National Treasure – a national pleasure.
‘National Treasure’ was a triumph.
Superb acting, though one would expect nothing less from Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane; an impeccable script from Jack Thorne, if there is such a thing as thespian justice he should end up with a shelf full of BAFTA awards; every last detail showed the time and effort put into it.
Throughout the four part series carefully crafted breadcrumbs of possible information were laid in our path – even then they were hidden in ‘flashbacks’ from people who might or might not have been remembering events correctly. You could never be sure.
Did the daughter really remember her Father paying off the babysitter’s taxi? If he did, what did it mean? That it was true, he did rape her in the empty house – or did it mean that he had succumbed to her vampish invitation to have a drink after his long day filming? Did they just have a drink and discuss her forthcoming school exams, or was it proof positive that he had sexually overwhelmed her. We weren’t told.
In not telling us, those nuggets of information – ‘he had paid off the taxi’ – became like land mines, inviting us to step unwittingly on that one fact and be blown skywards, across the murky swamp of moral panic, onto the rocky shores of speculation and assumption, opinion based on our own prejudices, posing as factual proof.
That of course is the task faced by every jury in a historical sex abuse case. We were invited to become that jury. Superbly, realistically so.
The end result perfectly illustrated the conundrum faced by every such prosecution. A jury are not empanelled to decide whether or not they ‘believe’ the alleged victim’s tale, they are there to decide whether or not the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the known facts – ‘he paid off the taxi’ are proof that a rape took place. Which of course it can’t be. It can only suggest that the physical circumstances are such that it would have been physically possible for a rape to have taken place.
Jack Thorne expertly stroked the permanently priapic Twittoris of the feminist social justice warriors. Those hardy keyboard warriors were groomed to perfection; every last canard from the sexual abuse memes were there – the daughter suffered mental health issues, as do so many who have been sexually abused; the other alleged victims were hesitant, unsure of dates, explanatory of why they hadn’t come forward before the police trawl, damaged, unsettled, everything we have been told to expect of a sexual abuse victim. Yet were they?
Julie Walters, as the wife, was alternately supportive and doubting, as befitted a woman who had chosen to live for years with a serially unfaithful husband. She was troubled throughout that an incident where Coltrane’s comedic partner had called for him in his trailer and disturbed him in flagrante delicto, might well be proof positive that at least one of the girls was telling the truth despite the evidence that she was a committed fan who had made subsequent attempts to remain in contact with him.
As with ‘paying off the taxi’, we were given the opportunity to construe via flashback that he had had sex with someone in his trailer that night, that he had met the girl and asked to kiss her, that she had told him she had a boyfriend and ‘wasn’t like that’ – and is that evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the sex overheard by Coltrane’s partner was rape, or even the same girl, or even the sound of sexual activity? Not in legal terms, but yet again we were invited to bring our own prejudices to this banquet.
The merciless objectivity of the defence team, who can find their own dark humour in these cases to sustain them, was exposed to view. The humiliation of the alleged victims under cross examination – and the utterly devastating humiliation that the totally innocent bystanders, the wife and daughter, were subjected to as barrister struggled to illustrate various points was painstakingly illustrated.
Eventually a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict was recorded by the jury – correctly so on legal grounds in my opinion. None of the crumbs of evidence that we had been shown added up to proof that he had ever had sex with anyone other than his wife and prostitutes. That is not to say that he hadn’t – nor that the witnesses were lying, just that the cold hard facts presented to the jury, even amplified by the ‘flashbacks’ we had been privy to, did not amount to evidence of paedophilia or rape.
Twitter exploded before the credits had even rolled, and one of the first out of the trap was little Ben Dowell, who has made the dizzying leap downwards from the lofty heights of showbusiness editor on the Sunday Times to ‘freelance occasional contributor’ to that nest of Meirion Jones supporters lurking in the bowels of the cuddly old Radio Times. Gosh! Last time I set eyes on little Ben he was spark out in the rosy dawn, upside down in a Clun hedge, having apparently walked nose first into a localised talcum powder storm…
In the style of the great master, Nick Pisa’s, school of preemptive copy filing, Little Ben had 700 words ready and waiting as the credits rolled.
National Treasure has revealed the truth about Paul Finchley.
Robbie Coltrane’s character Paul was a rapist and paedophile, but he was acquitted of all charges by the court in a stunning climax to Channel 4’s National Treasure.
