A boy called Sean

by seaneeboy

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License

Search this moblog


Recent visitors

The Verdict

(viewed 1653 times)
Bookmark and Share
Excellent, thought provoking television. bravo BBC. can't wait to find out the verdict...
15th Feb 2007, 22:04   | tags:,,,

Rich says:

Archer did it! STRING HIM UP!

15th Feb 2007, 22:28

seaneeboy says:

Oddly enough, Archer was one of the very few of them ready to convict - in the end the accused were let off on all charges...

Stan Collymore was certainly someone I really hope isn't on any jury I have to serve with...

15th Feb 2007, 22:40

Steve says:

Now I didn't watch it... but, I did watch the opening of an episode and it was about Rape. And the cynic in me can only think that they chose this subject because sex sells. Which I found rather objectionable and distasteful. But like I said I didn't watch it and maybe it was very good TV.

16th Feb 2007, 00:35

Allan says:

Which set of actors do you believe is telling the truth? Errr... none of them. They're all acting.

(I am an old synic, sorry)

Al

16th Feb 2007, 08:35

seaneeboy says:

Steve> True, sex sells, however the focus was much more on making people realise how difficult it is to prove rape (which in my eyes is very different to "Sex").

I think if the trailers had been full of "glimpses" of the event then its fair to say it would be somewhat out of order - however the main focus was on how you decide such a difficult case.

In fact there were no reconstructions, no needlessly graphic descriptions, in fact the descriptions were just clinical and precise - making it even more uncomfortable in my eyes.

The Judge and Barristers were all real too, and it gave a really interesting insight into the brittish courtroom. It's certainly not lots of grandstanding, and shouting "OBJECTION!" every time something controversial happens :)

Allan - Only the Defendants and Accusers were actors, and part of the great thing about the show was you never *really* know whether it happened or not.

16th Feb 2007, 11:47

Rich says:

Sex sells... Rape's definitely more of a niche market, thankfully.

16th Feb 2007, 13:32

hildegard says:

Repellent, morally bankrupt, exploitative, parasitic crap of the first water.
Whilst I would never do, nor encourage anyone else to do, anything to bring it about, it is my fervent hope that everyone involved in this show dies in pain blaspheming their gods at the earliest opportunity that natural causes present.

16th Feb 2007, 13:37

seaneeboy says:

Blimey... did you watch it hildegard?

What did it exploit? Surely bringing the problem of so many rape cases being based on too high a burden of proof is a Good Thing?

I would say it's really far from exploitative, but it did bring attention to a significant problem in the UKs justice system...

16th Feb 2007, 13:53

hildegard says:

A bunch of has-beens & also-rans, using the issue of rape to give a filip to their tawdry public profiles. More care taken with camera angles than exploring issues.

Static & smug, it showed us what we already know - that we do not educate people adequately to discharge their duties as citizens - look at Collymore, he hadn't a clue what his relationship was meant to be to evidence; seemingly, only his own amour-propre has suasive power in his universe.

Your burden of proof argument is suspect. We do not make a more just society by making injustice of any sort easier.

The reason for a falling conviction rate probably lies with us & the witless sentimentalism we too often take into the jury room.
Notions like Judge Pickles' famous "contributory negligence" or the shameful fact that 30% of respondents in last year's Amnesty/ ICM survey imagine that rape is a woman's fault if she is drunk. The lack of preparedness of juries, their battery of unconsidered prejudice, was apparent here, but never challenged, nor were we offered any clue as to how such notions might be challenged.

It wasn't a programme that explored issues, it was an exercise in surfaces & semblance. The semblance of a serious investigation but devoid of analytic power. As such, it flattered the audience whilst never challenging. Vapid & nasty. The very antithesis of the famous 1982 documentary "A Complaint Of Rape", a programme that not only exposed real problems but led to actual change. It wasn't the law that needed changing most, then or now, but us - the attitudes & self-satisfaction of the individual police officers, lawyers, jurors, et al. Once again, this problem isn't one we can externalise - society is us. If we offer a world full of Peppermint Rhinos, trafficked sex workers, Zoo, Nuts & Loaded... a world in which it is increasingly hard to challenge the misogyny of religious extremists... do we really imagine that that world encourages respect for women or the belief that they have the right to dispose of their own bodies?

16th Feb 2007, 14:35

seaneeboy says:

*Nods* Thanks for that Hildegard, good to see a clear and passionate argument.

I agree with a lot of what you say, however I do think it's important for thought provoking television like this (that gets a lot more people to watch it than otherwise would) to be made.

19th Feb 2007, 11:02