OT: A Very English Scandal

[Sid Nuncius]

I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed. Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)

If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

[vk]

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

+1
I've always rated Huge Grunt as an actor, and in this he is indeed
outstanding.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <pdu6li$r4d$***@dont-email.me>, vk <***@aol.com> writes:
[]

Post by vk
I've always rated Huge Grunt as an actor, and in this he is indeed
outstanding.

I didn't see this, but I'm always pleased to discover people have skills
outside what they're normally thought of - for example:

Julie Andrews, straight actor (Emily, Tamarind)
Meryl Streep, comic parts (love becomes her), singer (end of postcards)
Rowan Atkinson, straight actor (Maigret)
Dudley Moore, musical skills
u. v. a.

[Vicky Ayech]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:48:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by vk
I've always rated Huge Grunt as an actor, and in this he is indeed
outstanding.

I didn't see this, but I'm always pleased to discover people have skills
Julie Andrews, straight actor (Emily, Tamarind)

I enjoyed Tamarind.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Meryl Streep, comic parts (love becomes her), singer (end of postcards)

And Mama Mia :). She apparently trained as an opera singer.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Rowan Atkinson, straight actor (Maigret)

I don't like him as a comedian but thought the Maigret excellent.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dudley Moore, musical skills
u. v. a.

[Nick Odell]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by vk
I've always rated Huge Grunt as an actor, and in this he is indeed
outstanding.

I didn't see this, but I'm always pleased to discover people have skills
Julie Andrews, straight actor (Emily, Tamarind)
Meryl Streep, comic parts (love becomes her), singer (end of postcards)
Rowan Atkinson, straight actor (Maigret)
Dudley Moore, musical skills
u. v. a.

... and from the recent "Great Lives"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3cvrf

Hedy Lamarr - Inventor.


Nick

[John Ashby]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by vk
I've always rated Huge Grunt as an actor, and in this he is indeed
outstanding.

I didn't see this, but I'm always pleased to discover people have
Julie Andrews, straight actor (Emily, Tamarind)
Meryl Streep, comic parts (love becomes her), singer (end of postcards)
Rowan Atkinson, straight actor (Maigret)
Dudley Moore, musical skills
u. v. a.

... and from the recent "Great Lives"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3cvrf
Hedy Lamarr - Inventor.

That's Hedley!

john

[BrritSki]

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

[LFS]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book
a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed
to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's
actually a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast,
and the whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder
whether a black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for
the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

[BrritSki]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the
book a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation
seemed to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding
(he's actually a very good actor) as was everyone else in an
excellent cast, and the whole thing caught the period very well
indeed.  (I did wonder whether a black doorkeeper in the House Of
Commons was realistic for the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he
is supporting Impress. YMMV

You're no normally speechless Laura ;)

[LFS]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the
book a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation
seemed to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was
outstanding (he's actually a very good actor) as was everyone else
in an excellent cast, and the whole thing caught the period very
well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a black doorkeeper in the House
Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he
is supporting Impress. YMMV

You're no normally speechless Laura   ;)

I wonder what happened there. I was actually agreeing with you, in part.
I watched the programme wondering (a) why anyone should think it worth
dramatising and (b) what Thorpe's son feels about it. The script and
acting seemed to highlight the farcical nature of what was really quite
a sordid business. HG was enjoying himself immensely but I don't rate
him as an actor. I dozed off about three quarters of the way through and
was amazed to discover when I woke up that the whole thing wasn't over
and that there are more episodes.

I would much rather be watching Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose but we
don't have Sky. The books are excellent.

[BrritSki]

Post by LFS
I would much rather be watching Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose but we
don't have Sky. The books are excellent.

I haven't read the books, but the first episode was amazing. Very dark,
but very funny, incredible performance by BC.

What a monster his Dad was :(

[Penny]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 14:21:14 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

Post by LFS
I would much rather be watching Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose but we
don't have Sky. The books are excellent.

I expect it will turn up on Pick or somewhere eventually. I watch a lot
recorded from Pick. As their ad breaks vary between 1 minute and 12 I also
inadvertently see adverts for Sky-only progs I'd like to see, it's very
annoying.

[Fenny]

Post by LFS
I would much rather be watching Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose but we
don't have Sky. The books are excellent.

Wait until all the episodes have been on, then get a 14 day trial of
Now TV and watch it on there until 10 July.

[LFS]

Post by Fenny

Post by LFS
I would much rather be watching Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose but we
don't have Sky. The books are excellent.

Wait until all the episodes have been on, then get a 14 day trial of
Now TV and watch it on there until 10 July.