Yes, Ben had just crashed headfirst into that murky swamp inhabited by the true believer. Never mind the evidence, forget the jury’s responsibilities, ‘she said/he did’, therefore ‘he was a rapist and paedophile….’.
And there was also nothing alleged about his attack on Rebecca.
It clearly was rape, and not only that, Finchley’s comedy partner Karl knew it. He came upon his friend in his trailer while he was committing the offence, his victim’s cries and struggles obvious to anyone with a set of ears, and did not intervene.
Play that episode back as many times as you wish, and you will not hear any woman’s voice, nor ‘sounds of a struggle’ – unless you count the grunts and groans of either a far too heavy man engaged in physical exercise, which could indeed be sexual intercourse – or pulling on a far too tight set of trousers.
As for her husband, well, the fact that the woman he loves now knows him to be a lying rapist seems to be his principal – and only – punishment. At the end all he could do was vainly howl her name, over and over….
There, encapsulated, lies the problem with historic sexual abuse gracing – or disgracing – our courts. Half the population expect it to be a vindication of a woman’s ability to tell the truth. It destroys families and alleged victims alike in its flailing attempts to be all things to all men and women. We could but sympathise with the obsessed fan, the ‘golddigger’ who had sold her story, or the teenage vamp. They may have been telling the truth, they may not, but the court is not a lie detector. It is quite incredible how many people imagine that the possibility something occurred equals proof that it did.
The judicial system is a cold machine which operates on facts. The only thing it can do, with the aid of an ungroomed jury, is to decide whether the prosecution has put forward irrefutable evidence that an event occurred at the hands of the man in the dock – not emotive supposition that it was ‘possible’ for it to have occurred.
Bravely, the jury in this series was shown as having concluded that they hadn’t.
Brilliantly acted by all the cast..gutted he did get off when he was guilty. #NationalTreasure
— gaynor duncan (@gaynorduncan) October 12, 2016
Repeat umteen thousand times on Twitter….
- Ciaran Goggins
October 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm -
Even before the final episode we were told he could not be found innocent as “it would impact on victims coming forward in future”.
- Time Traveller
October 12, 2016 at 4:07 pm -
I haven’t seen it yet but I was disappointed that as part of the pre-series publicity, Coltrane was reported as keen to lend his support to the Yewtree circus because although he hadn’t heard “any rumours about Savile. I just instinctively thought, ‘This guy’s a creep’.””
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/robbie-coltrane-blasts-jimmy-savile-8770539- Ho Hum
October 12, 2016 at 9:50 pm -
Tsk. Giving the plot away. So, he did do it…..
(More seriously, I don’t watch much television, so I’ve not seen the programme, But if Anna’s summary above is fair, and even remotely close, and he really did say what he’s reported to have said, then one, or maybe even a jury, might conclude that for some, being able to act well wouldn’t seem to be the same as being able to think in a straight line.)
- Ho Hum
October 12, 2016 at 9:53 pm -
Drat, forgot to tick the ‘follow-up’ box
@ anyone
Is there any way of getting emails of comments made on an article, without having to first post some hopefully humorous, or possibly even contrived, nonsense?
- Ho Hum
- Ho Hum
- Hadleigh Fan
October 12, 2016 at 4:29 pm -
My wife watched it – I was watching Gold Divers on Discovery. She said ‘He got off even though he was guilty’, which I suppose proves the point. …
- The Blocked Dwarf
October 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm -
expertly stroked the permanently priapic Twittoris of the feminist social justice warriors.
I can die happy. No matter what travails i may experience in my however-long life to come, no one can take that sentence from me.
- Keith Walters
October 12, 2016 at 11:08 pm -
Damn! I was going to say that, or something like it
It’s up there with “Necro-Nonces”…. (Referring to the currently fashionable practice of charging dead people with historical sex abuse, with the aim of plundering their estates for “compensation”).- Henry Wood
October 13, 2016 at 12:19 am -
Oh! How I agree with both of you! –
– “expertly stroked the permanently priapic Twittoris of the feminist social justice warriors” – has not only been copied and pasted for future reference, I have also taken the precaution of additional copies going to my many external backups for I would certainly hate to ever, *ever* lose such a brilliant use of words. (I have *not* copied it to my Cloud backup just in case the Thought Police are keeping tabs.This is what I love about this blog: not only does it travel where most others fear to go, it tells it as it is and usually in the most expressive terms which leave no room for “confusion”.
