS2.BLUEHOST.COM (has 1,692,039 domains)

Whois Server:

General TLDs: whois (registered and active website)

PeteProdGe.netbuy (never registered before)

PeteProdGe.orgbuy (never registered before)

PeteProdGe.bizbuy (never registered before)

PeteProdGe.infobuy (never registered before)

PeteProdGe.usbuy (never registered before)

Server Data

Server Type: Apache

IP Address: Reverse-IP | Ping | DNS Lookup | Traceroute

ASN: AS46606

IP Location: United States – California – Carlsbad – Bluehost Inc.

Response Code: 200

Domain Status: Registered And Active Website

Peter Thomas 14 June 2012 at 11:48 am

“Don’t create misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails in order to increase views” – YouTube community guidelines

I know that Christopher Williams is guilty of breaking that.

Imagine what would happen if there was an online campaign to get all of CWilliams1976’s critics to flag all his offending videos on just one day?

Of course, if CWilliams1976 put “mock” into the title of his mock videos, that campaign wouldn’t work. But as he insists on pretending his mock videos are the real thing, it looks like we CAN report him to YouTube. Every single one of his inaccurate videos can be reported, and this page is evidence that A LOT of television fans are ready to do just that.

Stay tuned to: for further information.

Russ J Graham 14 June 2012 at 11:52 am

Chris, you know how to do a WHOIS and get information on a site’s registrar! Wow! It’s almost as if all this information was public on the internet or something!

Do next, please! Also, watch this video of yours and then explain how our trademark got into it between 0:40 and 0:45 seconds.

Fifth time of asking.

Stew Fisher 14 June 2012 at 11:53 am

Chris im gonna ask you something i know i wont get an answer out of it but im still going to ask

On what grounds do you have to prsue legal action, where all this website has done has exprssed opinion, whereas there is grounds for legal action agaist you as you have obtain videos without premission and you have gone beyond the grounds of fair use, there is no legal standing for anyone to link to your youtube videos nor is there embedding them into websites as you videos will be under the YT or CC licence. this however gives you no right to steel/borrow/obtain(etc) other peoples videos rehash it and call it your own. as the liecnnce is not a GPL.

and if you wanted to take down Mr P Thomas’s website. you have to have reasonable grounds you cant say its “fake” however ICANN is not the authority over .uk addresses NOMINET is if you bothered to do a simple WHOIS you could found that out.

oh yeah can you answer Russ’s question he has asked you FOUR times.. or is it the fact you cant. your gonna carry on hiding in your own little world.. with some music!!

Peter Thomas 14 June 2012 at 11:57 am

So Christopher, you’ve looked up the WHOIS and server details of

So what? That information is available to anyone, it’s not misleading, and it isn’t useful to you.

You can run to my domain name registrar GoDaddy and say “Peter is being mean to me”, but they only regulate domain names I have purchased with them, not your daft gripes with me on the internet.

You can run to my website hosters Bluehost and say “But Peter is slating my YouTube videos”, but they are only interested in my websites being within their hosting terms and conditions (which they are) and not your daft gripes with me on the internet.

You may not like me or any of your other critics, but sending your complaints to completely irrelevant organisations that won’t be interested in your whines, is not going to help you.

BTW, have you explained why the Transdiffusion logo is in yet? I think someone mentioned it. You keep avoiding the question.

Mike 14 June 2012 at 12:28 pm

So here’s how it is. What Transdiffusion et al have done is saved, rediscovered and shared what was considered ephemera, but is now primary historical source material. My wife’s a historian, and one thing I’ve worked out about history is that you treat primary sources with respect – almost with reverence – because they’re the basis for the rest of history, and out of respect for future generations who will also want to refer to them with some assurance that what they’re working with is the original source material.

This stuff is important. What if some unknown collector had found a copy of the MS of “A Tale of Two Cities” 75 years ago and done some editing of their own (because they thought they could do better than Dickens) – before depositing it back in the Bodleian or the British Library as “Tale of Two Cities – Original Manuscript”? It’d be like Back to the Future – some scholar would have examined this manuscript later and all of a sudden everyone would be wondering at what point Dickens decided that “It was the best of times, it was the bestest of times” wasn’t the opening he wanted after all. It’d probably make its way into modern editions as “the lost manuscript”.

There’s an entire branch of history devoted almost exclusively to unravelling what’s basically damage done to primary sources by later editors (or transcribers, or whatever). The difference is that today it’s very easy to make massive changes and disseminate them widely, so over time it’ll become almost impossible to differentiate the authentic material from the tampered material, which imperils future study.

Re-editing or otherwise messing with original television archive material without adding big, red, flashing warnings that “this is a mock, it’s just something I made” is akin to doing just that. It’s messing with the primary sources. Television presentation archival is just as important as literary archival, and it’s perilously fragile – relative to the amount that was broadcast, a tiny amount still exists. What we have (mostly thanks to the efforts of Transdiffusion and others) should be carefully preserved, and it should be treated with respect for the benefit of present and future historians.

If you don’t believe me – look at how many documentaries have faithfully presented the recreated footage of “the opening of BBC Television” as original, and how many works have repeated the Mickey Mouse Cartoon myth surrounding the closure of BBC Television at the outbreak of WW2. This has been a *direct* result of people presenting faked-up and re-edited material as original, and that damage is very, very hard to undo.

This is a precious archive. Treating it with disrespect treats future generations and future scholarship with disrespect. Just because you _can_ do this, doesn’t mean you _should_, at least if you have any sort of appreciation for the source material itself.

David Hastings 14 June 2012 at 12:54 pm

From what I’ve been reading here and elsewhere, Mr. Williams doesn’t seem to properly understand the concept of “fair usage” when it relates to videos on YouTube.

When applied to books, “fair usage” means that you can copy a page or a short section of the book for your own personal use but *not* reproduce large chunks or the whole book without the owner’s permission. Similar rules apply to video clips; it’s screamingly obvious that Mr. Williams has been copying large chunks or complete clips – complete with logo(s) added to identify the originator – with minimal alterations, so it’s no wonder that so many people both on YouTube and elsewhere are upset with him, and once you create that many enemies there’s no going back.

Oh, and there’s still a question to be answered (quoted from Peter Thomas’ response, and it is indeed only a quote as opposed to the whole text):

BTW, have you explained why the Transdiffusion logo is in yet? I think someone mentioned it. You keep avoiding the question.

Stew Fisher 14 June 2012 at 3:53 pm

looking at that WHOIS all i can obtain that is that Peter as witheld his personal details from public view, which you can do for a personal website to stop people getting your name and address. that doesnt make him fake hence the “domain by proxy” service.

but still you do avoid the question about the clip.. why are you avoiding that because we all know the truth and you just face reality?! get your head out of the clouds chris

WEBBI 14 June 2012 at 3:58 pm

There are a number of copyright claims against this channel from APM. The constant unlicensed usage of such material should be sufficient to close down this channel.

Engleheart 14 June 2012 at 4:18 pm

I have just received an email from S4C regarding CWilliams:

In reply to your recent correspondence regarding historic S4C footage being posted on YouTube. Thank you for contacting us and bringing this footage to our attention. S4C is considering the information that you have provided in the context of the other material posted by this user and will consider its options.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Jenkins


Phil 14 June 2012 at 6:04 pm

I’m fairly sure that at this point you could post a video of hardcore pornography and as long as you titled it something relating to regional ITV broadcasting in the 80s young Christopher would thieve it and put fifteen minutes of Denny Bumtrumpet and the Tiresome Five in the middle of it, completely mess up the aspect ratio and paste a picture of Nick Owen’s head in the centre of the action.

Also, Chris, it’s a shame that you think I a) need your permission to view your videos and b) that I actually do any more. You’ve done nothing different since the first ones you produced so all I do now is occasionally downvote and comment on them – I don’t bother hitting play any more.

Lord Thames 14 June 2012 at 6:34 pm

Just a couple of comments from Chris’s YouTube channel.

Why are you suddenly putting TV Ark material on here?

djjaseuk 3 years ago

I do this because I may use this material in my videos and also fit my intervals around them and also this makes it easier for me to place them into Nero 9 and then transfer into Windows Movie Mkaer – so now you know!!!!

cwilliams1976 in reply to djjaseuk 3 years ago

To see them in context, please do follow the link.

Chad h 14 June 2012 at 6:51 pm

Just to add to the ongoing chorus… Cwilliams, im open minded enough to believe that maybe you got the videos from an offline source… But how can you say the allegations are unfounded when one of the videos contains the Transdiffusion logo.

unless there’s some miraculous answer, then I can only come to the conclusion that you’ve been caught red handed. It’s hard to say the claim is baseless with such a blatant piece of evidence…

Aidan Lunn 14 June 2012 at 11:15 pm

Chris, may I ask a question.

How would you react to someone else taking one of your videos, passing it off as your own and manipulating the facts around it?

And even those YouTube users who don’t have watermarks on their videos (like me) can tell when you’ve nicked a video – videotape damage such as dropouts, mis-tracking and frame lock errors appear in the exact same place on your copy as they do on he original – now the chances of that are impossible unless you have in some way obtained the same videotape cassette – very unlikely, don’t you think?

Mike W 15 June 2012 at 2:37 am

Chris, YouTube’s Download option is built into the site for content creators to obtain originals, YouTube and Google UK at the present moment do not offer a download and conversion software, in fact actively work against the downloading of Youtube videos…

Christopher Williams 15 June 2012 at 4:20 am

Anyway, that is besides the point. My video shows where S4C have gone wrong – they were not showing that they were a complementary network to HTV – the local ITV company in Wales – by telling viewers that Emmerdale Farm was shown in the same way that ITV and Channel 4 cross-promoted one another. Also my videos are designed also to show how ITV’s and Channel 4’s continuity styles could have gone the way of the BBC – without the advertisements which clogged up the airtime?

Russ J Graham 15 June 2012 at 7:48 am

Chris, watch this video of yours and then explain how our trademark got into it between 0:40 and 0:45 seconds.

Sixth time of asking.

Rob Francis 15 June 2012 at 7:50 am

Don’t want to sound like a broken record, but have you explained why the Transdiffusion logo is in yet Chris?

Phil 15 June 2012 at 7:58 am

Chris, for the billionth time, your idea for a regional tax to support ITV is blatant nonsense. Commercial television has many faults, but it’s not the evil you make it out to be.

And there is no way whatsoever that ANY broadcaster would willingly waste airtime on 15 minutes of music and static slides unless they absolutely had to for reasons of a technical malfunction. It would make no sense for them to broadcast anything if they had nothing to broadcast.

Sean Cooke 15 June 2012 at 9:06 am

Nobody particularly enjoys the adverts on ITV/ C4 or whatever but perhaps you could try to do what other sensible people do during the breaks. Instead of dreaming about 15 minutes of the dreariest music possible, why not get up and make a cup of tea? Or have a wee? Or teach the parrot to say, “Regional ITV tax! Squark! Regional ITV tax!” You have been caught out 100% and if you can’t see that by now, you truly are hopeless! The Transdiffusion logo is there in your video as plain as day and you can’t deny it. The sky is blue, Wimbledon will be rained off, the logo is there…all facts! I suspect that there is some form of compulsion for you to make these videos as you once told me that “there is nothing that I can do about my videos.” OK, well, if you love making videos, why not try a new subject? Take a video camera out and about and make a short film about Crawley or something. People might appreciate that sort of thing more. In that way, you could be GENUINELY creative and gather fans instead of people that want to get you taken off of YouTube. I’m trying to be helpful here but I expect that you will not take it in that way. What I’d really like is to offer an olive branch so we can all move on.

Aidan Lunn 15 June 2012 at 10:26 am

How would you react to someone else taking one of your videos, passing it off as your own and manipulating the facts around it?

And now would you like to explain why the video in question:

has been “removed by the user”?

Avoiding a question about a particular video (which we know the answer to) and then removing said video . . . ooooooh, it’s almost as if yu have something to hide.

Why was the Transdiffusion logo in that video, Chris?

Russ J Graham 15 June 2012 at 10:38 am

Chris, thank you for deleting the video that you recorded all by yourself that somehow (that you won’t explain) got our trademark in the middle of it.

However, you seem to have accidentally reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

Can you explain how it got in there in the first place?

Seventh time of asking.

A Famous Broadcaster 15 June 2012 at 10:43 am


I’m not going to use my real name as you’d probably look up my wife’s shoe size and report me to the GFBFBFGBA or something; however I am a well-known documentary maker who regularly uses resources such as YouTube for my research (and please no smug comments about this). Your unlabelled mocks are an irritation and an interruption to this process, and on one occasion, before I knew better, resulted in a factual error going out in a finished film. Please use your head. Thanks.

Stew Fisher 15 June 2012 at 10:54 am

Chris.. seriouly why cant you answer peoples questions? esp when you been bang to rights.. what is going on in your head besides 15mins of music?

Testcard Paul 15 June 2012 at 11:17 am

May I add my frustration to every one elses. I am not directly affected in the way some of you are, but I do like to take a trip down memory lane from time to time to remember how things were. I see no value whatsoever in making something up. The one saving grace is his voice is nowhere near broadcast standard, so there is no danger of thinking one of his efforts is real.

The ‘last day of Westward’ mock I have just seen was 6 minutes of complete drivel spoken over the Westward logo. As I recall Roger Shaw was in vision at the time, and the background simply changed from Westward to Tsw. There was no sobbing 6 minutes of rambling BS about how sorry they were to loose their franchise etc etc.

Why? I really am at a complete loss. Ok- he must have aspergers or something, but I know a couple of people with that condition, and in my experience they CAN if they want to, moderate their behaviour, to cause less annoyance to others, so it’s not impossible to give up.

I saw the schools Thames closedown. Rubbish, Total rubbish. The continuity would come from Euston Road, but the TestCard and music would be played out by Crystal Palace transmitter, so there was always about a minute of blank screen before the Test card cut in.

And ofcourse, before a block of programmes the test card stopped 15 MINUTES before programmes began- 10 minutes of blank screen followed by the 5 minute start up routine,

Infact I’ve just had a really good idea. Why not recreate all those 10 minutes of blank screen. Not the start-up routines you understand- just the 10 minutes of blank screen. That way we’d all be alot happier.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Peter Thomas 15 June 2012 at 11:38 am

I don’t think any of us would have a problem with the videos from cwilliams1976 if they had the word “MOCK” in the title.

His refusal to do that, is probably going to be his downfall.

Over on the ‘Sitting slack-jawed at the videos of CWilliams1976’ Facebook page, we had a group think, and have decided to have a day where we get as many people as possible to flag up misleading videos uploaded by cwilliams1976.

Here’s the details…

This campaign should be able to ensure his misleading videos are removed by YouTube because they currently breach the YouTube Community Guidelines (as already explained in earlier comments).

Of course, Christopher can avoid this by putting the word “MOCK” in the title of all his mock videos. That’s all he needs to do.

So, Christopher, can you do this before Wednesday 27th June? That’d be lovely if you can. Otherwise, we will take action.

Chad H 15 June 2012 at 12:33 pm

Also my videos are designed also to show how ITV’s and Channel 4’s continuity styles could have gone the way of the BBC – without the advertisements which clogged up the airtime?

Yet you previously claimed the videos were “real”… Did you get them from an alternative universe perhaps?

Aidan Lunn 15 June 2012 at 2:30 pm

How would you react to someone else taking one of your videos, passing it off as your own and manipulating the facts around it?

And now would you like to explain why the video in question:

has been “removed by the user”?

Avoiding a question about a particular video (which we know the answer to) and then removing said video . . . ooooooh, it’s almost as if yu have something to hide.

Why was the Transdiffusion logo in that video, Chris?

ETP1 Forever 15 June 2012 at 4:21 pm

Similar to what I experienced. Obviously now I can just avoid anything uploaded by cwilliams1976, but before I had an idea of “who’s who” in the tv presentation community on YouTube, it went on to pose a great problem.

The point is Chris, LABLE YOUR VIDEOS AS MOCKS!!!

Now my keyboard is worn out :(

Engleheart 15 June 2012 at 5:13 pm

Sadly for CWilliams, he is now suffering from what has been dubbed as the “Streisand Effect.” In his attempts to hide or remove the videos in question, he’s drawn more and more attention to the problem! Re-editing that video was the absolute worst thing that he could have done under the circumstances as we are all amazed by his absolute disdain for the real world and how it works.

Take a break, Mr CW76, stop fighting against everyone and everything. This is something that you actually can’t win. If you continue, you will just get banned from YouTube and then all of those videos will be gone. You still have the power to fix this mess so instead of deleting people’s comments because you don’t like them, just save yourself the trouble of hearing from YouTube, S4C and of course, the owners of the TV-am copyrights. Yes, I did report you to them as well.

Andrew Bowden 15 June 2012 at 7:25 pm


I want you to have a think about why your story seems to flip and change around a lot. I think you know why it’s doing that.

I’ve seen it many times in the years I’ve been on the internet – 16 years this year funnily enough. I’ve been around. I’ve seen it all. And I recognise the tell-tale things.

The coverups. The avoiding of the answering the question. The attempts to distract. The threats. Anything to avoid actually doing one simple thing. Admitteding they’re in the wrong.

No one likes saying sorry, but I’d hazard a guess you don’t really want to be getting all this flack either. It must feel like the whole world is after you.

There’s two ways round this Chris. You can go in to hiding and forget about all this. Or you can admit you are wrong.

You’ll get a lot of respect for taking the second option. And who knows, if you do, you might become a good citizen of the internet. The kind of person we all like conversing with, who is nice to have around.

Sorry is very hard to say. But it’s not impossible.

Christopher Williams 15 June 2012 at 8:23 pm

Engleheart, please stop causing trouble. Please stop giving television companies one-sided information. There are two sides to every story and you just want to hear the one – yours. It’s neither big nor clever.

If any of you continue to tell me what to do with my videos, threaten me, only make me see your one-sided versions of things and getting me to comply with your wishes is an unfair compromise.

My videos will not be taken off unless YouTube decide to do so, not the people who have complained. I will ask Russ to stop asking the same question for which there is a non-sensical answer. If any of you continue, I shall report you all to the police, now leave me alone the lot of you.

Christopher Williams 15 June 2012 at 8:44 pm

cause any more trouble and i will call the police.

David Hastings 15 June 2012 at 9:06 pm

Oh dear, what do we have here?

Yes, YouTube has blocked a cwilliams1976 video for breach of copyright just today, and undoubtedly more cwilliams1976 videos will be blocked unless Mr. Williams clearly labels his remaining edited videos as “MOCK” and freely owns up to the blatant copying of other users’ videos without their permission (which breaches YouTube Community Guidelines).

The more people you upset, the more people you lie to, the more enemies you make. And you can’t afford to make enemies within the broadcasting community because they have the contacts to make things happen. This is the real world not some 15-minute fantasy land.

Say sorry and make amends. You know it makes sense.

Stew Fisher 15 June 2012 at 9:58 pm

Chris has been very quiet today.. maybe he has finally realised hes been caught?

but still would be nice to hear his reason why he stole the videos

Christopher Williams 15 June 2012 at 10:53 pm

I have nothing to say on this subject any more. Andrew, please stop giving me ultimatums. It is not your place to do so.


Russ J Graham 15 June 2012 at 11:55 pm

Chris, feel free to call the police. Tell them that dozens of people are asking you why you posted a video to YouTube and won’t explain where you got it from.

Their response will be interesting.

In the meantime, you just answer a question: you have uploaded a copy of a video that had our logo in the middle, you deleted it, and you reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

Can you explain how it got in there in the first place?