Thanks for the tip!

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by LFS

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the
book a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation
seemed to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was
outstanding (he's actually a very good actor) as was everyone else
in an excellent cast, and the whole thing caught the period very
well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a black doorkeeper in the House
Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he
is supporting Impress. YMMV

You're no normally speechless Laura   ;)

I wonder what happened there. I was actually agreeing with you, in part.
I watched the programme wondering (a) why anyone should think it worth
dramatising and (b) what Thorpe's son feels about it. The script and
acting seemed to highlight the farcical nature of what was really quite
a sordid business. HG was enjoying himself immensely but I don't rate
him as an actor. I dozed off about three quarters of the way through and
was amazed to discover when I woke up that the whole thing wasn't over
and that there are more episodes.

I didn 't want to see it. I think that's partly because I was Liberal
from the age of about 17 and partly because it shouldn't have been a
crime to have a m/m relationship, and then there would have been no
story. And I resent the way the drama would show the gay man as a
criminal when it was the circumstances that contributed to it. When
they did the film(s) about Umbrella, who was the brilliant wartime
code breaker it was told sympathetically towards him. That was
different.

Also I never thought HG was a good actor. More a light-weight one, so
didn't think he'd do the right job in the serious role.

[Btms]

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by LFS

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the
book a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation
seemed to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was
outstanding (he's actually a very good actor) as was everyone else
in an excellent cast, and the whole thing caught the period very
well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a black doorkeeper in the House
Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he
is supporting Impress. YMMV

You're no normally speechless Laura   ;)

I wonder what happened there. I was actually agreeing with you, in part.
I watched the programme wondering (a) why anyone should think it worth
dramatising and (b) what Thorpe's son feels about it. The script and
acting seemed to highlight the farcical nature of what was really quite
a sordid business. HG was enjoying himself immensely but I don't rate
him as an actor. I dozed off about three quarters of the way through and
was amazed to discover when I woke up that the whole thing wasn't over
and that there are more episodes.

I didn 't want to see it. I think that's partly because I was Liberal
from the age of about 17 and partly because it shouldn't have been a
crime to have a m/m relationship, and then there would have been no
story. And I resent the way the drama would show the gay man as a
criminal when it was the circumstances that contributed to it. When
they did the film(s) about Umbrella, who was the brilliant wartime
code breaker it was told sympathetically towards him. That was
different.
Also I never thought HG was a good actor. More a light-weight one, so
didn't think he'd do the right job in the serious role.

But the title suggests the motives were driven by the culture. Like being
imprisoned for drinking alcohol in some countries. I thought HG showed a
surprising depth of talent. Have just watched from where I fell asleep and
seems I only missed a few minutes. Having read the book, I expect a
certain descent into farce next time.

[Mike]

Post by BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the
book a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation
seemed to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding
(he's actually a very good actor) as was everyone else in an
excellent cast, and the whole thing caught the period very well
indeed.  (I did wonder whether a black doorkeeper in the House Of
Commons was realistic for the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he
is supporting Impress. YMMV

You're no normally speechless Laura ;)

But very succinct don’t you feel?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by BrritSki
I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time,

I found it - or the media coverage of it - very tawdry. I think one of
the main unexpected results of it, at the time, was the end of hats (on
men anyway); Jeremy Thorpe was, I think, the last public figure who
usually wore a hat, and virtually nobody did after that affair.

Post by BrritSki
and refuse to watch HG now that he is supporting Impress. YMMV

I don't know what Impress is (and have not looked - mainly because I'm
too lazy, but also if it's something you disapprove of I might well
too), but this is a Great Dilemma: do we eschew the work of an artist
(performing, visual, or other) because of their views: does it taint
their _work_ in and of itself? Eric Gill (sculptor and typeface
designer) is controversial; many more examples. There's also scientific
knowledge gained in unacceptable ways: should it still be used?

On balance, I tend to view artwork separately from its creator. It's
probably more difficult in the case of performing art, such as the work
of an actor/actress, of course.

Then there is the case of guilt by association by use: some people
eschew Wagner's work because the Nazis liked it. In this case, I
certainly don't agree with the principle. (As for Wagner's actual work,
I'm not at all keen on most of the operatic stuff as opera [but then
that's a genre I'm mostly blind to - which is my loss], but he did write
some great tunes.)

[the Omrud]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by BrritSki
I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time,

I found it - or the media coverage of it - very tawdry. I think one of
the main unexpected results of it, at the time, was the end of hats (on
men anyway); Jeremy Thorpe was, I think, the last public figure who
usually wore a hat, and virtually nobody did after that affair.