Part of the reason I think this way – At my local Grammar School some 58 years ago when I was only a minor aged 14, we had a rather “good egg” of a girl student – a girl would you believe! – who led the way in all sorts of forward thinking for those days. She came from a very sheltered family and her mother was badly disabled and did not encourage her daughter’s beliefs and pronouncements. This did not discourage Anna, for that was her name.
We young oiks followed Anna through thick and thin. When she was called before the Head we supported her. When she arranged a march through town against the local Labour candidate (for crimes which I do not now remember) we were there. It was maybe only youthful exuberance rather than rebellion but I have never forgotten the cries of Anna’s followers:
“Anna! Anna! Follow her banner!”
Our chants were many years before the 60’s chants which were all rather boring. I rather hope and believe *my* “Anna” was perhaps cast from the same mould as Ms. Raccoon just before they broke the mould.
- Henry Wood
- Keith Walters
- John Marsh
October 12, 2016 at 5:57 pm -
Solid evidence is what is needed in any trial and criminal case. I could not watch it here but saw the clip and read your comments. I saw the clip of the babysitter ( I think) testifying to rape and sounding very convincing which shows either it is true or she is a good actor (Which in reality of the TV show she is) . I completely understand the difficulty to report rape,, for various reasons. But the point for rape and many crimes like a break in and collectable finger prints etc the crime needs reporting as soon as, at the time once left even for a day or two (As in a court case) then it becomes word against word and the chance for evidence is lost. So no one wants (Or at least I should say most reasonable people (almost seems non existant now) do not want to see anyone get away with it. I think subconsciously is the reason court judges and prosecutors allow the emotional heart strings of the jury to be pulled rather than providing evidence to demonstrate guilt)
- Ed P
October 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm -
My favourite new Raccoon word of the year: Twittoris
It deserves to be in the OED!
- Bandini
October 12, 2016 at 10:21 pm -
A social media campaign to DEMAND just this could swiftly be brought to a satisfying counclusion with a little gentle prodding and, if necessary, some judicious pressing of the retweet button.
- Bandini
- Jonathan King
October 12, 2016 at 6:20 pm -
Delighted to see, yet again, we sing from the same hymn sheet. I thought it was tremendous; well acted; well written; fair. Only the flash backs were, I thought, a bit clunky probably because the young actors were so weak compared with the superb leads. I hoped they would do two alternative endings and they sort-of did – Not Guilty but probably guilty of something. Interesting to see that viewers could not take the correct middle line – a bit of one, a bit of the other – but had to go to the extremes. As in life. Why have we, as a species, become so simplistic, so black and white, in a world constantly more complex with so many shades of colour?
- Mark Parry
October 12, 2016 at 6:33 pm -
Excellent summary! What I continue to find disturbing is that Robbie Coltrane was’advised’ not to play this part as it could ‘damage his career’. I am glad he did…not because it will ruin his career (it will be scandalous if it does) but because he played the part with sensitivity and precision.
We seem to have come to a place on this subject where actors playing a part are tainted with guilt. I can hear the safeguarding industry now sharpening their knives ready to state that “Coltrane too must be a rapist”. This is the taboo of all taboo subjects and the myths and prejudices surrounding it must be punctured and left to sink beneath the waves.
- The Blocked Dwarf
October 12, 2016 at 7:58 pm -
Apparently Gayle Newland is out on bail awaiting a retrial after her conviction, 8 years for pretending to be a man (oh the horror) inorder to have sex with another woman was declared unsafe. Whatever one’s feelings about this case, I think most would agree the punishment certainly didn’t fit the crime.
- Michael
October 12, 2016 at 8:52 pm -
If being a complete weirdo was a crime the Raccoon Arms would lose most of its clientele. Anyway, I thought you could “self-identify” as anything these days – man, woman, shopping trolley, we are not to judge..
- Mudplugger
October 12, 2016 at 10:02 pm -
Steady on, old chap – some of us are only trainee weirdos, ‘complete’ remains an aspiration.
- Ted Treen
October 12, 2016 at 10:50 pm -
To wit – Wierdo In Training.
OK, I’ll get my coat.
- Ted Treen
- Mudplugger
- Michael
- Sean Coleman
October 12, 2016 at 8:55 pm -
Here is Peter Hitchens’s view, from a fortnight ago:
I haven’t seen it. It’s not just that I don’t watch it but I can’t get near it with a teenager and his video games.