This question is not going away. Although it would if you deleted the video entirely and labelled your mocks as mocks.

Engleheart 15 June 2012 at 11:56 pm

If you won’t listen and won’t explain yourself, you look like you have something to hide and so, you get reported to the television companies and the residual copyright holders. I have reported you to Thames and LWT. We shall see what action they take soon enough.

Chad H 16 June 2012 at 12:01 am

> Engleheart, please stop causing trouble.

> Please stop giving television companies

> one-sided information. There are two sides

> to every story and you just want to hear the

> one – yours. It’s neither big nor clever.

Well, we’re still waiting for your side. Please enlighten us as to how the Transdiffusion logo got into the middle of one of your allegedly “Authentic” clips.

Oh, and for your info, my local police force is Strathclyde Police.

Stew Fisher 16 June 2012 at 12:06 am

erm do you know wasting police time is an offence dont you chris.. funny you threatened me with the same thing before xmas.. and now its june.. funny that

trevor wilson 16 June 2012 at 1:32 am

Stew Fisher

The Test Card would have been played out from

Croydon as that is the main control for London

Phil 16 June 2012 at 6:31 am

Superb. The man who insists if we don’t like what we see we don’t have to come to his channel is threatening to call the police because he doesn’t like what he sees on a website he has no compulsion to visit. It’s irony on a base level, but I like it.

Andrew Bowden 16 June 2012 at 7:30 am

My word Chris, you have a strange intrepration of an ultimatium and then (using your strange definition anyway) you give me an ultimatium to stop using ultimatiums! Oh the irony.

Unfortunately I wasn’t giving you an ultimatium. I was providing you with friendly, helpful advice to get out of this hole you’ve clearly dug for yourself.

Whether you take the advice is entirely up to you.

Peter Thomas 16 June 2012 at 10:17 am

It is not against the law to legitimately criticise a YouTube video.

It is not against the law to report a misleading video title to YouTube.

It is not against the law to politely ask a question online on a service that isn’t pushed to you.

Now for some things that are against the law…

It is against the law to copy large parts of material where you don’t have copyright permission.

It is against the law to waste police time.

Go ahead, Christopher. Call the police. They will look at what is being said, and believe me, they will take a very dim view of people who lie. You’ve been caught out a few times here.

So, call the police if you want. We’re not worried. You’ll have to explain how we’re supposedly breaking the law. If you can’t prove it, you’re wasting their time and you may get arrested for it.

Doesn’t sound like such a good idea now!

Christopher Williams 16 June 2012 at 10:25 am

Engleheart, for your information I will be contacting all the people you have contacted and will put them straight on a few things. You should not have to feel that you have to do all this. Besides which have you not considered that the S4C logo is not used any more?

Chinnyhill 16 June 2012 at 11:02 am

If Thames fell off-air or had time to fill they would usually get Tom Edwards to read out the TV Times in-vision instead of putting up a caption.

So CWilliams, rather than discourage you, I’m going to encourage you. Why not make the jump to in-vision continuity? 1600 videos of junctions is probably enough.

I for one would certainly subscribe to a channel where you appear on camera as Tom Edwards.

In fact I doubt any of us would worry about you labelling it as a mock.

Go on, move to the next level. Go in-vision!

Stew Fisher 16 June 2012 at 11:10 am

[quote]Stew Fisher

The Test Card would have been played out from

Croydon as that is the main control for London

trevor wilson

Posted 1:32 AM, 16 June 2012


That is a bit of a Chris Williams reply… as in what you talking about?! i didnt mention anything about testcards

Russ J Graham 16 June 2012 at 11:22 am

You have uploaded a copy of a video that had our logo in the middle, you deleted it, and you reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

Can you explain how it got in there in the first place?

All of this would go away if you deleted the video entirely and labelled your mocks as mocks. Why not consider that?

Engleheart 16 June 2012 at 11:26 am

CW76, it doesn’t make any difference if they no longer use a logo, they retain the copyright to all of their past corporate imagery. You need permission to use it. It doesn’t matter if a company is defunct, someone still owns the copyright to all the archive material. I actually discovered that Westward Television still have an address and exist as a company, albeit currently non functioning. I shall contact them today to find out what they think of your Westward closedown video. Do contact S4C and save them the trouble of contacting you. They would easily defeat your strange logic and get you taken off of YouTube. As would Thames, LWT, TV-am and any other ITV company that you care to mention.

David Hastings 16 June 2012 at 11:50 am

Basically what Russ said:

“You have uploaded a copy of a video that had our logo in the middle, you deleted it, and you reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

Can you explain how it got in there in the first place?

All of this would go away if you deleted the video entirely and labelled your mocks as mocks. Why not consider that?”

This isn’t bullying by private means of communication.

Simple questions, simple answers, problem solved.

That is all.

It’s Mr. Williams’ turn now.

Phil 16 June 2012 at 12:01 pm

I’d be fascinated to see what you’ve sent them, C. Anything that adequately explains your repeated theft and bizarre videos is bound to be interesting.

Testcard Paul 16 June 2012 at 12:23 pm

Sorry- I was the one who threw a spanner in the works by mentioning the test card and Crystal Palace. I am happy to be corrected if it was still Croydon. The video I was thinking of must have notionally been circa 1971, so in the era of colour. I don’t have as much knowledge as you guys but I do remember the era, because unlike cwilliams 1976 I lived through it. He appears to have selected BBC type test card music for his Thames clip, wheras I’m sure ITA music was always light classical or opera. Something from Gilbert and Sullivan would have been more appropriate. And because music came from the transmiter they could never start the music ‘on the clock’ as it were, in the way that the BBC could.

Anyway, I hope your quest to remove all his rubbish is successful.

Christopher Williams 16 June 2012 at 7:50 pm

Testcard Paul, in your dreams…

Phil 16 June 2012 at 9:17 pm

We don’t dream about you C. Except perhaps in the fetid armpit of a particularly bad night.

Russ J Graham 16 June 2012 at 9:18 pm

Ah, Chris, you’re still here. Still no contact from Merseyside Police. I’d’ve expected a visit or a phone call from them by now. Ah well.

In the meantime, you have uploaded a copy of a video that had our logo in the middle, you deleted it, and you reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

Can you explain how it got in there in the first place?

Christopher Williams 16 June 2012 at 9:31 pm

Russ, here’s an answer for you: it wasn’t your logo OK. The image was a transmission error on Channel 4’s part but it would be nice if Transdiffusion were a television station but your ident would be a very good one…

Russ J Graham 16 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

Ah, that explains EVERYTHING.

Or… possibly nothing. It doesn’t explain how Channel 4 accidentally managed to include it THIRTY YEARS before it was designed and animated by David Jeffrey.

It also doesn’t explain why you reuploaded the video with it crudely edited out.

This question isn’t going away, Chris. Try answering it again with something more likely. People *are* going to keep asking it, again and again and again and again.

Andrew Bowden 16 June 2012 at 9:44 pm

I hadn’t realised Channel 4 had invented time travel. Which they must have if they broadcast the Transfusion bump breaker by accident in the 1980s as it was only created in the last few months.

Although given they clearly broadcast it by error, why did you remove it from your reuploaded video?

Phil 16 June 2012 at 9:45 pm

… what? Channel 4 accidentally broadcast Transdiffusion’s logo? How in the name of all that is holy would that even happen, Chris? What POSSIBLE reason (even if the thing had EXISTED at the time of broadcast) would they have for having a copy of the logo lying around and suddenly decide to insert it into a live broadcast?

That’s now two answers (first that it was a channel 4 logo and second that it was an accident) that you’ve given that are both clearly untruths. Do you think if you lie enough then reality will bend to accommodate you?

Andrew Bowden 16 June 2012 at 9:55 pm

To be fair, he did say it was an answer. Didn’t say it was THE answer!

Stew Fisher 16 June 2012 at 10:01 pm

Chris why is it so hard for you to answer the question without lying?

t 16 June 2012 at 10:16 pm

Chris- Ok this time I will talk to you directly.

In the real world I know someone who has aspergers. He is a cricket fan and it astounds me that he knows everyones batting average to the decimal point and can remember precise details from matches from 10 years ago without having to look it up. I suppose what nature takes with one hand it gives with another as some sort of compensation. So, through knowing this person I’m not unsympathetic to those who have problems. So, in all seriousness- do you live alone, or do you live with your mum and/or dad? And do you have a social worker who keeps an eye on you? Sometimes, if the council don’t consider a person to be a risk to themselves or others they can slip through the net, and not get the attention they need and deserve. I’m not saying this to be nasty, but surely there must be someone like a social worker you can talk to. I assume you have aspergers, but as far as I know that doesn’t mean you completely lack self awareness (the ability to understand why your actions are so annoying- and to put it bluntly- stop!)

Please stop. People are making fun of you on the internet. What on earth was going on in your head when you recorded your 6 minute Westward announcement?

Just stop, please!

Philip 16 June 2012 at 10:34 pm

I’d just like to say, thank you all for a really interesting comment thread and for really exposing cwilliams what with the video editing and the constant lies. The lies, Chris, that’s right, the lies.

If anyone hasn’t done so already, I would recommend signing up to emails of follow-up posts. It’s how I’ve followed this thread so far.

I look forward to the conclusion of this, if there ever is one.

By the way, Chris, can you explain how Channel 4 somehow managed to get Transdiffusion’s logo that was only made a few months ago into a broadcast from 30 years ago? I have no real interest in time travel and so assumed it to not to be discovered yet, but I guess I haven’t really been following the science world recently. Unless there’s some other more logical explanation?

Engleheart 16 June 2012 at 10:34 pm

CW76, This is becoming childish and silly. Your lies are no better than a five year old’s attempts to cover up a wrongdoing. You did steal the video and many others besides. You edited out the logo and everybody knows it. We know it and you know it. Any further protestations are rendered useless. There will be no police, you won’t be putting S4C in their place, you just need to grow up and admit to your actions. I don’t want to report you to the ITV companies and wish you’d not forced the issue but you have trouble on the horizon from the companies that I have contacted and you’d better be ready to take the consequences.