Post by BrritSki
and refuse to watch HG now that he is supporting Impress. YMMV

I don't know what Impress is (and have not looked - mainly because I'm
too lazy, but also if it's something you disapprove of I might well
too), but this is a Great Dilemma: do we eschew the work of an artist
(performing, visual, or other) because of their views: does it taint
their _work_ in and of itself? Eric Gill (sculptor and typeface
designer) is controversial; many more examples. There's also scientific
knowledge gained in unacceptable ways: should it still be used?
On balance, I tend to view artwork separately from its creator. It's
probably more difficult in the case of performing art, such as the work
of an actor/actress, of course.

I agree - the artist is not the art. Michalangelo, Ockeghem, etc - were
they nice people? They might have been monsters but we'll never know.

I've read that Brecht was not a nice man, but that doesn't mean his
plays are less magnificent.

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On balance, I tend to view artwork separately from its creator. It's
probably more difficult in the case of performing art, such as the
work of an actor/actress, of course.

I agree - the artist is not the art.  Michalangelo, Ockeghem, etc - were
they nice people?  They might have been monsters but we'll never know.

Indeed. The opening words of Donald Grieg's novel Time Will Tell
(recommended) are "Josquin was a prick. Everybody thought so." Even if
true, his music would still be sublime.

I find there are limits to this, though. I saw a Gary Glitter album on
one of the music blogs I visit and thought that even if I were
interested in hearing it (I'm not) I think I'd feel sullied if I
listened to that man. Perhaps it's to do with the nature of his
offences, or how recent they are, or perhaps that he's just a minor
figure in pop rather than a great artist. I don't know, but separating
the artist from the art isn't always easy. How can we know the dancer
from the dance, in fact?

[Vicky Ayech]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:16:11 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On balance, I tend to view artwork separately from its creator. It's
probably more difficult in the case of performing art, such as the
work of an actor/actress, of course.

I agree - the artist is not the art.  Michalangelo, Ockeghem, etc - were
they nice people?  They might have been monsters but we'll never know.

Indeed. The opening words of Donald Grieg's novel Time Will Tell
(recommended) are "Josquin was a prick. Everybody thought so." Even if
true, his music would still be sublime.
I find there are limits to this, though. I saw a Gary Glitter album on
one of the music blogs I visit and thought that even if I were
interested in hearing it (I'm not) I think I'd feel sullied if I
listened to that man. Perhaps it's to do with the nature of his
offences, or how recent they are, or perhaps that he's just a minor
figure in pop rather than a great artist. I don't know, but separating
the artist from the art isn't always easy. How can we know the dancer
from the dance, in fact?

I used to be a big Rolf Harris fan and #2 daughter saw him at
Glastonbury before the scandals and thought him marvellous. 6 White
Boomers was one of my favourite Xmas songs, but it is rather ruined
for me now.

[SODAM]

Post by Vicky Ayech
I used to be a big Rolf Harris fan and #2 daughter saw him at
Glastonbury before the scandals and thought him marvellous. 6 White
Boomers was one of my favourite Xmas songs, but it is rather ruined
for me now.

Some years ago I lived on the same town as RH. He used to hold an annual
sale of his artworks in a local church hall and #1 daughter and I went
along once. There was one picture that I really loved but it would have
been a stretch to afford it. I’m so pleased now that I decided not to buy
it because I know my pleasure in the picture would have been tarnished
after his court case.

[Penny]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:03:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by BrritSki
I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time,

I found it - or the media coverage of it - very tawdry. I think one of
the main unexpected results of it, at the time, was the end of hats (on
men anyway); Jeremy Thorpe was, I think, the last public figure who
usually wore a hat, and virtually nobody did after that affair.

Post by BrritSki
and refuse to watch HG now that he is supporting Impress. YMMV

I thought he made a very believable Thorpe - which surprised me.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I don't know what Impress is (and have not looked - mainly because I'm
too lazy, but also if it's something you disapprove of I might well
too), but this is a Great Dilemma: do we eschew the work of an artist
(performing, visual, or other) because of their views: does it taint
their _work_ in and of itself? Eric Gill (sculptor and typeface
designer) is controversial; many more examples. There's also scientific
knowledge gained in unacceptable ways: should it still be used?

I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I like some of Caspar David Friedrich's work and the fact Hitler did too
doesn't put me off.

As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Then there is the case of guilt by association by use: some people
eschew Wagner's work because the Nazis liked it. In this case, I
certainly don't agree with the principle. (As for Wagner's actual work,
I'm not at all keen on most of the operatic stuff as opera [but then
that's a genre I'm mostly blind to - which is my loss], but he did write
some great tunes.)