- Tommy K
October 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm -
“But I think our attitude towards sexual abuse is now such that we do tend to presume guilt on this charge, and this presumption has poisoned the wells of justice very deeply.”
Hitchen’s assessment is an accurate one. Why is it that so few in the police and “justice” system are doing anything about it?
- Sean Coleman
October 13, 2016 at 8:55 pm -
If you haven’t already read this you might find this review of an earlier (BBC) drama interesting:
http://www.richardwebster.net/care.htm
By coincidence my copy of The Secret of Bryn Estyn arrived this morning.
- Tommy K
October 14, 2016 at 6:34 pm -
Many thanks for posting that link. It’s an interesting insight into the nature of the hysteria that has taken hold. It’s ironic, however, that the person who seems to have suffered most in the this case is a policeman, given the extent to which the police have orchestrated, facilitated and promoted sex abuse witch hunts.
- Tommy K
- Sean Coleman
- Tommy K
- Keith Walters
October 12, 2016 at 11:38 pm -
We still seem to have the Same Old same ol’ same ol’ dragged out that, because Coltrane’s character is an adulterer and treats his wife (and possibly other adult women) poorly, this automatically makes him guilty of the sex offences against children he is charged with.
This is a work of FICTION, people! There is no: “Ah, but what happens behind the scenes…?”
Once the camera stops rolling, so does the story. Life goes on out of sight on the real world true enough, but NOT in a fictional one.
Frightening numbers of people can’t seem to make that connection.
Dare I say it; even finding child pornography on someone’s computer does not constitute proof that they actually physically assaulted anyone.
It’s a serious crime on its own, but it’s a DIFFERENT crime.- Keith Walters
October 13, 2016 at 12:59 am -
Urrr… For some reason, I appear to have transposed lines 3,4 &5 and lines 6 & 7.
No, I haven’t been drinking; maybe that’s the problem….
- Keith Walters
- Henry Wood
October 13, 2016 at 1:22 am -
A change of view after seeing [part] of the 1st episode:
Well, I don’t watch live TV at all these days but after seeing such a recommendation I went and downloaded the whole 4 episodes.
The very first episode confirms *all* that I think of UK TV these days and is the simple reason I no longer tune into it – totally PC, totally full of quotas and totally full of crap. What is seemingly and very probably a very good story about the witchhunts in Britain today is overwhelmingly spoilt by the casting of the copper and the defence solicitor in the very first episode and goodness knows what happens after that. It is all so unrealistic.
FFS! Why, when the percentage of Black people is so “exceeding small” in this country, *why* do they *always* play such huge percentages of parts in modern dramas? It beggars belief.
Why are there no Geordies/Jocks/Taffs/Brummies/Cockneys/ (for example) in these programmes? I am sure there are many more of those in the land, including in Police “services” and legal firms than there are Black minorities, yet the Blacks get the jobs on TV.
It absolutely p**s me off and I end up treating any such PC casted programmes with contempt. They do not ring true.
(I have *not* deleted my downloads and may perhaps return to see what happens at a later date, but thank goodness I no longer pay £145 or whatever in order to be allowed to watch such PC sh*te!)
- CMrs Grumble
October 13, 2016 at 5:30 am -
Even though you “no longer tune into” UK tv, you cabn state with certainty that 1) black characters are over-represented in tv dramas and 2) characters with regional accents are under-represented?
As the kids on Twitter say: “citation needed”.
- windsock
October 13, 2016 at 11:16 am -
Heaven forfend that black people might want to be actors instead of drug dealers or cleaners or gang members or”nail tehnicians” or barbers or whatever… and that they would have the gumption and courage to audition for a role and might actually be better than white co-applicants. No, it HAS to be “PC” if you accept that black actors can’t possibly be talented.
- Tommy K
October 13, 2016 at 2:18 pm -
You should watch historical dramas then, Henry: you’ll be amazed how many black people were living in England back in the middle ages.
- tdf
October 14, 2016 at 7:40 pm -
Apparently:
“The first record of an African in London was in 1593. His name was Cornelius. London’s residents started to become fearful of the increased black population. At this time Elizabeth I declared that black “Negroes and black Moors” were to be arrested and expelled from her kingdom, although this did not lead to actual legislation.[2][3]”
Of course a very well-known Shakespeare play, believe to date from around the same time, featured a black man as the title character.