Christopher Williams 16 June 2012 at 10:54 pm

Andrew, it is THE answer. Stew, I am not a liar. Now p off or I else

Andrew Bowden 17 June 2012 at 8:07 am

Chris, putting on my “Co-Editor of Transdiffusion” hat on here, please kindly refrain from telling other visitors to this site to “p off”. It is not in your power, nor is it your responsibility to determine who comments on this website.

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 9:46 am

Again Chris im going to ask why cant you answer Russ’s question truthfully.

I also know a person with A.S well a couple for the recoard.. i suspect sometimes if i have it myself. but its not a “get out jail free card” for being nasty arrogent and telling one to “go away” in an abusive way.. this is why people dislike you Chirs as well as your mocks, its because you are a nasty aggrogent lewd liar. i could call you something childish but im trying my best to adlut about it all.

Keith M 17 June 2012 at 10:13 am

Whilst I agree with what has been said, I do feel slightly sorry for Chris. It is obvious from the number of videos he has uploaded on YouTube that he gets a lot of pleasure doing these videos and if it makes him happy then he should continue.

However the bit I don’t agree with is that these videos are being presented as fact rather than a re-imaging or mock which could potentially be accepted as so. (Remember when someone wrote on Wikipedia that musician Ronnie Hazelhurst had co-written Reach for the Stars by SClub 7, when Ronnie died several news sources quoted this as fact without checking it was true!)

I’m sure that there are several people on here that have/had desires or obsessions to be involved in television presentation/announcing and some of us have probably made spoof videos for special ocassions or for our own amusements, fortunately for everyone else we don’t all upload them to Youtube.

Just label them as not being original and half of the negative comments you get will vanish immediately.



Big A 17 June 2012 at 10:56 am

The bit I want to understand is CWilliams1976 take on all the voice-overs on his clips which to me are clearly not original.

Is CWilliams1976 admitting that he has recorded some of the voices, like on the Westward closedown, or are we supposed to believe that “the voice” is a genuine announcer – if so they must be high profile having worked for almost every ITV company, and Channel 4 and S4C over the years !


Engleheart 17 June 2012 at 11:14 am

Again, CW76 and his time travel shenanigans. All those voiceovers throughout the years and he is STILL only 35.

Christopher Williams 17 June 2012 at 11:49 am

Andy, Yes he is/

Andrew Bowden, I was angry last night so if you are the co-ediyor of this site may I apologise if you were offended but it is my responsibility of people post comments about me which are offensive to me. You have to respect the fact that I have feelings as much as I respect yours.

Stew, it is up to the individual to decide if they hate me or not and you don’t inflict them uipon other people.

Russ J Graham 17 June 2012 at 11:59 am

Chris, I’m sure Andrew will accept your apology more readily if you can answer a question with a *plausible* reply. The whole time-travel thing you’re trying is… well, ludicrous.

You have uploaded a copy of a video that had our logo in the middle, you deleted it, and you reuploaded it here with the trademark crudely cut out.

The question is, can you plausibly explain how it got in there in the first place?

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 12:08 pm

and why are you accusing me of incitng hatrid towards you when im obvsering whats going on.

just answer Russ’s question already stop being so childish

Christopher Williams 17 June 2012 at 12:21 pm

Trust me, it was a transmission error on their part…

Phil 17 June 2012 at 12:35 pm

Why are you persisting in this? You have been caught out taking something that isn’t yours, and when called on it you have clumsily removed the part that clearly identifies it as not being yours and now you’re pretending that it was a transmission error. What sort of error causes the broadcast of a logo from the future, Chris?

When I asked you about a countdown clip you posted a while ago you responded that “the video was in that format” when I asked you to explain the artefacting on one side of the screen. That suggests you took the video from elsewhere, once again making a mockery of your insistence that these are your own tapes.

Admit you took the videos, even if you don’t feel the need to apologise. You are looking absurd.

Russ J Graham 17 June 2012 at 12:35 pm

Trust me, it wasn’t. That logo was only designed and animated on 26 August 2011.

However, if it was a transmission error, why did you edit it out after we complained?

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 1:21 pm

heres another one..

how do you explain the tvark watermaks, youtube user’s benriggers watermarks et al. appering on your so called “original” videos?

no b.s no lying just answer this stright question with a stright answer

Peter Thomas 17 June 2012 at 1:37 pm

Hey guys! The strangest thing just happened!

I was watching BBC1 on my old portable telly just now, whenall of a sudden, a holographic-3D Super-Hi-vision 8K-resolution logo for Transdiffusion 2042 appeared on screen!

Now normally I would be stunned at this physics-defying display of time-travelling televisual presentation, but I was quite interested in the programme I was watching, and foundthis transmission error to be most annoying.

Has anyone got the address for BBC1? I’m going to call the police on them. After some music.

Andrew Bowden 17 June 2012 at 2:23 pm

Wow Peter! What you want to do is upload that to YouTube in 30 years time!

David Hastings 17 June 2012 at 2:47 pm

In which case it’s now obvious that the static distortion and beeping sounds on this clip were generated by quantum interference caused by time travel-related space-time fluctuations:

It’s either that or sounding just like a continuity announcer on the toilet, on the phone and with a lorry reversing towards him. (That observation was made by someone else, just like these YouTube clips even if Mr. Williams still continues to deny this simple fact.)

Christopher Williams 17 June 2012 at 2:51 pm

I don’t steal, thank you. I refer you to the fair use policy, so you can either like it or lump it. Please stop using this site to question me as if I was in a police station, if you don’t like what I have said then tough luck to you all.

Russ J Graham 17 June 2012 at 3:01 pm

Since you don’t steal, you must have a plausible reason (ie not involving time travel) for the Transdiffusion animation made on 26 August 2011 appearing in a clip you posted of Channel 4 in 1982.

We’d all like to hear that reason. This question is not going away. Time to answer it.

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 3:06 pm

the thing is Chris you gone way beyond “fair use” also you dont give credit for videos and clips you use to make your mocks

and you was at the police station.. how long did they last before they laughed at you?

Phil 17 June 2012 at 3:12 pm

If you’re citing fair use then you must be conceding that you’ve used videos that aren’t original recordings you made. Which in turn means you’ve been spouting a pack of lies. I don’t know exactly what is wrong with your brain, C, but I hope you seek help for it. You seem to think reality will bend as long as you keep saying the same thing often enough.

And no one here is interrogating you as if you were in a polive station. Nothing is compelling you to stay and answer anything. In fact he only person referencing the police so far is you.

Peter Thomas 17 June 2012 at 3:36 pm


Christopher Williams thinks it is okay to use people’s videos without permission or attribution.

Christopher Williams thinks it is wrong to be asked questions about that kind of behaviour.

How does that make sense? It’s confused me.

I think Christopher Williams should really say sorry and begin to correctly label his uploads as ‘mocks’.

I also think he should admit that threatening to call the police is a stupid idea that just wastes police time.

Engleheart 17 June 2012 at 4:05 pm

Chris often gives his phone number out to people that question him so would he like to answer questions directly, radio interview style, to see whether he can clear this thing up? Transdiffusion editor, would you conduct an interview?

Russ J Graham 17 June 2012 at 4:14 pm

He has indeed provided me with his phone number. However, with his repeated threats to call the police and his continued complaints of “harassment” when asked simple questions, I’m not prepared to ring him and provide him with ammunition to misuse.

In this, as in so much else, he is his own worst enemy.

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 4:14 pm

lol yeah englehart if you wanna be on hold for 15mins with some music :-P

Peter Thomas 17 June 2012 at 4:27 pm

I know I shouldn’t be asking any more questions of Christopher Williams when the ‘2011 Transdiffusion logo appearing in a 1982 Channel Four recording’ issue has yet to be cleared up.

I am curious as to whether a similar time-travel wormhole plagued the Kent House transmission room in 1987, as LWT appears to have broadcast the Challenge channel logo as a DOG all over Bullseye in that video uploaded by cwilliams1976…

You also get the Challenge announcer saying “here on Challenge”, referring to the as-yet-uninvented National Lottery. So rips in the space-time continuum weren’t just confined to the basement of Charlotte Street.

Also, poor Kieran Prendeville and Fern Britton look incredibly skinny in that slide. Now, I visited the London Studios in 2007 and only received complimentary alcohol that evening in the canteen. Clearly those South Bank chefs have gotten away with a nutrition-free menu for decades. No wonder Ant and Dec always nip out for a Saturday night takeaway… I thang yew… I thang yew…

Testcard Paul 17 June 2012 at 4:33 pm

Surely all you have to do is record the interview ‘for training purposes’ although ofcourse it shouldn’t be repeated on the internet as said conversation should remain confidential

Chad Henshaw 17 June 2012 at 4:37 pm

We’re not questioning you as if you were in a police station. You are free to leave at any time.

But why not answer a simple question, eh?

Phil 17 June 2012 at 4:57 pm

Wait, he’s giving out his home phone number while accusing people on a website comment section he has no compulsion to visit of harassment?

I am at a loss.

Peter Thomas 17 June 2012 at 6:09 pm

Christopher Williams has made a comment here…

…falsely alleging that I campaign against disabled people.

Would Mr Williams put forward this idea to my disabled fiancee then? Or to Scope, whom I raised money for in an abseiling stunt?

He admits to abandoning his quest to report me to my webhosts. Good. That’s as daft as reporting Transdiffusion to the police.

Christopher Williams 17 June 2012 at 6:17 pm

Russ, I offered to give this to you in order for us to discuss things calmly and rationally without having to use here as a way to try to “embarass” me. If your behaviour continues then action will be taken as with regards your rather defamatory claims.

