Opinion: Stef Coburn and Why He Should Be Left Alone

I will freely admit that Stef Coburn offends me. But not for his lawsuit.

As a man who has worked for some years in religious cohesion, I find his views repugnant. In proclaiming that he wishes churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions burned to the ground his views on religion crosses the boundaries from fair and decent comment from an atheist position into the realms of open hatred. Given his relationship with his father, a devout Catholic, this might not be surprising and this is the perspective upon which I place his views on Doctor Who.

We love this show with a passion. It being taken away from us in 1989 and then returned in 2005 gives us a sense that we must protect it at all costs, some fans being very vocal in their views against anyone who would be seen as a threat to that survival or the good name of Doctor Who. That is understandable but as far as his opinions on the show are concerned, he is entitled to hold those views. Do we really care if he doesn’t like the show? Many people don’t. I would rather concentrate on those with something positive or constructive to say beyond comparisons to Star Trek, a show that for all it’s pretensions of liberalism is mired in imperialist philosophy.

I agree with Stef that his father deserves recognition for the role he played in the formative year of the show and that his omission from An Adventure in Space and Time is a crying shame, as is that of David Whitaker. From all that Stef has said surrounding the behind the scenes situation between his father and Verity Lambert in particular, it would have been a fascinating addition to the drama. Yet the show is 90 minutes long and covers the entirety of the William Hartnell era, from it’s very formation to Bill leaving the show after The Tenth Planet. It is not a documentary, it is designed for a mass market and popular audience. Just as with 2008′s Curse of Steptoe, which incorrectly portrayed the relationship between Harry H. Corbett and Wilfred Brambell, dramatic license was always going to have been taken.

Does Mark Gatiss have the right to play fast and loose with the facts? Of course he does. Mark Gatiss is not a historian, he is a writer, the very real people are his characters, the very real situations is his drama. The problem with dramas of this nature, as with the Steptoe one, is that the subject matter is within living memory for those who were there and their relatives and the threat of the fiction becoming public perception. You can’t please all of the people all of the time however, nor often tell a compelling narrative on the facts alone. I’m sure, as a devotee of the classic series, the omissions Gatiss had to make were a wound to him as a fan and had he been allowed a four hour epic he would both delivered and revelled in every second.

None of us are truly privy to the basis for Stef Coburn’s action against the BBC beyond what is known publicly, despite what we perceive at the layman level, the issue may be more complex than we know and under the law, he may have a legitimate claim. Coburn appears to be an intelligent man and his action may not be as frivolous as it seems, his claims however will be assessed not in a public forum but by the due process of the law.

Whether Stef wishes to honour his father, I truly don’t know, his statements contradict one another. Yet it is a shame that in this anniversary year the name of his father is being tarnished and involved primarily with his sons actions when it should be afforded a place of honour alongside the likes of Sydney Newman and Donald Wilson. Stef has a wealth of knowledge and documentation surrounding Anthony and it is another shame that he has not used this for a more productive and celebratory work than what has transpired, something that could have truly been memorable and insightful in this anniversary year.

However, no matter what one thinks of Stef Coburn, it is not right that the man be subjected to the abuse he has been since the story of his legal action broke. Given his upbringing and constant Tweets to the likes of David Icke and Jonathan Ross expressing a desire to speak with them, not to mention his public airing of very personal issues, it could be suggested this is a man that craves attention. It should be denied. But more than that, is it right for any of us to abuse a man simply because he doesn’t like our show and is taking an action that he believes is right? Are we really so sensitive and insecure as a fandom? 

Doctor Who is 50 years old, think about that. We have survived cancellation, false starts, some pretty abysmal writing and low ratings and yet this wonderfully resilient show is still here. No matter what any one individual may believe or try and do, Doctor Who will be here tomorrow and it will still be around in another 50 years, that mad man will still be in his box. It stands as testament against everything Coburn claims about the show’s failings. That is our answer to the man, not playground insults. We’re better than that and so is Doctor Who.

Comments

Don't forget to visit our forums to discuss this story and many more! A friendly, open and free thinking forum for all Doctor Who fans.

All opinion pieces and reviews published on this website are the personal opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of this website as a whole.

Any articles based on rumours will come from a variety of sources and may be true, true in part or completely false, they should not be repeated as fact nor taken as anything other than the rumours they are until there is confirmation from official sources.