- tdf
- CMrs Grumble
- Keith Walters
October 13, 2016 at 1:42 am -
You really should have signed off with: “Aarghhh … words fail me!”
Unfortunately I can’t download it down here as yet, but no doubt it will turn up on our illustrious Feral-Government-owned ABC in due course.
By tradition, most BBC shows wind up on the ABC here. I do’;t know; I think the ABC could still teach the BBC a thing or two about PC-ness- Henry Wood
October 13, 2016 at 1:55 am -
“Unfortunately I can’t download it down here as yet”
Try Usenet.
- Henry Wood
- Keith Walters
October 13, 2016 at 1:49 am -
FMS! You still have to pay £145 for a TV license!
We did away with those in 1975; they reckoned it was costing more to collect than it was worth. There were a few unfortunate consequences, such as a gaggle of vociferously unemployed (and I daresay unemployable) bureaucrats, plus a fleet of Cat Detec-Tor Vans that needed to be disposed of, but generally civilization did not fall.- Henry Wood
October 13, 2016 at 1:59 am -
“FMS! You still have to pay £145 for a TV license!”
Well, I don’t pay it and haven’t done for many years, though I still get frequent visits from Capita thugs attempting to enforce the BBC’s will upon me.
I neither accept the views of the BBC nor am willing to pay a single penny for them to propagate their arrogant, one-sided view of the World.
(I do enjoy BBC Radio 3. Sometimes.)
p.s. What does “FMS” mean, please?- Keith Walters
October 13, 2016 at 2:10 am -
“F” the same as the middle ‘F” in FFS, plus “Me Sideways”
Usenet? Wouldn’t that be like, illegal :-).
Even with legal downloads, they often come up with “Not available in your country.” messages.
- Keith Walters
- Henry Wood
- JuliaM
October 13, 2016 at 6:38 am -
“It is quite incredible how many people imagine that the possibility something occurred equals proof that it did.”
See today’s ‘Daily Mail’, in which the word ‘alleged’ makes one appearance only:
Typical excerpt: “Statistics reveal that police and prosecutors were forced to drop thousands of investigations – meaning culprits get away scot-free.”
- Tommy K
October 13, 2016 at 2:25 pm -
“The 124 per cent rise… …coincides with the start of the Operation Yewtree investigations”
Well, what a surprise!
- Tommy K
- Misa
October 15, 2016 at 11:26 am -
Anna, I’ve just got round to watching this, and was duly impressed. But you say:
“Play that episode back as many times as you wish, and you will not hear any woman’s voice, nor ‘sounds of a struggle’ – unless you count the grunts and groans of either a far too heavy man engaged in physical exercise, which could indeed be sexual intercourse – or pulling on a far too tight set of trousers.”
A woman’s voice is clearly audible in the version I’ve just watched.
- Misa
October 15, 2016 at 1:39 pm -
I certainly hear the man’s groans/grunts, but I’m clear that there’s a woman’s voice in there too. It could well be ‘struggling’ – it certainly doesn’t sound like contented purring. I’m well aware that I’m not going to win any awards for my descriptive language, and equally aware that there are a wide range of sounds which people make in the course of consensual sex.
My first reaction upon seeing the scene – primed as I was by having read your post – was that I could clearly hear a young woman, probably in discomfort. After three listens, and after once playing the audio to my better half, who had not watched any of the serial, I’m still of that view. I think that, on balance, the reaction of many viewers that ‘we know that he did rape her’ was not unreasonable. We obviously don’t know for sure – we see nothing of the act – but we do see her go into the trailer, and we see him appear to be already over-stepping the mark. We then see the comic partner pacing up and down outside the trailer whilst these sounds are emanating from within. Given that he was sent to fetch the man, in an emergency, it seems unlikely that the partner simply slunk away and saw no more. We might infer that either he entered the trailer, or he saw one or both of them leave the trailer. Of course there remains the question of whether we are supposed to accept this (or any) ‘flashback’ as reliable, but I would think that the makers of the programme intend that, at the very least, we viewers are left in little doubt that the comic partner believes something untoward too place.
If you’ve managed to take another look, I’d be very interested to hear your further impressions.
- TickTock
October 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm -
It took me quite a long time to find a review of National Treasure which did not trot out the predictable knee-jerk reaction. I cannot believe that the intention of the people who made this programme was to offer support to any particular closed mind-set – surely the idea was to try to challenge people to think beyond a search for a simple answer.