Peter Thomas, I am not being nasty but I suggest you need counselling over how you treat disabled people.

Phil, why are you at a loss and to what?

Stew Fisher 17 June 2012 at 6:47 pm

i saw the comment on Peter’s blog Chris you have hit a real low point there..

first of all you did accuse Peter of being agaist disabled people and when he quite well defended himself (kudos to you peter btw) you call its defmaorty actions..

what the hell is going on in that head of yours?!

Peter Thomas 17 June 2012 at 7:01 pm

Once again Christopher, I am not against disabled people. How can I be when I’m going to marry somone who is disabled?

A quick look at my twitter feed (@peteprodge) shows that I stick up for disability rights. My previous partner suffered from fibromyalgia and MS – truly devastating conditions for which there is little funding available. As I type this, my fiancee is in bed suffering from pain due to her disability.

If I wanted to harm disabled people, I would join the Conservative Party.

The fact of the matter is that nobody here is attacking your disability, they are actually attacking your arrogance, your ignorance, your deliberate falsehoods and your abuse of YouTube’s Community Guidelines.

When people are upset at your videos, they are upset because the material is misleading, not because of your disability.

Do you actually have any evidence of me supposedly instigating hatred against disabled people? If you can’t, it’s time to shut up and admit you’re in the wrong. As usual.

David Hastings 17 June 2012 at 7:13 pm


Nobody *cares* whay you look like or how many functioning limbs you have; for one thing I’ve never seen a picture of you. People are ‘caring’ because you are perhaps unintentionally upsetting a lot of people by your actions.

Myself and others both here and elsewhere have been treating you as a normal person that’s capable of rational thought and logic. Or aren’t disabled people actually capable of the functions of thought and logic?

Therefore do you actually think that disabled people can actually do what the hell they like, regardless of the consequences? Because that’s very scary place and it’s somewhere I have no intention of visiting.

What is *exactly* your point of view in relation to copying other people’s video clips with or without their permission?

Phil 17 June 2012 at 7:17 pm

I am at a loss as to how you can on the one hand complain about harassment and on the other give out your personal phone number to complete strangers. And why it is that you’re claiming harassment and defamation when you’re under no obligation to visit this website. At all. Ever.

Aidan Lunn 17 June 2012 at 8:38 pm

Cwilliams: “Peter Thomas, I am not being nasty but I suggest you need counselling over how you treat disabled people.”

What, like doing dangerous stunts to raise money for charities for the mentally and physically disabled?

Pull the other one, Chris. It’s got bells on it.

Russ J Graham 17 June 2012 at 9:16 pm

Pray do tell what this “action” you’ll take might be. I’m fascinated.

In the meantime, you must have a plausible reason (ie not involving time travel) for the Transdiffusion animation made on 26 August 2011 appearing in a clip you posted of Channel 4 in 1982. We’d all like to hear that reason. This question is not going away. Time to answer it.

Aidan Lunn 17 June 2012 at 10:01 pm

Chris, I’m going to be that kind of honest that is what is in everyone’s minds and will be no-holds-barred (you know, the thing that you’re incapable of doing).

I’m going to make this clear to you in very simple terms.

*NO-ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR DISABILITY.* Not because we’re heartless (we’re not), but because your disability is no excuse *what-so-ever* for your appalling behaviour towards everyone who doesn’t want your videos polluting YouTube and doesn’t want your ignorant piss spoiling the mountain water of accuracy of British television history.

Chad H 18 June 2012 at 2:19 am

Ooh Poor Chris, it hasn’t yet twigged with you that there is an easy way for this to go away.

Stop stalling, and answer the question. As soon as you admit that you’re making mock clips for your own (and potentially other peoples amusement), and admit that your clips are mocks, all of this goes away, the pressure to admit it disappears. Who knows, it might even rehabilitate your image and win you some fans.

But playing it this way just makes you look stupid and arrogant.

Russ J Graham 18 June 2012 at 6:58 am

As of this morning, Chris has marked the S4C clip as private on YouTube. Thank you Chris – nobody minds if you borrow other people’s clips when you keep them privately for yourself.

However, other examples exist – I’ve put another one into the article – and the 1982 Channel 4 clip that contained our branding (which dates from 26 August 2011) and was deleted then uploaded again with the branding crudely cut out is still there.

We’ve still not had a plausible answer to the question “how did the branding get into the clip in the first place?”

Testcard Paul 18 June 2012 at 8:30 am

The more I think about this the more I think social services should be the first port of call, and not the police.

I am quite sure Chris Williams of Stockport will be known to his local authority because he has a disability, so I assume he has a carer and/or a social worker assigned to him. Because he will be well known to them I don’t think you would need to know his address. Simply email the council to explain someone by the name of Chris Williams is breaking copyright law on a daily basis, and we will (if we have to) take legal action, but it would be much better if he could be persuaded to do what is required himself. The council have a duty to look after the needs of people like Chris, so if they were contacted I think they would have to do something about it. A onehour visit from a soial worker explaining he is breaking the law and MUST stop would probably be highly effective. As I’m not directly affected I won’t be doing this myself, but if you all emailed the local authority with your evidence they would have to do something, as they have a duty to look after him.

Engleheart 18 June 2012 at 9:29 am

There is an answer! If Mr C. Williams was to set his whole channel to private, he could upload his videos all day long and none of us would see any of the awful mocks any more. Everybody would be happy! Chris could pretend to be on TV as much as he likes and we’d all be off of his trail. Peace would ensue and the sun would break through the clouds! Why not try it, Willsy? It’s the solution that we could all live with.

Stew Fisher 18 June 2012 at 9:30 am

Russ i think its more the case he set it to pvt because he didnt want the masses reporting the video.

Ultermate LWT have now been made aware of the clips he has stolen from them as well

Christopher Williams 18 June 2012 at 10:03 am

Stew and Engleheart, I need to see actul proof that you have reported me.

Stew Fisher 18 June 2012 at 11:10 am

Engleheart I’ve asked him to set his vids to pvt before and all i got was..

“I have no intention of taking my videos off or removing my channel thank you. It is NOT your job to decide what happens to my channel OK. You need to either leave me alone and stop disliking all my videos or not subscribe and not watch them OK. I am warning you to stop making my life hell, especially on my birthday. You do not run YouTube nor do you think it is your right to try and kick me off. I have already reported you and if it continues I shall look into taking legal action against you. I have every right as much as everyone else to have a channel on YouTube and have every right to decide what goes on my channel which does not cause problems to others. There is no rule which says you must label them as mocks, which is a ridiculous rule to impose. If you cannot accept this then you have a really big problem. Get some help yourself.”

i just warn you.. thats the responce you might get off him!

Christopher Williams 18 June 2012 at 12:10 pm

Engleheart, really? In your dreams, pal.

Engleheart 18 June 2012 at 2:41 pm

If only all continuity announcers were this erudite!

Dave Jeffery 18 June 2012 at 3:40 pm

In March 2010 I received three e-mails from separate people asking me to label my mocks on YouTube as being mocks, explaining that some of my work was coming up in response to searches by people looking for genuine material.

From then on I did so and I never heard anything from anyone else on the subject ever again.

I didn’t view the matter as a question of me “having to” do anything, simply as a case of my wanting to be good mannered and considerate to other people.

Engleheart 18 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

OK, “pal”, I tried to be reasonable with you but you are rude and arrogant. I don’t have to prove to you that I have reported you but let me tell you this, I have reported you to many different ITV companies and their copyright holders. Since you will not listen to people’s advice and you will not explain yourself at all, I shall carry on reporting you. I shall go to every company that I can think of and I shall flag every last one of your videos. You will have to face losing your channel because once the copyright holders come down on your head like a ton of bricks, you will lose! You can’t be reasoned with so, prepare for action.

Engleheart 18 June 2012 at 6:30 pm

I think TestCard Paul has an interesting idea there. CW76 actually lives in Crawley so if anybody was to contact social services, it would have to be in the Crawley area. I think it would be a very sad step to take and I don’t intend to do so myself but if anybody does know how to approach these people, it might be beneficial for everybody.

Christopher Williams 18 June 2012 at 7:52 pm

Engleheart, please stop stalking me. It is not your job to do anything about me OK. I will be reportig you to the police for your bullying. I am not under social services so you are wasting your time thinking you have a duty to do these things. Please stop treating me this way. You are a stalker and a bully and I don’t like this ganging up. It is a very dangerous game you are playing here.

Russ J Graham 18 June 2012 at 8:01 pm

You continue to make implausible threats that you don’t carry through, Chris. The well-documented “chilling effect” is real, but it’s not working here.

Instead of making ludicrous threats, perhaps you can comment on this. You must have a plausible reason (ie not involving time travel) for the Transdiffusion animation made on 26 August 2011 appearing in a clip you posted of Channel 4 in 1982. We’d all like to hear that reason. This question is not going away. Time to answer it.

Engleheart 18 June 2012 at 8:11 pm

Stalking you? Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve tried suggesting ways to help you but you are just being aggressive and dare I say, rather paranoid? I have every right to report your videos which break the terms that you legally agreed to when you signed up to YouTube. You break the rules, you pay the price. Simple, isn’t it? So, how did the Transdiffusion logo get into your video? You know the answer but refuse to admit it.

Russ J Graham 18 June 2012 at 8:19 pm

This is what it’s all coming down to, Chris. This whole thread would disappear if you would answer the following question truthfully:

How did the Transdiffusion symbol get into the video you uploaded, deleted and reuploaded with it crudely cut out?

Until you answer that, people are going to keep commenting here. People are going to keep commenting on your videos. People are going to keep marking your videos as “thumbs down”. People are going to keep reporting you to YouTube. People are going to keep reporting you to the broadcasters. People are going to keep making parody videos about you. People are going to keep making websites about you.

If you made a start on the right road by retracting your previous obvious lie and answering truthfully, this will all start to go away. Up to you.