Have never liked Wagner - heard it for the first time (so assume my father
disliked it too, but possibly for political reasons in his case) when I
shared a flat with a fan.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Penny
On Mon, 21 May 2018 16:03:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Penny

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
too), but this is a Great Dilemma: do we eschew the work of an artist
(performing, visual, or other) because of their views: does it taint
their _work_ in and of itself? Eric Gill (sculptor and typeface
designer) is controversial; many more examples. There's also scientific
knowledge gained in unacceptable ways: should it still be used?

I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

Post by Penny
I like some of Caspar David Friedrich's work and the fact Hitler did too
doesn't put me off.

(Don't know him. I like Gill's statue [the one on Broadcasting House]
and typeface.)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

Post by Penny

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Then there is the case of guilt by association by use: some people
eschew Wagner's work because the Nazis liked it. In this case, I
certainly don't agree with the principle. (As for Wagner's actual work,
I'm not at all keen on most of the operatic stuff as opera [but then
that's a genre I'm mostly blind to - which is my loss], but he did write
some great tunes.)

Have never liked Wagner - heard it for the first time (so assume my father
disliked it too, but possibly for political reasons in his case) when I
shared a flat with a fan.

Was your friend a fan of opera? As I said, he wrote some (IMO) good
stuff outside opera. The Valkyries is stirring stuff (though not helped
by its use in Apocalypse Now), and try

and of course

is one of the two main
choices for that purpose to this day (I think the other one - the one
with all the Morse Vs - is by Mendelssohn).

[Penny]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

You have a musical satnav??

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but I'm
not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Penny
On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it
would be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing
his National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the
explosion during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along
with many of his companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the
rest of his life. This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's
Forces never gathered any follow-up data on those lads during the
course of their lives appalls me more. Not to mention the fact
compensation claims were quashed or rumbled on so long as to be useless
to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but
I'm not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

Michael Mosley's TV series "The Brain: A Secret History" had some fairly
shocking examples. And I think the Americans where keen to get in to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki asap to study how the victims died.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Penny
On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Penny

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

You have a musical satnav??

A have a no-name SatNav that can also be an mp3 player (it can continue
to play, though I can't control - skip/pause/etc. - when it's being a
SatNav); at the time I bought it, I think this wasn't uncommon. I have
it connected (via a cassette adapter!) to the car stereo. I've recently
discovered that this is now not common in SatNavs.

Post by Penny

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but I'm
not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

Trouble is, if some troublemaker _highlights_ the fact that someone is
using such information, it causes a stink, among today's mostly
anti-science public. The parallel with the distinction between the
artist and his art is actually quite close.

[LFS]

Post by Penny
On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

You have a musical satnav??

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but I'm
not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

In this context I found this article interesting:

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/5/22/17377766/asperger-nazi-rename-syndrome

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by LFS

Post by Penny
On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

You have a musical satnav??

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but I'm
not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/5/22/17377766/asperger-nazi-renam
e-syndrome

Yes, very relevant. I got crosser and crosser as I read through it,
because the question got so tied up with other agendas -
statue-toppling, flag-burning - but it's still an interesting question.
(Though I think it's a bit harsh on Dr. Asperger.) I think replacement
of a name for a medical matter by a descriptive phrase is in general a
good idea, simply because it _is_ descriptive - as long as you can find
a _good_ phrase; social communication disorder for Asperger's syndrome
is not bad at all. It's got to be a _good_ phrase (and reasonably
short), though. For the moment, I'm not aware of any alternatives to,
for example, Parkinson's or Alzheimers. (And I know nothing of Dr.s
Parkinson or Alzheimer.)

Statue-toppling, and road renaming, I'm generally _not_ in favour of -
at least, where they relate to something well back in history. (For
example, by most accounts Oliver Cromwell was pretty nasty in lots of
ways, but I don't think anything would be _achieved_ by removing his
statue, and I certainly wouldn't approve of renaming roads, buildings,
etc. named after him.) I will admit I _was_ pleased at the toppling of
the Saddam Hussein statue, and I've been trying to analyse why: I think
it's that it was done by the people he oppressed as soon as they could,
and possibly he had imposed the statue on them (I don't know that).

[Chris McMillan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by LFS

Post by Penny
On Tue, 22 May 2018 02:41:07 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
I admire (and sometimes like) Rolf Harris' paintings, both the stuff he did
on TV (can you see what it is yet?) and his later portraits.