For me, the series wasn’t really about the question of innocence or guilt – I think it was about the extent to which, in our oh-so civilised world, one of our greatest influences and pre-occupations is sex and nearly all of our lives are hugely affected, for better or for worse, by the way we deal, or fail to deal, with our own individual sexual feelings and experiences. I think one of the most telling lines in the script was Marie’s observation that a person’s personality is multi-layered. I think that idea applied to every one of the story’s characters.
- Misa
October 16, 2016 at 2:22 am -
TickTock, I am still of the view that this was quality drama. I agree that the series was about more than simple guilt or innocence but, on seeing the conclusion, I’m now inclined to think that the makers of the programme perhaps don’t believe we’re ready for anything too challenging. Who knows? Perhaps they’re one step ahead, and what they really wanted to say was:
“Just because it’s a witch hunt, it doesn’t mean the accused are all innocent.”
- TickTock
October 17, 2016 at 1:11 am -
Misa – I’m sorry to say that I strongly disagree with you that the programme offered any kind of conclusion. As Anna said in her original review, the series offered no proof that rape had taken place, but it allowed any or all of us to form our own opinion. You have formed yours and I have formed mine, but juries are not asked to form an opinion – their job is to decide whether or not there is proof.
There are four possible victims in the story – Marie, Dee and the two accusers. Marie was clearly a life-long victim of Paul’s misbehaviour, but the fact that she appears to have experienced no physical or sexual abuse apparently renders her suffering as non-criminal. Dee’s relationship with her father is enormously complicated but I can’t recall any clear suggestion that she was sexually abused by him – a scene which sticks in my mind is that, after shagging the ‘babysitter’, he stood at the foot of his apparently sleeping daughter’s bed and, to all intents and purposes, apologised to her for letting her down. I am very happy to be corrected on this, and I am aware that I need to watch the series again.
Christina’s accusations came after Rebecca’s but I think I’m right in saying that her accusations were based on events which were claimed to have taken place over a three-day period in Finchley’s car. These accusations were proved to be false because the car was elsewhere in the country at the time of the alleged rape(s). There is very little doubt that she and Finchley had sex in Finchley’s house but, from the flashback which we were shown, it would be impossible to say that the encounter was anything but entirely consensual. The unanswered question is whether she was above or below the age of consent. This, in turn, raises the question about whether a 15-year-old can change overnight from a vulnerable child to a knowing adult on the day of her 16th birthday.
Rebecca certainly exhibited some very clear uncertainty about Paul’s advances, but I don’t recall her offering any firm resistance. The noises from within the caravan were not those of protest, and she continued to write fan letters after the event. The death of her life-long best friend and confidante clearly caused her to re-examine the past.
I stick to my opinion that this TV programme was extremely successful in raising lots of very important questions whilst leaving the answers, if any, for each individual viewer to decide for themselves.
Here’s a link to an interview with the script writer – http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-11/national-treasure-is-paul-finchley-guilty
- Keith Walters
October 17, 2016 at 1:57 am -
“This, in turn, raises the question about whether a 15-year-old can change overnight from a vulnerable child to a knowing adult on the day of her 16th birthday.”
Exactly so. Suppose a girl turns 16 on Sunday 30th October, but she has her birthday party on Saturday 29th October. Up to that point she’s still a virgin, but if her boyfriend takes her out to the garden and shags her at 11:55PM on the Saturday night, according to the press at least, he’s a “paedophile”. But if he waits another 5 minutes, he’s not! So, what actually happens to his girlfriend in the space of that five minutes? - Misa
October 17, 2016 at 12:29 pm -
TickTock, thank you for such a considered response. I perhaps overstated my disappointment. I certainly agree that the programme raised some very interesting issues, and am still having flashbacks, as it were, so I’m not sure my opinion is yet settled. We certainly don’t have cast-iron proof that a crime was committed, though we do see more than the jury sees.
Dee’s relationship with both parents is interesting. She’s clearly Daddy’s girl, and this seems to trouble her mother. Mother is not pleased when Dee returns to the nest. Dee seems to have been trying to examine (or recall details of) her relationship with her father as part of her treatment. I agree that there’s no clear suggestion that she’s been abused, but perhaps there’s just a hint that she’s been encouraged to examine that part of her life in a search for answers to her problems. (I’ll have to go back and check.)