Phil 18 June 2012 at 8:21 pm

I’m curious Chris – is the phrase “it is not your job to…” something that you’ve had said to you a lot in the past? It seems to come up very regularly in any comments or posts you make anywhere.

No one thinks this is their job. No one thinks this is their responsibility. A number of people find what you are doing with content provided by others to be objectionable. They have tried asking you to label things differently. They have tried reasoning with you. They have tried cajoling you. Now they are reporting your misuse of trademarks and copyrighted to their owners. This is not bullying, regardless of whether or not you like it.

You’ve basically admitted to taking and using the clip that Russ has repeatedly asked you about by citing fair use (though if you were really bothered about fair use you would at least have attributed it rather than asking us to “trust” that the Doctor had for some reason stolen the Transdiffusion animation and taken it back in time 30 years to leave lying around for an engineer to inexplicably place into a live broadcast), so why not just admit you took it and used it?

And in what way is repeatedly asking you to justify your actions (which have irritated and inconvienced many people) bullying? What “dangerous game” are we playing, Chris? Your implied threat there is entirely unwarranted.

Phil 18 June 2012 at 9:32 pm

I know I’ve commented a lot, but I just wanted to add this:

I’ve just gone and read the article about the Central idents, and the logos and the voice of the announcer brought back a SHEDLOAD of memories from my childhood and made me feel all warm and fuzzy. As well as researchers, there’s also people like me that want to see this stuff as we remember it from when we were younger.

The 1600 videos you have on YouTube, Chris, make this bordering on impossible to do. I’m sure that’s not your intent, as some element of the history of broadcasting means something to you – so why would you make it more difficult for other people who just want to look at actual clips of TV they remember?

Stew Fisher 18 June 2012 at 10:54 pm

Chris i want to point out

its not a right to have a youtube account is a prilvage.. and a prvilage you are abusing with your breaking of rules

and stop with the idle treats about going to the police.. because it is actually against the law to waste police time

Christopher Williams 18 June 2012 at 11:58 pm

Stew, Shut up or grow up

Phil, no I am not so stop misunderstanding me

Engleheart, you honestly don’t know what you are talking about

Russ, I think you should close your site down

StarpoemswithMichaelFish 19 June 2012 at 1:14 am

If you’re looking for genuine continuity clips on YT, first put what looking you’re looking for in the search box then put -cwilliams1976. NONE of his vids will come up in your search!

Christopher Williams 19 June 2012 at 7:12 am

Testcard Paul, I do not think that contacting Crawley Social Services is not anyone’s duty here as I have a legal right to cancel services if I do not feel that they can offer a service which is adequate enough. I can manage my own affairs and wioth all due respect I do not need you or anyone on here to interfere with any aspect of my life thank you. I would like to kindly ask you to please stop interfering in my personal affairs. Failure on any of you to do this and I shall refer my advocate onto you. NOW BACK OFF.

Russ J Graham 19 June 2012 at 7:28 am

This isn’t about any of the rest of us, Chris. It’s all about you. This isn’t going away – this subject will not be dropped.

But you have the power to make people drop this subject and move on. All you need to do is answer this question:

You uploaded at video that had the Transdiffusion logo in the middle of it. You deleted that video. You reuploaded it here with the logo crudely cut out.

How did it get there in the first place?

Russ J Graham 19 June 2012 at 7:30 am

Chris, please show this article and the entire comment thread to your advocate as soon as possible.

Stew Fisher 19 June 2012 at 7:38 am

StarpoemswithMichaelFish as i keep on saying to people that only works if you putting it in a search it doesnt work when you have related videos.. he will still turn up

Chris that is rather amusing you are telling me to “grow up” when it is you that is trowing your toys out of the pram because your pretty much backed into a corner.. going “no fair im tellling” like some child. Russ has asked you a qustion coutless times which needs a clear answser which you seem to refuse to give… why is that are you scared of reality or something

Peter Thomas 19 June 2012 at 7:44 am

Christopher, we’ve picked a date. It’s Sunday 1st July.

On that date, many people following the Sitting SlackJawed At The Videos Of CWilliams1976 Facebook page and blog will be reporting your misleading uploads to YouTube.

There is nothing illegal about this. There is no need to call the police because reporting misleading video titles is not breaking the law. (Although copyright infringement is, and all your videos breach copyright, so if you draw the police’s attention to this, you’ll be a) wasting police time with an invalid complaint and b) possibly investigated for your breaches of copyright.)

Also, this is not bullying. YouTube users have a right to help clear up the service, and that does mean reporting people who break YouTube’s rules (ie: you). As you are a rule-breaker who has spoiled people’s enjoyment of vintage UK television on YouTube and you have frequently resisted calls for you to take down your offending videos (made with footage and music you have copied without permission or attribution), I say you are the bully.

You have tried to look up my personal details and tried to get my internet services cut off (failed on both counts). You repeatedly lied against Transdiffusion. You’re causing the problems. Not us. Time to take action against you.

Phil 19 June 2012 at 7:45 am

This is the problem Chris, you don’t actually respond to anyone. How am I misunderstanding you? Your 1600 videos make it incredibly difficult to find things because you insist on tagging them as being real continuity.

Again, why do you keep talking about people’s rights and duties? No one here is claiming to have any rights or duties. Some of us feel we have responsibilities, that’s all.

StarpoemswithMichaelFish, thanks for that, helps me out a ton – although worth noting that you first have to know that Chris exists in order to exclude him from your search results. Fine for me but for people newly interested in looking into TV history, not so great.

Christopher Williams 19 June 2012 at 7:53 am

Russ, I don’t need someone who can’t run a proper company which doesn’t have a telephone number attached to what appears to be a “PO” Box address assigned to their rather suspicious company to give me orders. I am going to report you all to Trading Standards as I don’t think you are a real company, just a couple of people who are here to gang up on me with a load of other YouTube users trying to make me look bad and also trying to cause trouble, that’s all. UNNECESSARY TROUBLE. Now push off or I shall have your entire website pulled by tucows.

john wright 19 June 2012 at 8:47 am

be careful guys this comes under the definition of Cyber Bullying

Russ J Graham 19 June 2012 at 9:02 am

Chris, what gave you the impression that Transdiffusion is a company? We’re not selling anything, we’re not buying anything, we’re not trading anything. We use a PO Box address for convenience (totally legal) hosted by the also totally legal British Monomarks who have been in operation since 1925. We have no telephone number because we’ve never had a reason for any of the 100 or so volunteers who contribute to the site to need to take phone calls.

I’ll simply ignore the latest stream of threats from you (trading standards? tucows??) and tell you again: all of this can be made to go away, by you, right now, by answering this question.

You uploaded a video that had the Transdiffusion logo in the middle of it. You deleted that video. You reuploaded it here with the logo crudely cut out.

How did it get there in the first place?

Testcard Paul 19 June 2012 at 9:17 am

Christopher- The more I learn about you the more I feel you have convinced yourself your recreations ARE genuine.

As you will gather from my user name I have a fondness for the old days of the test card. I have all the test card music I want, so I have no need to actively seek it out on the internet, but about a year ago I stumbled upon one of your 10 minute downloads of BBC test card music. The tape in question was Devil May Care, and guess what? Apart from the not great quality, for some reason you had omitted the second track (presumably because you didn’t like it?) and mixed up the titles of what you did include. This was pointed out to you by a poster. In one sense it doesn’t bother me that much, other than the one thing you ought to be good at (downloading 10 minutes of library music) and you can’t even do that without making changes to ‘improve it’ At the time I didn’t know about you, so I assumed it was an honest error on your part, but it seems you have to leave ‘your mark’ on everything by altering it. In 100 years time people will have no way of knowing you altered things, they will assume it’s correct.

Engleheart 19 June 2012 at 9:33 am

Mr CW76, your aggressive attitude wins you no friends. You are an incredible bully but one with absolutely no power whatsoever. Do you know why you have no power whatsoever? Put simply, you are entirely in the wrong and you are desperately fighting the most obviously losing battle since Germany tried to invade Russia. You threaten people with police action, you threaten people with reporting them to their server hosts but it’s just so…….futile. There is nothing that you can do now other than to admit that you are wrong and then try to sort out the mess that you have created. How many people can you think of that inspire a day of action to get them removed from YouTube? I can think of no others. Only you, Willsy…only you. And so, we shall report every last one of your videos from the first until the last. Each and every single last one. And then we shall report you to ITV, C4, S4C and anybody else that we can think of and we WILL have you removed. Unless, YOU sort this nonsense out, once and for all. Save yourself the heartache and start tidying things up.

Stew Fisher 19 June 2012 at 9:47 am

i think Mr Williams has been playing with WHOIS again and trying to threaten people with it.. hmm would i be next will he report me to 1and1 for my website which is pretty much a personal website. because we are exposing him for what he is… nothing more then a child.

the only help you should be seeking is professional help. if you did go to the police Chris a few of us could do the same about you about the lewd and somewhat dirty comments you have posted to me and to others in the past. which btw i still have screenshots of. so i wouldnt go down that road if i was you esp when you have no legal grounds to report us.. esp for something that is cival not crimmal. so stop the childish threats and answer the questions in a adult fassion.. and explain why you steel clips from people.

Peter Thomas 19 June 2012 at 10:02 am

Christopher Williams thinks Transdiffusion is a company!? Oh dear. Transdiffusion has never been a company, what gave him that idea?

Tucows are only responsible for the domain name, they have no responsibility for the content produced on the domain. Yet again Christopher, you are threatening to send a report to entirely the wrong place.


1) You have been wrong about YouTube rules.

2) You have been wrong about the so-called “transmission error” from Channel Four in 1982.

3) You have been wrong about Bluehost and what I write on the internet.

4) You have been wrong about your threats to report online criticism to the police.

5) You have been wrong about me supposedly being against disabled people.

6) You have been wrong in every accusation of “bullying”.

