Talk:A Very English Scandal (TV series)

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parts

How many parts does this min-series have? And which is the appropriate source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: The lede says "three-part" (with a cited source) and there's no contradicting info in the rest of the article. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Have you looked at the BBC's own website for the programme? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: What about the BBC website? I had a look and it also says 3 parts. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed that. I could see only 1 previous episode and 1 forthcoming episode. In my mind that made a total of 2. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add that website as a source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Yeah they only have links to Ep 1 and 2 on the BBC website now. But the front page says "Episode 1 of 3". I'll add the BBC website to the external links section and infobox. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How confusing. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

Off-topic Forum-like thread: Inaccurate Reconstructions: Hay/Straw?

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Inaccurate Reconstructions: Hay/Straw?

One thing that continues to amaze me is how filmmakers continue to get some of the most basic - and most glaringly obvious - details wrong in reconstructing the physical appearance of historical figures, even when the history is fairly recent and there is a superabundance of photographic and filmic sources available. In this production Jeremy Thorpe is shown with his hair parted on the right side - the exact opposite of the reality. Thorpe always had his hair parted on the left side. Along with his dark Homburg hat/s and Teddy Boy overcoat/s (both fairly accurately represented) his long, lanky, curled-up black hair was one of his - deliberate - trademarks. Anyone who watched Tom Mangold's fascinating and important BBC4 documentary "The Jeremy Thorpe Scandal" that followed the final episode of the BBC1 serial last night was confronted with it endlessly from his University days onwards - with the long brushed-over portion of his hair even falling into his right eye and being swept away with one hand. That and his large stuck-out ears - and where were they? Such details would only have added to the veracity of Hugh Grant's excellent performance. But if we can't trust the filmmakers on such basic and obvious details how can we trust them on anything else? The evidence is right there in front of their eyes. How can they miss it? Can it only be a case of hay/straw - of people who can't tell left from right? The same thing occurs in TV representations of Adolph Hitler's iconic hairstyle. Hitler always parted his hair on the right. I don't know how often I have watched in disbelief as 'dramatic reconstructions' of Hitler with his hair parted on the left were interspersed with archive footage of the real Hitler with his hair parted on the right. Such details may seem trivial when set against the Holocaust or a murder plot. But try to imagine a docudrama in which Hitler is shown as clean-shaven with white hair, or one in which Jeremy Thorpe is shown as mustached with blond hair. If filmmakers wish to convince us that what they are telling us is true they cannot afford to ignore such easily accessible details. O Murr (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Adam Lusher in The Independent here, wasn't that a trilby, rather than a homburg? Personally I think Grant with prosthetic ears would have been a step too far. But given that the article currently says precisely nothing about Thorpe's appearance (as does Jeremy Thorpe), it's difficult to know how your xomewts can lead to any improvements. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, a few points:

Whatever kind of hat/s Jeremy Thorpe wore - homburg, trilby or fedora - I would expect someone with more expertise in such matters than I have to determine that and supply the correct item/s.
Hugh Grant went to some trouble to match Thorpe's appearance, even wearing contact lenses. Prosthetics wouldn't have been necessary to mimic the stuck-out ears.
The anomaly to which I drew attention isn't some minor goof or blooper, it's an egregious blunder. It isn't a case of a Roadmaster Moment, which requires arcane and specialist knowledge - it's a case of the Bleeding Obvious, which is available to anyone with eyes who has a slight acquaintance with the subject.
Such blunders are a gift to hostile critics, who will leap on them as evidence of carelessness and unreliability, and even worthlessness, and will ask why people who can't be trusted on simple and obvious matters should be trusted on anything less obvious and more complex.
AVES - both the book and the TV production - has a plausible case to make: that Jeremy Thorpe incited other people to commit murder. But this is so uncertain that they would be unable to prove their case in a court of law if Thorpe was still alive and sued them for libel. They are contributing to the defamation of a dead person who can no longer defend himself. That goes beyond a piece of well-produced entertainment for a cosy Sunday night.

Now, for the crunch:

I am not the only person to notice the Bleeding Obvious. In the current issue of Radio Times (12-15 June 2018) in the 'Feedback' letters section another viewer makes exactly the same observation that I have made here. On page 151 Garry Humphries of London N14 writes: "Hugh Grant was remarkable but I was surprised to see his hair parted on the right, whereas Jeremy Thorpe's was parted on the left. How come?"

The editor Jane Hill helpfully provides side-by-side photos of the actor and the subject. She also provides Hugh Grant's response from 'last month' [May]. I suggest that you read that for yourself.

I was intrigued by your diagnosis of an exotic and rarefied condition called 'xomenes' - a term unknown to me or my dictionary or Wikipedia. Whatever it is, Garry Humphries obviously has it too. I can only hope that it spreads.

(PS. The IMDb entry on AVES currently has nothing at the moment on its 'Goofs' file. I'm watching in anticipation.)

O Murr (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned several anomalies. One wonders which is the one you are finding most perplexing: the ears? the parting? Adolf Hitler? the Holocaust? Let's hope they bring back Points of View soon, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fedora.[reply]

Sorry I mis-spelt 'xomewts' as 'xomenes'. But I'll go on searching for them. Perhaps Jonathan Meades can help. Now I'm finished. Goodbye. O Murr (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So long, O Murr. Personally, I saw the switch from right to left as a scathing commentary on modern-day post-Blairite middle ground politics. Alas, perhaps it's all just a BBC Complicated Game? But I feel it's unlikely your trichological concerns will ever make it into a "Historical inaccuracies" article section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum #1

I can't resist putting the following on record.

From today's Sunday Times "Culture" magazine (17June 2018) 'You Say' box p53:

A tour de force from Hugh Grant in "A Very English Scandal" (BBC1) - but why a right-hand hair parting rather than the actuality of Jeremy's left? A Routemaster moment for hairdressers. - Ken Baird

I have one simple Routemaster question. Why has Jeremy Thorpe's hair parting moved to the right? - Jim Stewart

Routemaster moment! - Alan Todd

And, on 'You Say' p57, one that I wouldn't have noticed:

What a howler! Never ever has a lawyer in an English court left his bench and crossed the floor to examine a witness. What A Very English Scandal that was! The BBC must be getting confused with "LA Law". - Frank Bloom

For me this has all been reminiscent of attempting to catch a bus down in London. You wait ages for one Routemaster, then four turn up together.

O Murr (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back so soon, O Murr! We all thought we had lost you. Yes, I miss Reg Varney too. But for the benefit of those other editors, who may be slightly bemused by the direction this thread has now taken, I'll copy something from this message borad:

"A 'Routemaster Moment', there is always one, or more, in every series that is set in the past. First seen in the TV letters pages with concerned citizens decrying the fact that said buses 'were not around when this series is set' or similar. It has now taken on a life of it's own with correspondents pointing out the minutest of errors. ' Brown shoelaces, in the sixties?, never!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurrance Card?

I'm lost on the references to NI card. The linked artical on NI doesn't explaint this. I live in England and know about the NI, have one myself. The thing with a card, afecting getting work and trying to get a new one through Thorpe (someone with power) I just don't understand.

Dannman (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://bhp.co.uk/news-events/news/20120403hmrc-phasing-out-national-insurance-number-cards/

In those days we weren't online, the internet hadn't been invented. Paper documents nowadays are simply a shadow of some canonical electronic record, but back then the paper document was canonical.

I agree that asking Thorpe for a card sounds odd; you got one from HM Revenue and Customs, when you registered for income tax. A prospective employer needed sight of your card, because it "proved" your NI number, which they would need to make deductions from your pay. It wasn't a thing that was in the gift of some MP.

MrDemeanour (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English / British Scandal

Why a single page when these two series aren't linked at all. One isn't a prequel or sequel to the other.

They cover totally different people and events.

Please consider a single page for each series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5678:1B00:525:8115:5CBE:F157 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started to do this, but almost as fast as I was typing, I was getting reverted! The current arrangement makes no sense at all and according to most references is factually incorrect. Pikemaster (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are two conpletely different series, not an anthology like American Crime /Horror Story

Please allow the revisions that have been made by other editors! 150.143.178.15 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold

I have decided to be bold and separate the two series. These are basically separate series, albeit with a few commonalities, this appears to be the consensus above. If anyone disagrees please explain your reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]