I think you’re quite right about Paul’s ‘apology’ to Dee – that was how it came across to me – though it was interesting that we cut to Dee’s point of view just as it appeared Paul would kiss the babysitter. Dee, it seemed, could not see a kiss, only two people standing close to each other. Yet, for me, the incident with the babysitter was marginally less clear-cut, and less damaging, than the incident in the trailer.
My reason for belatedly joining this particular conversation was that I felt that the trailer incident was rather less ‘neutral’ than the landlady suggested. It seems most likely that Karl, the comic partner, had suspicions which he chose not to share in court, despite being urged to do so by Paul’s wife. Of course, one would hope that a witness would not be permitted to speculate on the witness stand but, had he shared his interpretation of what he saw and heard that night, perhaps the jury might have been persuaded. On that basis, given that we viewers see/hear some of the trailer incident, and witness Karl’s apparent discomfort, I don’t think it that surprising that many people felt this showed Paul’s guilt. However, your point about the trailer girl continuing to write letters after the alleged incident is persuasive, and something I’d overlooked in making my previous comment. I understand that some people would argue this doesn’t disprove the claim of rape and that victims may well behave in such a way – something along the lines of Stockholm syndrome. I would need some persuading of that, but the accused’s life-long friend and partner supporting the victim’s account would be powerful.
Ben Dowell’s review (prior to the final episode) was pretty good, and the interview with Jack Thorne most interesting. Thank you for pointing them out. Interestingly…reassuringly, perhaps, Thorne and Coltrane don’t appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Thorne notes that Coltrane ‘feels names need to be publicised’, against which he (Thorne) stresses ‘the question of innocent until proven guilty’. But it was one line from near the end of the interview which caught my eye:
‘Thorne also says that by the end of the drama viewers will be in “no doubt” about the truth of what Finchley did or didn’t do, but that other questions will remain.’
As this is obviously not a full, direct quote, perhaps the interviewer has over-interpreted Thorne’s words but, if accurate, it would suggest that Thorne intends we have sufficient information to reach a verdict ourselves.
You said that juries are not asked to form an opinion, but to decide whether or not there is proof. Perhaps you would agree with me that this sort of case should simply not be pursued? This would perhaps seem shockingly cold to many people (though perhaps not to quite so many in the Raccoon Arms), but I fear that cases of this type damage the standing of the legal system itself, as well as putting a whole bunch of people through the wringer. I’m not suggesting a statute of limitations – where good evidence of the commission of a serious crime comes to light, even long after the fact, I see no reason why a living (compos mentis!) perpetrator should not be held to account. I just feel that in the absence of hard evidence that a crime was committed and strong evidence against the perpetrator, the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is very unlikely to be met. Presenting a mixture of accusation, indirect evidence and hazy recollection long after the fact to a jury, and then suggesting that they come to a decision, seems fraught with danger. Perhaps, expecting the legal system to right every wrong is not realistic.
- TickTock
October 17, 2016 at 11:16 pm -
“Perhaps you would agree with me that this sort of case should simply not be pursued? This would perhaps seem shockingly cold to many people (though perhaps not to quite so many in the Raccoon Arms), but I fear that cases of this type damage the standing of the legal system itself, as well as putting a whole bunch of people through the wringer”
Misa – you’re thinking the unthinkable but, as you suggest, the Raccoon Arms may be one of the few places on the internet where such behaviour is acceptable! I’m new here, so I’m still testing the waters…
You say that ‘this sort of case’ should, maybe, not be pursued. But others might say that, when considering an act or an accusation of rape, there is only one sort of case to be considered and the male will always be 100% guilty.
I would suggest that the general understanding of the rape word has changed. Until relatively recently, I think that most people’s understanding of the word would have included the use of some degree of violence. In other words, it was exclusively a physical act. But most of us now understand that the physical aspects of sexual intercourse cannot be isolated from the emotional and psychological aspects, especially for women. Unfortunately, in the black and white world of a courtroom, it is hard to attribute a ‘value’ to anything except the physical.
In National Treasure, neither accuser experienced violence and there was no evidence that either of them had sustained long term damage from Finchley’s sexual penetration of their orifice. Arguably, Christina was a teenage vamp grown into an adult moneygrabber and Rebecca was a teenage pushover grown into a confused and sorrowful adult.
As you say, maybe this sort of case should first be tackled by some kind of non-confrontational exploration of ‘what and why’ before launching into a court case which is likely to destroy the life and soul of the accused whilst leaving the anonymous accuser free to benefit in any way she can from what is, very often, some kind of chance encounter which simply got out of control.