I’m struggling to think of something you are actually right about. I just can’t. You are consistently wrong in every message you write here. Why should we believe anything more you say?

Peter Thomas 19 June 2012 at 10:10 am

By the way Christopher, although you want to report Transdiffusion to get them taken off the internet, I’ve already said Tucows is the wrong place because they just look after the domain name, you might have better luck with the web hosters.

The web hosters are an outfit called Astrohosts. They are run by a TV presentation enthusiast called Darren Meldrum.

Talk to them, and if Transdiffusion are breaking their rules, then they will pull Transdiffusion down.

But don’t count on it because you’re doing something on your own personal website that acts against Darren Meldrum.

I’m talking about this page:

You are using images hotlinked from Darren Meldrum’s own website. I don’t think you got permission to do that. Your site looks like it’s intended to use up his bandwidth.

It’s not just Darren Meldrum’s site that you’re abusing. Andrew Wiseman’s 625 Television Room images are cited in your HTML, as are ones from TV Ark.

Would you like me to inform them as to what you are doing? I don’t think they would be very pleased.

You seem to talk so much about reporting people and their wesbites, so I think it’s only fair I report you and your website. How does that feel?

CWilliams1983 19 June 2012 at 11:10 am

Hi Chris!

From one Chris Williams to another, let me say that if I were not a well-balanced man I’d feel pretty shitty to see so many people taking a large dump on someone with my name (You sure you didn’t steal that too? j/k)…but let’s face it, you deserve it. And, if we’re honest, the criticism you’re getting is pretty justified considering your videos.

I haven’t seen them all, but from I have seen they DO NOT live up to the description in the title. Correcting this mistake is not impossible. It’s simple historian etiquette:

If you steal/borrow/sample, credit the original source when people watch your video.

If you alter the original, tell the people watching your video what you’ve one.

If it’s not 100% legitimate, then say so!

Whether you’re a liar, delusional or just simply incapable of understanding the difference between reality and the videos you create, the fact remains that your videos are not what you say they are.

Engleheart 19 June 2012 at 12:31 pm


I get it. Asperger syndrome! Just a quick look at Google determined that’s your problem. Well, I’m sorry to hear that you have that disability

but does it really mean that you have to be quite so unpleasant to people? Just take a deep breath and try to be nice to those of us that seek answers to questions. You are not the only one with Asperger syndrome and it’s not the worst thing in the world. Don’t be defined by a diagnosis, be defined as a real and good person!

Peter Thomas 19 June 2012 at 12:58 pm

A large amount of people into television presentation have Asperger’s Syndrome. I’ve seen it first hand at forum meet-ups.

Nothing wrong about that.

There is something wrong about deliberately misleading people, copying videos without any attribution/permission and breaking website rules.

You can’t blame those things on Asperger’s Syndrome or anything else on the autistic spectrum.

Whether you’re able-bodied or disabled, male or female, straight or gay, white or black, you can’t go abusing people on the internet with false threats and accusations, nor can you just go copying their material and expect not to be reported for it.

Sunday 1st July is coming and that’s the day I tell 49 people to start reporting as many misleading video titles on YouTube as they can. This can lead to cwilliams1976 losing all his videos and his channel.

He can stop it if he just labels his uploads correctly as “mock”.

He may say it’s a “stupid rule”, but it’s outlined in YouTube’s community guidelines.

He may say YouTube don’t have that rule, but it’s still covered in the YouTube community guideline that prohibits video titles to be misleading.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but Christopher Williams, you are in the wrong and you do have the chance to correct things. If you don’t, you stand to lose your YouTube channel. We are the ones giving you a chance to make amends. If we were unkind, you wouldn’t have that chance. Make use of it.

Ben 19 June 2012 at 1:29 pm

Just wanted to agree with my friend Phil’s comment about the whole point of archive TV on the internet being to take you back to a previous time. Not only does it make the memories flood back but its a social document of that exact moment in time. People are not wrong for wanting to be able to enjoy these without tripping up over your mocks.

I was genuinely expecting to see your name when the Fringe brochure came the other day as this smacks horribly of some tiresome internet stunt. Whether you’re an escaped Comedy Lab experiment or a real human being, you have been an incredibly rude individual regardless of any medical condition. You wont accept that but its true nonetheless.

Recently I made a series of audio mixes of music, news, film and continuity from various different years and the job was made so much harder having to weed out things that look like real clips. Thankfully your name seems to be infamous now that no-one will rest on one of your videos for longer than the time it takes to say “oh for fuc-”

Anon 19 June 2012 at 1:52 pm

Digging around I came across this site which appears to be by CWilliams.

I’m afraid if they are one and the same (which given the birth date they almost certainly are) then everyone may be banging their heads against a brick wall.

He almost certainly has learning difficulties and therefore probably can’t understand what he is doing wrong.

There’s more chance if him getting bored than giving up of his own free will.

Testcard Paul 19 June 2012 at 2:00 pm

This isn’t as straightforward as aspergers, because a couple of days ago Big A asked cwilliams1976 if the announcer in these clips is genuine, to which the reply was ‘Andy, Yes he is’ so in his own mind he cannot differentiate between real life and fiction. Therefore it ia a bit pointless trying to reason with him. A question that has been repeatedly asked will go unanswered because he has no answer (as in he can’t understand the question in his head, because his mind doesn’t understand what is and isn’t real). On that basis, there isn’t much point even attempting to reason with him.

Rob Francis 19 June 2012 at 2:10 pm

Engleheart, you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth.

Chris, I understand you have a disability, and I respect that greatly, as my uncle is registered blind and deaf, and I am friends with a person who has MS. That said, I always thought you came across as a polite individual, and the fact you post these videos is a hobby that you enjoy greatly. The last thing I want to do is offend a disabled person, but your attitude to the whole situation hasn’t exactly been good.

Please see sense Chris, think about what’s been said here, no-one is trying to mock you for your disability, we’re just trying to help you in the right direction.

Thank you.

David Hastings 19 June 2012 at 3:27 pm

Testcard Paul:

“a couple of days ago Big A asked cwilliams1976 if the announcer in these clips is genuine, to which the reply was ‘Andy, Yes he is’ so in his own mind he cannot differentiate between real life and fiction.”

Mr. Williams may have just misunderstood the question in that it’s a human being that’s doing the announcements. However it isn’t someone actually employed to broadcast on BBC, ITV, Channel 4, etc., so the announcer isn’t “genuine” in that respect.

Having said that, misunderstanding the question is perhaps the only logical explanation I can think of why Mr. Williams keeps replying to people here but still seems unable to answer any question(s) put to him for whatever reason(s).

I really want Christopher Williams (1976) to speak for himself as opposed to letting answers be ‘suggested’ to him by others! So how about it?

Chad H 19 June 2012 at 4:10 pm

Oh Chris, I can assure you that you don’t need anyones help to look bad, you’re managing that fine on your own.

More than happy for you to sick your advocate on us. Might be able to get some sense into you about misrepresenting your videos.

KeithM 19 June 2012 at 6:30 pm

Reading his biog on that site does go some way to explain why he is the way he is. Whilst I agree with the comments in the main blog I am also getting slightly disturbed that the comments are getting nasty and I am concerned about what consequenses it may have.

So I’m out of here…


Philip 19 June 2012 at 7:16 pm

Yes I’d like to retract my previous comment after also reading that page.

Christopher Williams 19 June 2012 at 8:42 pm

I was not out to destroy ITV, Channel 4, S4C or Channel 5 but to show how ITV would be like if it used the BBC’s continuity methods.

Russ J Graham 19 June 2012 at 9:43 pm

So you’ll be clearly marking your videos as such in future?

Christopher Williams 19 June 2012 at 9:49 pm

No suitable format can be found

Russ J Graham 19 June 2012 at 10:11 pm

How about using the format everyone else uses? Just putting “mock” somewhere in the title would cover it. “S4C interval into Newyddion mock” or, better, “[Mock] S4C interval into Newyddion”, for instance. Everyone who views your channel knows what is meant by the word ‘mock’ in this context.

Engleheart 19 June 2012 at 10:18 pm

Well, how about labelling them as “re-imaginings” or “C Williams world presents.. ?” Just to clear up the confusion with genuine vintage TV clips? Otherwise, we are still no closer to resolving this mess.

Some Guy 19 June 2012 at 10:19 pm

I’d say “[mockup]” would be better; perhaps “mock” suggests the other meaning, i.e. an invite to joke.

Christopher Williams 19 June 2012 at 10:35 pm

I don’t think that would suit, how about alternative announcement?

Paul 19 June 2012 at 11:18 pm

Since I posted a very early response to this blog, there’ve been more than 200 comments. And we have made no progress. At all. On either side.

So, if I may make one more contribution…


I, like a lot of people on this page, have come across your videos on YouTube and been annoyed. Not by the content of the video, but by the way you label them.

The sad thing is that everyone on here shares a common interest – we ought to get along well.

I can’t imagine the last week has been very nice for you – but I’m afraid in part that’s down to the way you’ve acted.

I really do think if you changed the descriptions on your videos to flag them up as mocks, a lot of this trouble would go away.


The rest of us,

I can’t be the only one who, since the weekend, has been feeling increasingly uncomfortable at the tone of this discussion.

By around the hundredth message, I’d say this thread had shifted from an expression of anger into a form of cyber-bullying.

The anger may be justified, but I certainly can’t justify the sustained ferocity of its expression.

We are, let’s remember, discussing videos of continuity announcements, not funding for cancer care or the global economic crisis.

And yet this discussion has included apparently serious suggestions of reporting individuals to social services.

While I still think the original point, the danger of merging fact and fiction, is valid, after 200+ responses I think it’s safe to say that point has been made.

I suspect this discussion will continue for some time, but I no longer wish to be part of it.

Up Sett 19 June 2012 at 11:57 pm

CWilliams1976 – please and I am asking nicely to label your creations as mocks. As for the stealing of one of Transdiffusion’s clips – that is not right and is very wrong you could lose your internet over many copyright infringements which do not belong to you.