I greatly enjoy his comic songs, still (whether his own [was "Kangaroo"
his? and "the cat came back"?] or renderings of other's [such as "Mud"],
or comic rendering of Waltzing Matilda), and still have some of them on
my SatNav.

You have a musical satnav??

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
As for scientific knowledge gained in unacceptable ways - I feel it would
be worse if it wasn't used. A close friend's father, while doing his
National Service, was commanded to stand with his back to the explosion
during the Atomic bomb test on Christmas Island. He, along with many of his
companions there, suffered all manner of ills for the rest of his life.
This was appalling enough but the fact Her Majesty's Forces never gathered
any follow-up data on those lads during the course of their lives appalls
me more. Not to mention the fact compensation claims were quashed or
rumbled on so long as to be useless to the families.

Yes, the lack of proper followup on that was indeed deplorable. I was in
fact thinking of probably the worst example, the data collected by
experiments at Auschwitz and similar places.

The USA ran some awful tests on much of the population without their
knowledge or consent. Presumably they made use of the info gained but I'm
not sure anyone was ever held to account for it.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/5/22/17377766/asperger-nazi-renam
e-syndrome

Yes, very relevant. I got crosser and crosser as I read through it,
because the question got so tied up with other agendas -
statue-toppling, flag-burning - but it's still an interesting question.
(Though I think it's a bit harsh on Dr. Asperger.) I think replacement
of a name for a medical matter by a descriptive phrase is in general a
good idea, simply because it _is_ descriptive - as long as you can find
a _good_ phrase; social communication disorder for Asperger's syndrome
is not bad at all. It's got to be a _good_ phrase (and reasonably
short), though. For the moment, I'm not aware of any alternatives to,
for example, Parkinson's or Alzheimers. (And I know nothing of Dr.s
Parkinson or Alzheimer.)
Statue-toppling, and road renaming, I'm generally _not_ in favour of -
at least, where they relate to something well back in history. (For
example, by most accounts Oliver Cromwell was pretty nasty in lots of
ways, but I don't think anything would be _achieved_ by removing his
statue, and I certainly wouldn't approve of renaming roads, buildings,
etc. named after him.) I will admit I _was_ pleased at the toppling of
the Saddam Hussein statue, and I've been trying to analyse why: I think
it's that it was done by the people he oppressed as soon as they could,
and possibly he had imposed the statue on them (I don't know that).

There are a few conditions named after their discoverers - Leber is one.
He lends his name to two totally unrelated eye conditions.

Lebers Hereditary optic neuropathy LHON)
This disease was first described by the German ophthalmologist Theodor
Leber (1840–1917) in 1871

And

Leber's congenital amaurosis

LCA was first described by Theodor Leber in the 19th century. It should
not be confused with Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy, which is a
different disease also described by Theodor Leber.

Sincerely Chris

[Btms]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening? Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know what
and why for you.

As far as a performance went, I thought Hugh was fine but admit I fell
asleep. However, up to the point I was watching, I think the Bafta goes to
Pat Hodge.

[BrritSki]

Post by Btms

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening? Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know what
and why for you.

That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

[Btms]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening? Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know what
and why for you.

That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Yup. Thanks. As I said my Father took a strong and instant dislike to
Thorpe*. I was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London. She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted. Or something like that. I was also told that his
homosexuality was common knowledge in N. Devon, and the local police were
well aware of it. If true, and I trust my source, then the cover up and
protection against Norman’s claim must have been phenomenal. Here’s
another sick bag. 😤

* Father was highly homophobic in a time when this was common and
acceptable. He may have intuited this but I have always felt it was
something more and less specific.

[krw]

Post by Btms
was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London. She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted. Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV programme.
This has been disputed many times.

[Btms]

Post by krw

Post by Btms
was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London. She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted. Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV programme.
This has been disputed many times.

So what is the reality then?

[Nick Odell]

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV programme.
This has been disputed many times.

Nick

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
was broadcast:
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
(Article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)

I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.

Fantastic acting all round, though.

[Vicky Ayech]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:58 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

The fact that Hugh Grant is known as a comic, light actor is one of
the reasons I didn't want to watch it. I suspected it wouldn't treat
the story suitably., however good his portrayal might try to be. I
know that an actor should be able to change the type of role they play
but he is so identified with a certain kind. You do say here that the
acting was fantastic, so perhaps I have wronged him, but then you
confirm my suspicion about the way they told the story. I just don't
want to watch it.

The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

[Fred]

Post by Vicky Ayech
The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

I haven't (yet) seen Notes on a Scandal so can't comment on that.
However, i will not be watching the Tom Mangold film if it is ever aired. He did a terrible stitch-up of dentistry at the hight of the AIDS panic and I can't/won't watch anything he has anything to do with. Not vindictive, simply if he could misrepresent one thing, then he can misrepresent anything.

