[TV] Anyone watching that jeremy Thorpe drama

[The Birdman]

He had already been tried, found guilty, been to prison and then sold his story to the press, which resulted in the Thorpe trial. I think that's correct anyway

They found again if that's true could reopen the case.
They mentioned that fat Bastaxxx Cyril Smith tonight

 

[marlowe]

I thought it was both excellently written and acted. It was never meant to be a faithful re-enactment of all the events and circumstances as that would be impossible as only the people in question know all of the details of the circumstances surrounding the case. I think this is why there was a strong comedic element introduced in order that we didn't view it as a faithful drama documentary of actual events. This is also made clear at the beginning where it states in the opening credits that it is merely "based on a true story". I think there is enough documented information for us to make up our own minds about what actually happened and I think the most important aspects of the case were dealt with fairly faithfully.

Because it was based on actual events and because of the serious nature of the circumstances behind those events I was at first a little uncertain about the use of humour to tell the story. I put myself in Norman Scott's shoes and wondered how I would feel if the attempt on my life had been seemingly trivialised and treated as a bit of a joke. At first I thought the drama was guilty of the same attitudes that it was seemingly trying to condemn, which was that consideration for Norman Scott wasn't of particular importance because he was a relative nobody compared to the establishment figures. By the end I had changed my opinion though and thought the use of humour worked really well as rather than being ridiculed and trivialised Norman Scott was the only character who emerged with any dignity and honour.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Excellent mini series, thoroughly enjoyed all three episodes but has left me wondering what % was true and what % was embellished for effect.

Excellent. It has changed my view of Hugh Grant as an actor.

And the basic facts of the plot all seem to be accurate. Individual scenes and relationships, like between Thorpe and his wife, must be conjecture.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I thought it was both excellently written and acted. It was never meant to be a faithful re-enactment of all the events and circumstances as that would be impossible as only the people in question know all of the details of the circumstances surrounding the case. I think this is why there was a strong comedic element introduced in order that we didn't view it as a faithful drama documentary of actual events. This is also made clear at the beginning where it states in the opening credits that it is merely "based on a true story". I think there is enough documented information for us to make up our own minds about what actually happened and I think the most important aspects of the case were dealt with fairly faithfully.

Because it was based on actual events and because of the serious nature of the circumstances behind those events I was at first a little uncertain about the use of humour to tell the story. I put myself in Norman Scott's shoes and wondered how I would feel if the attempt on my life had been seemingly trivialised and treated as a bit of a joke. At first I thought the drama was guilty of the same attitudes that it was seemingly trying to condemn, which was that consideration for Norman Scott wasn't of particular importance because he was a relative nobody compared to the establishment figures. By the end I had changed my opinion though and thought the use of humour worked really well as rather than being ridiculed and trivialised Norman Scott was the only character who emerged with any dignity and honour.

Scott mentioned at the end of the BBC4 documentary the different schemes that he had heard of to try and kill him and said that they were laughable but serious at the same time. I think the series was played slightly as a farce as the methods discussed were rather farcical. eg flying him the Florida, taking him up in a helicopter and then pushing him out once over the everglades. Or getting him drunk then chucking him down a Cornish tin mine.

 

[The Clamp]

Highlights why so many politicians and men of influence lobbied to keep male homosexuality illegal as it gave them great protection against the young men they abused and turned over.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'll have to reread the book this is based on. Newton is an interesting character and it appears the Mail have unearthed him over the last few days.

I'm sure he gave evidence at the trial, I think for the prosecution.

He wouldn't have benefited from a guilty decision and his evidence was apparently "confused". There is an interesting interview you can dig out on YouTube.

So I was disappointed by the last episode. Bit too much of the could have happened and not enough of the actually did.

Funnily enough I was thinking whether they would dare put Peter Cook on as a footnote last week....




Sent from my BTV-DL09 using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

The latest BBC article mentions he is still alive, and can still be tried.

That's over something different which the series didn't cover. There was allegedly a previous person assigned to the shooting who passed the job onto Newton.

This came to light in the last few years, but wasn't further investigated because it was presumed Newton (as a witness) was dead.

He isn't.....

Sent from my BTV-DL09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rogero]

Why didn't he just apply for a National Insurance number??

 

[marlowe]

The following link is an interesting read. One of the legacies of the Thorpe trial was that a new law was rushed through, section 8 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, which threatened jurors or journalists with up to two years in prison if they subsequently discussed any aspects of the jury's deliberations.

It came into being after a juror in the Thorpe trial revealed, via a newspaper (the* New Statesman), the jury's anger and frustration that they had been obliged by the Judge to acquit guilty men as a result of the newspaper deal Peter Bessel had made with the Sunday Telegraph.

When the New Statesman printed the story they were prosecuted for contempt of court but were aquitted. That case in itself was also a bit of a farce as the presiding Judge, Lord Widgery, was suffering from dementia and halfway through the trial expressed confusion as to who the main defence witness was. Fortunately a colleague managed to cover for him. (See second link for how his dementia affected another high profile tribunal).

As a result of the New Stateman's acquittal the government rushed through Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act which in effect meant that future failings in the criminal justice system and micarriages of justice would have less chance of being exposed.


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...legacy-law-new-statesman-jury-service-secrecy

https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...s-were-due-to-onset-of-dementia-28543585.html

 

[Icy Gull]

Enjoyed it, although Grant came across as way more charismatic than I imagine Thorpe was.

 

[Beach Hut]

Another magnificent BBC production