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 7:03 am

What type of “alternate announcement” do you mean, Chris?

Because people are finding your videos by using YouTube’s search facility, an announcement that your videos are presenting an idealised view of how television should be would need to be in text format as well.

The best place for this is in the title of each video, perhaps by starting each title with [reimagining], [mock], [mockup], or [simulation]. Any of those would tell visitors immediately what they’re about to see. You could also put a statement in the “About Terrestrial Television” section of your YouTube channel. Something like “Simulations of what ITV, Channel 4 and S4C would look like if they used BBC practices of the 1960s and 70s”.

How does that sound to you, Chris?

Testcard Paul 20 June 2012 at 7:49 am

I’m sorry if anything I have posted has been misunderstood. I can assure you my comment about social services was meant to be genuinly helpful and not a threat. As I have also said in the real world I know someone a bit like Chris so I am by no means unsympathetic to his circumstances.

Chris- The suggestion by Russ at 7.03 this morning seems to be an excellent solution that can end this all. The reason some of us have been getting so annoyed on here is your seeming inability to understand what you are doing wrong, and what you need to do to put it right. It’s not as if people are even insisting on you removing it all- just making things clearer.

Anyway, I certainly don’t want to make you unhappy- but that works both ways doesn’t it, because you are making people unhappy at the moment. If you can do what is asked of you then you will find people will have a great deal of repect for you, because clearly it’s something you don’t want to do.

Anyway, take care of yourself- It looks like it’s going to be a bright sunny day today!

CWilliams1983 20 June 2012 at 8:02 am

Hi Chris,

Russ J Graham seems to have collected the best ideas together for what you should label your videos as, but I have a further suggestion: ‘What if…?’

e.g. “What if S4C used BBC continuity methods?”, “What if Channel 4 and ITV’s cross-advertising was more integrated?”. As I’m sure you’re now aware, nobody minds HOW you label them along as unaware people know that what they see is not as it was transmitted. I make mocks myself, so I know it’s important to make sure that people are aware of what they’re seeing (OK, mine are just mock logos for lost ITV regions but the principle is the same). Also, if you credit where you’ve taken the video footage from then people would have a lot more respect for you.

Take it easy, but take it seriously dude. We all love the TV from yesteryear.

Peter Thomas 20 June 2012 at 9:40 am

If Christopher Williams would change the titles of his uploads to ACCURATELY depict that they are some kind of “what if?” scenario, like…

* mock

* mock-up

* alternative announcement

* what if?

…then I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Can you, Christopher, get your videos renamed in that manner?

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 9:53 am

Engleheart, just to let you know that I have spoken to Sara Jenkins at S4C this morning and she is now saying that I don’t need to be too concerned apparently.

Engleheart 20 June 2012 at 9:56 am

Just a quick point, the BBC never played 15 minutes of music between programmes either so it’s still inaccurate to suggest that it’s ITV adopting a BBC style of continuity. Unless it’s clearly labeled as a mock, it will continue to muddy the waters, so to speak.

Engleheart 20 June 2012 at 10:03 am

I actually believe that we are close to a solution! I’m glad she said that you’ve not much to worry about. Let’s get this thing fixed and we can all have a group hug and watch a couple of Test Cards or something.

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 10:27 am

Russ, have you had a look at my front page on YouTube?

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 10:31 am

I received the following from Tom Edwards:

I agree with you 100% Sean and C Williams if you get to read this why try to destroy what is technically not your property and to spoil people’s enjoyment of seeing and hearing television presentation as it once was..not how you would like it. Transdiffusion have done an incredible job with help from many other “genuine” people. I suggest you stop it now before you destroy anymore “authentic” footage.

Anyone watching or listening to your mundane inane contributions (if indeed that is the right word) will realise in an instant it’s all a fake. Please’s not a case of “could have” but a case of how it was..all of which is well preserved by my friends on this are ruining it all for everybody and as far as I am concerned I will not comment on your activities any further..end of.

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 10:44 am

Chris, that’s great!

Now you need to decide on how to label each individual video. There have been several suggestions here – do you have a favourite? Would you like help choosing a word to put at the front of each title?

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 11:26 am

Russ, please ring me and we shall have a discussion on it.


Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 11:54 am

I’m unhappy with the idea of having a telephone conversation, Chis, because it would be open to accidental misrepresentation and misinterpretation by both parties later. Also, I’d prefer a situation where your advocate can see both sides of any conversation later.

If you’d like to email me, that would be okay.

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 2:53 pm

The reason why I want you to ring me is because then I know that genuinely it is you I am speaking to so then we can sort this out, but if we e-mail then I would feel I would be talking to anybody. If I hear your voice then I would feel comfortable in knowing that it would be you I am genuinely speaking to.

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 3:36 pm

We’ve never met, Chris, so you wouldn’t know who you were talking to anyway.

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 3:52 pm

Are you who you really say you are?

Andrew Bowden 20 June 2012 at 4:00 pm

He is. I’ve seen him in real life.

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 4:02 pm

Yes. You can tell because my posts here get a red “pin” in the top left (meaning “trusted user”, ie an administrator of the Content Management System we use) when everyone else gets a paperclip or a piece of sellotape.

You can email me by clicking the “Contact me” link next to my picture at the top of this article and filling out the form that appears, or use the slower method of contacting editors [at] transdiffusion [dot] org and someone will forward the email to me.

Stew Fisher 20 June 2012 at 9:45 pm

i dont belive it hes taken the description back off again and made 3 new vids without [mock] or anything like it on the title

Engleheart 20 June 2012 at 10:26 pm

Oh, come on, Christopher! Play fair! Instead of trying to make things better, you’re going back to your old tricks. Why? I thought that we’d made a break through but you are just going to carry on with the same behaviour that started this whole thing off. Please don’t try to make fools of us. Let’s get this sorted.

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 10:39 pm

Chris, you’ve removed the really useful statement you made on your “About Terrestrial Television” section on YouTube. This is disappointing. I thought we were getting somewhere, you and I, but you’ve backed off from the simple way of ending this impasse.

So we’re back to where this started, me asking a question, you ignoring it and the subject not going away: You uploaded a video that had the Transdiffusion logo in the middle of it. You deleted that video. You reuploaded it here with the logo crudely cut out.

How did it get there in the first place?

Russ J Graham 20 June 2012 at 10:47 pm

Chris, would it help your confidence to know that I’m gay? There are plenty of ways of confirming this, my Civil Partnership notwithstanding, perhaps starting with my About.Me profile and moving on from there?

Basically I’m playing the “gay brotherhood” card here in an attempt to keep you talking with me. We were so close to avoiding the “day of action” that others were planning and finding a way to prevent future misunderstandings – please don’t let this chance fall.

Ask your advocate’s opinion on what you should do, please.

Christopher Williams 20 June 2012 at 11:35 pm

Russ, do you have any nude pics of yourself?

Engleheart 21 June 2012 at 7:51 am


Rob Francis 21 June 2012 at 7:55 am

That’s a disgraceful question to ask Chris. Absolutely disgusting.

Christopher Williams 21 June 2012 at 8:24 am

It may well be Engleheart and Rob, but it was a private message to Russ because he was the one who mentioned his sexuality in his last message. I had to play along with Russ’ wishes…

Phil 21 June 2012 at 9:07 am

Oh dear.

Russ J Graham 21 June 2012 at 9:20 am

Chris, has anyone ever explained to you how private messages work vs public posts to a website with a quarter of a million visitors a week?

Russ J Graham 21 June 2012 at 9:22 am

Since this conversation has sadly got crude, perhaps we should get back to the crux of the issue, a question that is not going away.

You uploaded a video that had the Transdiffusion logo in the middle of it. You deleted that video. You reuploaded it here with the logo crudely cut out. How did it get there in the first place?

Stew Fisher 21 June 2012 at 9:24 am

uh yeah right chris does that mean that every straight male goes and posts on here “get your tits out” to every female?!

even if that was a pvt message to Russ.. that os a very disgusting thing to ask. and im actually suprised that the post got approved in the first place *looks at thea admin team*

Big Dan 21 June 2012 at 9:24 am

Christopher, stop. Just stop. You’ve dug a hole large enough to fall into and not have a chance of getting out.

Russ J Graham 21 June 2012 at 9:44 am

This thread has been very heavily moderated, but just occasionally there’s a post that is so jawdropping as to have to be published despite our policies.

Phil 21 June 2012 at 10:08 am

I was hoping that it was someone posting as Chris as some sort of joke, but that follow up comment seems unlikely to be. How tremendously disappointing that a thread that was starting to descend into name calling and pointing was rising up out of it to some sort of solution that worked for everyone has now turned into this.

Terrible behaviour on your part Chris, there was absolutely nothing in Russ’ posts to warrant that.

Engleheart 21 June 2012 at 10:09 am

I really hope that we haven’t gone all the way back to square one but by the look of things, we have! More mocks posted, the channel description taken down, THAT question still not answered and now, the slightly disquieting posting to Russ. This has been a long and bizarre journey so far. I’m going for a lay down in a quiet room.

Leigh Hamilton 21 June 2012 at 11:43 am

He only wants nude pictures so that Channel 4 can accidentally broadcast them in 1982.

Ben 21 June 2012 at 11:51 am

If this really does end up being a joke character then I genuinely pity the person who thought “quiet people who like watching archive telly on YouTube” were the GRR GRR NEXT THATCHER.

E4 commission x6!

Russ J Graham 21 June 2012 at 11:56 am

Since we’ve come round in a full circle and the thread has devolved into Mr Williams making inappropriate sexual suggestions, I’m drawing the line here. The thread is over, but the attempt to get him to listen won’t stop.

Comments are now closed.

Comments are closed.

A member of the Transdiffusion Broadcasting System
Liverpool, Sunday 29 January 2023