Fred (bitter? after all this time? You bet!)

[Btms]

Post by Vicky Ayech
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:58 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

The fact that Hugh Grant is known as a comic, light actor is one of
the reasons I didn't want to watch it. I suspected it wouldn't treat
the story suitably., however good his portrayal might try to be. I
know that an actor should be able to change the type of role they play
but he is so identified with a certain kind. You do say here that the
acting was fantastic, so perhaps I have wronged him, but then you
confirm my suspicion about the way they told the story. I just don't
want to watch it.
The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

The whole thing sounded farcical at the time. I think this is why Norman
Scott was never believed. As for his wife’s accident, at that time it was
only ever speculation. But was widely said by some. Grant gives an
excellent performance of a complex character.

[Btms]

Post by Btms

Post by Vicky Ayech
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:58 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

The fact that Hugh Grant is known as a comic, light actor is one of
the reasons I didn't want to watch it. I suspected it wouldn't treat
the story suitably., however good his portrayal might try to be. I
know that an actor should be able to change the type of role they play
but he is so identified with a certain kind. You do say here that the
acting was fantastic, so perhaps I have wronged him, but then you
confirm my suspicion about the way they told the story. I just don't
want to watch it.
The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

The whole thing sounded farcical at the time. I think this is why Norman
Scott was never believed. As for his wife’s accident, at that time it was
only ever speculation. But was widely said by some. Grant gives an
excellent performance of a complex character.

This was not clear. When referring to that time, I meant while it was
still being talked about. At the actual time all I heard was sadness
because it was sad. Generally folk felt very sorry for Thorpe who was
considered a rather genuine sort of chap.

[Mike Ruddock]

Post by Btms

Post by Btms

Post by Vicky Ayech
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:58 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

The fact that Hugh Grant is known as a comic, light actor is one of
the reasons I didn't want to watch it. I suspected it wouldn't treat
the story suitably., however good his portrayal might try to be. I
know that an actor should be able to change the type of role they play
but he is so identified with a certain kind. You do say here that the
acting was fantastic, so perhaps I have wronged him, but then you
confirm my suspicion about the way they told the story. I just don't
want to watch it.
The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

The whole thing sounded farcical at the time. I think this is why Norman
Scott was never believed. As for his wife’s accident, at that time it was
only ever speculation. But was widely said by some. Grant gives an
excellent performance of a complex character.

This was not clear. When referring to that time, I meant while it was
still being talked about. At the actual time all I heard was sadness
because it was sad. Generally folk felt very sorry for Thorpe who was
considered a rather genuine sort of chap.

We were living in N Devon at the time and he was generally held to be a
very good local MP, though I speak as one who never had any problems
worth bothering him with.

Mike Ruddock

[Btms]

Post by Mike Ruddock

Post by Btms

Post by Btms

Post by Vicky Ayech
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:58 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection. I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality. Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places. Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

The fact that Hugh Grant is known as a comic, light actor is one of
the reasons I didn't want to watch it. I suspected it wouldn't treat
the story suitably., however good his portrayal might try to be. I
know that an actor should be able to change the type of role they play
but he is so identified with a certain kind. You do say here that the
acting was fantastic, so perhaps I have wronged him, but then you
confirm my suspicion about the way they told the story. I just don't
want to watch it.
The article in the Mail says Tom Mangold made a film about the affair
and was told to destroy it but didn't, and it will be shown on BBC4.
I'm not sure about seeing that.

The whole thing sounded farcical at the time. I think this is why Norman
Scott was never believed. As for his wife’s accident, at that time it was
only ever speculation. But was widely said by some. Grant gives an
excellent performance of a complex character.

This was not clear. When referring to that time, I meant while it was
still being talked about. At the actual time all I heard was sadness
because it was sad. Generally folk felt very sorry for Thorpe who was
considered a rather genuine sort of chap.

We were living in N Devon at the time and he was generally held to be a
very good local MP, though I speak as one who never had any problems
worth bothering him with.
Mike Ruddock

As was his friend (our MP) at that time. But Peter Bessell did a
Stonehouse style runner owing lots to lts and who was the chief source of
this story.

[LFS]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection.  I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality.  Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places.  Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

Swerving, I missed last night's episode as we had the monthly meeting of
our movie group. This was the film we watched:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Majeure_(film)

I would be interested to know if any otherrats have seen it. The word
"comedy" seemed to us to be totally misapplied. The skiers among us
insisted that it was all totally unrealistic and the non-skiers vowed
that they would never, ever ski.

[Sally Thompson]

Post by LFS

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell

Post by krw

  was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality  (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London.  She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted.  Or something like that.

A foul and untrue story which is repeated in the upcoming TV
programme. This has been disputed many times.

http://youtu.be/363ZAmQEA84

I have actually watched it, unlike those who have accused it of making
this connection.  I didn't see any implication that her death was in any
way linked to her knowledge of JT's homosexuality.  Obviously, I've
missed something, though, because the Daily Mail - always fair-minded
when it comes to the BBC - was categorical about it before the episode
"According to the TV drama, the phone call and the crash are
inextricably linked and viewers are left with the clear impression that
Scott bore some responsibility for her death."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775363/Jeremy-Thorpes-gay-lover-accuses-BBC-portraying-responsible-wifes-death.html
)
I thought it was very good again, but I'm a little uneasy about the tone
in places.  Although there was a lot of farcical ineptitude involved,
the conspiracy, attempted murder and subsequent cover-up really aren't
funny, and the almost comic tone, especially around Andrew Newton,
didn't sit easily with me at times.
Fantastic acting all round, though.

Swerving, I missed last night's episode as we had the monthly meeting of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Majeure_(film)
I would be interested to know if any otherrats have seen it. The word
"comedy" seemed to us to be totally misapplied. The skiers among us
insisted that it was all totally unrealistic and the non-skiers vowed
that they would never, ever ski.

I’ve just watched the trailer on IMDb, and as someone with a phobia of
slipping or falling over (really!) so that I cannot walk down a ramp
without holding on tightly, although I don’t mind heights, I’m definitely
in the second group.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Btms

Post by BrritSki
That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Liking affairs with men and being married doesn't necessarily make him
a hypocrite. I believe a significant number of people are bisexual in
varying degrees. He might be a cheat though, but so are a number of
heterosexuals.

Post by Btms
Yup. Thanks. As I said my Father took a strong and instant dislike to
Thorpe*. I was once told that his wife learned of his homosexuality (and
maybe more, I now wonder); she was distressed and left for London. She
drove on to the Odiham roundabout because, it was said, because she was so
distracted. Or something like that. I was also told that his
homosexuality was common knowledge in N. Devon, and the local police were
well aware of it. If true, and I trust my source, then the cover up and
protection against Norman’s claim must have been phenomenal. Here’s
another sick bag. ?
* Father was highly homophobic in a time when this was common and
acceptable. He may have intuited this but I have always felt it was
something more and less specific.

[Btms]

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by BrritSki
That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Liking affairs with men and being married doesn't necessarily make him
a hypocrite. I believe a significant number of people are bisexual in
varying degrees. He might be a cheat though, but so are a number of
heterosexuals.

.
Taking out a contract to have someone murdered goes a little beyond common
behaviours, shurely!

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Btms

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by BrritSki
That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Liking affairs with men and being married doesn't necessarily make him
a hypocrite. I believe a significant number of people are bisexual in
varying degrees. He might be a cheat though, but so are a number of
heterosexuals.

.
Taking out a contract to have someone murdered goes a little beyond common
behaviours, shurely!

I wasn't commenting on that, just on the charge of hypocricy.

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening?  Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know
what
and why for you.

That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Oh, I agree with that, but that was a large part of what made it so
riveting for me. The degree to which the establishment protected its
own was quite breathtaking, and reading the details in the book of the
lying, cynicism and bungling arrogance of Thorpe and others...well, my
gob was utterly smacked.

I thought HG caught the self-regard, entitlement and manipulative charm
of the man very well.

[Btms]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening?  Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know
what
and why for you.

That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Oh, I agree with that, but that was a large part of what made it so
riveting for me. The degree to which the establishment protected its
own was quite breathtaking, and reading the details in the book of the
lying, cynicism and bungling arrogance of Thorpe and others...well, my
gob was utterly smacked.
I thought HG caught the self-regard, entitlement and manipulative charm
of the man very well.

Its a sense of entitlement of anyone, whatever their assumed status, that
does for me anytime..

[Btms]

Post by Btms

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

What was sickening?  Not suggesting it wasn’t but just wanting to know
what
and why for you.

That an establishment figure could behave like that - not the
homosexuality per se, but the lying and the hypocrisy of his marriage
and then the attempted murder which I had little doubt happened despite
what was claimed in court.

Oh, I agree with that, but that was a large part of what made it so
riveting for me. The degree to which the establishment protected its
own was quite breathtaking, and reading the details in the book of the
lying, cynicism and bungling arrogance of Thorpe and others...well, my
gob was utterly smacked.
I thought HG caught the self-regard, entitlement and manipulative charm
of the man very well.

Its a sense of entitlement of anyone, whatever their assumed status, that
does for me anytime..

May I add thar I have certain political folk in mind (from left and right),
upstart wannabeees, and my ex dil 😁

[BrritSki]

Post by Sid Nuncius
Oh, I agree with that, but that was a large part of what made it so
riveting for me.  The degree to which the establishment protected its
own was quite breathtaking, and reading the details in the book of the
lying, cynicism and bungling arrogance of Thorpe and others...well, my
gob was utterly smacked.

Mine was smacked the first time I followed the story in Private Eye and
I really don't need to have it smacked again.

Post by Sid Nuncius
I thought HG caught the self-regard, entitlement and manipulative charm
of the man very well.

Possibly, but as I said I'm boycotting him, he's really hacked me off ;)

[krw]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A
very English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book
a while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed
to me to be very well done indeed.  Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's
actually a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast,
and the whole thing caught the period very well indeed.  (I did wonder
whether a black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for
the late 60s, mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I normally trust your advice Sid, but I found the whole episode
completely sickening at the time, and refuse to watch HG now that he is
supporting Impress. YMMV

I remember it so well from reading Private Eye, surely it was only a
couple of years ago - a bit early to be making a TV show out of it?

[Penny]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:34:34 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed. Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

I thought it was pretty good too but was slightly disturbed to read the
headline this morning "Hugh Grant is finally getting married" having been
reminded last night that Jeremy Thorpe only did so for 'political' reasons.

[Btms]

Post by Sid Nuncius
I just wanted say, in case umrats were interested, that I thought A very
English Scandal was excellent (BBC1, last night). I read the book a
while ago and thought it was very good, and this adaptation seemed to me
to be very well done indeed. Hugh Grant was outstanding (he's actually
a very good actor) as was everyone else in an excellent cast, and the
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder whether a
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)
If anyrats were in doubt, I'd recommend giving it a go.

Very cross to report I fell asleep but will catch up. My family knew Peter
Bessell tse. Thorpe was entertained by my parents with Bessell. Father
took an instant and strong dislike towards Thorpe but was always positive
towards Bessell; even after he did a runner. Husbad and I have much
thank Bessell for. He had a real care for ordinary folk and he was
brilliant to us.

[Kosmo]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:34:34 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder

whether a

Post by Sid Nuncius
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late 60s,
mind you.)

Now just when did the Windrush arrive?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Penny
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:34:34 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder

whether a

Post by Sid Nuncius
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late

60s,

Post by Sid Nuncius
mind you.)

Now just when did the Windrush arrive?

A little before that, I think (well, it wasn't a single date: that ship
- and I presume others - travelled the route many times). I think Sid's
questioning whether a doorkeeper in the House of Commons might have
been, though; bus-drivers in some towns, maybe, but not dk to the HoC. I
was a little young to be able to comment, but Sid may well be right.

[Btms]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Penny
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:34:34 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius
whole thing caught the period very well indeed. (I did wonder

whether a

Post by Sid Nuncius
black doorkeeper in the House Of Commons was realistic for the late

60s,

Post by Sid Nuncius
mind you.)

Now just when did the Windrush arrive?

A little before that, I think (well, it wasn't a single date: that ship
- and I presume others - travelled the route many times). I think Sid's
questioning whether a doorkeeper in the House of Commons might have
been, though; bus-drivers in some towns, maybe, but not dk to the HoC. I
was a little young to be able to comment, but Sid may well be right.

I think the main emigration was in the 50s because we lived in Jamaica at
that time. The Jamaicans were coming to UK in droves. I recall my Mother
expressing concern that they were being misled as £7 a week sounded a
fortune but for many reasons was not like earning this much in Jamaica.
They did believe our pavements were made of gold. At the same time, they
were wanting independence but expected UK would continue financial support
because we were the Mother country. Many were exceedingly loyal to the
Queen. While this was happening, Woolworths opened a store in Kingston
but the newly appointed British Manager wasn’t allowed off the boat. That
was a bit of a scandal. Back in Uk the Jamaican culture was reported to be
upsetting folk in UK as they were living in over crowded conditions and
gathering a reputation for lacking hygiene and generally not fitting in.

I think it was in the 60s lots of British folk emigrated to Oz and were
disapproved of by the more established Ozzies. There was also a “keep
Australia white policy” in the late 60s.

In essence human nature is quite tribal.