I would like to believe that the low level of rape complaints and rape convictions is largely because of the widespread human understanding that sex is always going to happen, and that some sexual encounters are best forgotten.
- Misa
October 18, 2016 at 8:56 am -
TickTock, I hope we’re safe to test the waters back here. I’m a long-time occasional, rather than one of the regular drinkers.
The meaning of the word rape, as well as the definition of the crime, does seem to have changed somewhat in recent times, but the etymology is most interesting. See: raptor, rapid, rapture (getting carried away!) and rapt . See also Rape and Pillage, The Rape of the Lock, The Rape of Nanking, etc.
I’m not sure about non-confrontational explorations – there may be something in the idea – but I’m more concerned that the law is permitted to do what it does (reasonably) well, rather than being bent to fit currently prevailing sentiments. I can’t help feeling that there’s some kind of religious force at play in all of this, but I’ll spare you further waffle.
Are the level of rape complaints and rape convictions low? Do you mean they’re at a historical low, or that they tend to make up only a small proportion of crimes…or low in relation to the number of rapes which take place?
- Misa
- TickTock
- Keith Walters
- TickTock
- Misa
- tdf
October 15, 2016 at 10:22 pm -
From the Irish Times, a feature “Weekend Read: We talk to child sex abusers, victims and therapists, and ask: is there a better way to tackle abuse in Ireland? ”
No ‘false accusers’ or sufferers of ‘false memory syndrome’ here, so probably some contributors on this blog won’t like to read it:
- Misa
October 16, 2016 at 3:14 am -
Well worth the read, tdf. Thank you.
- tdf
October 16, 2016 at 3:30 am -
^ Welcome, Misa.
I am not much of a fan of the Irish Times, but I that article struck me as balanced and well-researched.
- Keith Walters
October 17, 2016 at 1:47 am -
They do make this point:
“But Dr Nick Bankes, a clinical psychologist who works with offenders, says that of the hundreds of child sex abusers he has treated only about six may have been paedophiles….”
As far as the general press are concerned, ANYbody accused of ANY sexual offense with ANYbody who is at the time of the offense one femtosecond or more under the age of consent applying at that particular jurisdiction is automatically a: “Paedophile”.
True paedophiles are exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent children, and generally lose interest in them when they approach puberty. Traditionally, most people have been able to at least get their heads around the concept of “Jail Bait” and how such persons could (albeit improperly) attract the carnal interest of people who are basically normal sexually mature people (usually men, but not always), allowing their basic instincts to get out of control.
However, sexual attraction to young children was a concept they simply did not understand, and as is so often the case, they would invariably pull an explanation out of the seemingly unlimited reserves of their fundamental orifices. Have you never noticed that in the past, reports about true paedophiles tended to portray them as some sort of twisted sadists; the sexual side of the offense, if it was mentioned at all, tended to be glossed over, or explained as the child being used as a “substitute” for “the real thing” and something incidental to the actual crime.
The main reason **true** pedophiles were able to get away with their crimes for so long, was simply that. if the perpetrators limited their offenses to essentially non-violent activities (that is, not ones that left any obvious signs). the average person had no idea that such activities ever took place.- Tommy K
October 19, 2016 at 4:20 pm -
You have highlighted an important issue. In reality, the paedophile is a rare beast indeed. Yet such is the hysteria that has been whipped up that people have been frightened into believing they are an omnipresent danger. The irrational fear has been used by various authorities as a control mechanism. Sexual offences that have nothing to do with prebuscent children (e.g. a young lad having a photo of his 17 year old girl friend with her boobs out) will result in the perpetrator being added to the sex offenders register and being prevented from being with children. Careers and family relationships are being ruined on the pretext of “child protection”.
It extends to family courts where the shibboleth of the interests of the child mean that parents can be wrongly accused of harming their children who are then removed from them and adopted. When the parents are subsequently shown to be completely innocent they cannot be reunited with their own flesh and blood because it is deemed not in the children’s interest. I suspect when the children eventually learn the truth they might not always agree with the wisdom of the family court.
“Child protection”, like “safety”, is a phrase that should always ring alarm bells as it is all too often a means for self-righteous bullies to justify their behaviour, even if only to themselves.
- Tommy K
- Keith Walters
- tdf
- Misa
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }