A very English scandal - Jeremy Thorpe
Discussion
gooner1 said:
IMHO,, it is equally as patronising to suggest that a "flowery" summing up by a judge
couldn't influence a jury,
Especially in an era where some members of the public
held Judges and their like, in much higher esteem than they do now.
Thorpe was found not guilty in the eyes of the Law.
The eyes of the public are a different organ altogether.
I've been reading the book the series was based on and there's a bit more detail there.couldn't influence a jury,
Especially in an era where some members of the public
held Judges and their like, in much higher esteem than they do now.
Thorpe was found not guilty in the eyes of the Law.
The eyes of the public are a different organ altogether.
At one point George Carman, having accused Peter Bessell of telling 'whoppers' suggested to the judge that it might be a good time to adjourn. Joseph Cantley replied that there was time for some more whoppers.
During a previous trial relating to an industrial injury, it was mentioned that the victim, a man in his early 20s, had his sex life affected by his injuries. Cantley asked how the man's sex life could possibly be affected when he wasn't married. Joseph Cantley himself married for the first time in his mid fifties.
Strange bloke.
I've just finished watching the series. Utterly engrossing. I don't like Hugh Grant but he was superb in this part.
The trial was the talk of the nick at the time, with everyone reading reports and getting further information from the self-important PCs who were on court duty.
There was a general agreement that he was guilty. There was more than a little anti-gay sentiment in the job at the time, especially amongst the older officers, but oddly enough it was these bigoted ones who seemed to be on his side. The officers in the case - very few workers it seemed but a number of higher ranks up to the Smoke for a few days with their wives, I'm sure they were wives - came to Snow Hill nick at times but were surrounded by officers more important than me so I didn't speak to any. However, there was an air of despondency that came through.
I wasn't based at the nick in those days so only came in on occasion, and being 'foreign' didn't merit much of the inside information. It was clear, though, that there was no dispute as to his guilt. I can't remember much clearly, there was an awful lot of half-information about at the time. Many of the in jokes passed me by at the time.
There was a lot of talk of conspiracies, and not only Thorpe's. It was expected that the powers that be would ensure he got off. In those days it was hardly unusual. Indeed it was a function of a certain section of SB. A few years later, there was Cyril Smith being protected as well, with threats of dismissal against anyone who mentioned his name. The world has changed a lot since those 'good old days' and I doubt there would be the same support from the media about the circumstances. Mind you, there's the threat to what remains of press freedom by way of legislation. So some reason to have Grant in the lead role. It seems rather ironic that he's earning from raking over the personal life of someone who cannot answer back.
Much didn't come out for some time. The Cook sketch and Private Eye gave some insight but it wasn't until the books arrived that the circs became clearer. There's no doubt in my mind that Thorpe was guilty. There's a lot in common with Smith: a 'good' MP, at lest for his constituency, being protected despite committing horrendous offences.
As for the jury, in those days MPs were important people. Even Profumo, who's been mentioned in this thread already, was honourable. He resigned from his role and committed himself to good deeds. There's no comparison between the two. For Profumo, he was sacrificed for the good of the government, but much good it did it.
Those in power have authority and will abuse it. Carmen again; he seemed to be involved in so many such trials and legal matters.
The trial was the talk of the nick at the time, with everyone reading reports and getting further information from the self-important PCs who were on court duty.
There was a general agreement that he was guilty. There was more than a little anti-gay sentiment in the job at the time, especially amongst the older officers, but oddly enough it was these bigoted ones who seemed to be on his side. The officers in the case - very few workers it seemed but a number of higher ranks up to the Smoke for a few days with their wives, I'm sure they were wives - came to Snow Hill nick at times but were surrounded by officers more important than me so I didn't speak to any. However, there was an air of despondency that came through.
I wasn't based at the nick in those days so only came in on occasion, and being 'foreign' didn't merit much of the inside information. It was clear, though, that there was no dispute as to his guilt. I can't remember much clearly, there was an awful lot of half-information about at the time. Many of the in jokes passed me by at the time.
There was a lot of talk of conspiracies, and not only Thorpe's. It was expected that the powers that be would ensure he got off. In those days it was hardly unusual. Indeed it was a function of a certain section of SB. A few years later, there was Cyril Smith being protected as well, with threats of dismissal against anyone who mentioned his name. The world has changed a lot since those 'good old days' and I doubt there would be the same support from the media about the circumstances. Mind you, there's the threat to what remains of press freedom by way of legislation. So some reason to have Grant in the lead role. It seems rather ironic that he's earning from raking over the personal life of someone who cannot answer back.
Much didn't come out for some time. The Cook sketch and Private Eye gave some insight but it wasn't until the books arrived that the circs became clearer. There's no doubt in my mind that Thorpe was guilty. There's a lot in common with Smith: a 'good' MP, at lest for his constituency, being protected despite committing horrendous offences.
As for the jury, in those days MPs were important people. Even Profumo, who's been mentioned in this thread already, was honourable. He resigned from his role and committed himself to good deeds. There's no comparison between the two. For Profumo, he was sacrificed for the good of the government, but much good it did it.
Those in power have authority and will abuse it. Carmen again; he seemed to be involved in so many such trials and legal matters.
Just finished watching this on iPlayer and, as has already been said, what an excellent series.
Found Jeremy Thorpe's obituary in the Guardian informative (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/04/jeremy-thorpe) as well as a piece in the Spectator, at around the time of his death about a book about Thorpe, not just this affair, a good read as well: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/the-damning-...
Found Jeremy Thorpe's obituary in the Guardian informative (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/04/jeremy-thorpe) as well as a piece in the Spectator, at around the time of his death about a book about Thorpe, not just this affair, a good read as well: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/the-damning-...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff