A Very English Scandal - BBC1

[Mary Chambers]

There seems to be some confusion about Norman Scott’s age when he met Thorpe. He was 21 in early 1961 (exactly the same age as me).

[Lat-Literal]

There seems to be some confusion about Norman Scott’s age when he met Thorpe. He was 21 in early 1961 (exactly the same age as me).

Thank you Mary.

Perhaps not 19 - I think I said 19 or 20 - but Norman Scott was born in mid February 1940 and Thorpe first met him either in late 1960 or early 1961 when he first offered to help him - the precise dates are disputed - which means 20 or 21. In many ways it could be argued that this simply reiterates the point about the later age of consent. It is absolutely on that line. Consequently by late 1978, it suits society very well to have a massive scandal which essentially involves two men but with the hint that it isn't quite so what with Mr Scott's age, his comparative low status and his use of the word "grooming". In the drama, Thorpe takes the rap for what is taking place elsewhere yet not in a way that punishes anything but career. I am not suggesting that Thorpe was a jolly fine fellow - far from it - but I would see the events as a less than coincidental symbol of the very significant complexities in those times. I am not even suggesting that 21 was necessarily the wrong age in 1967 - I am a gradualist when it comes to reform in all areas - but it did lead to muddle, especially in the first 15 years.

My view is that it should be individually set for all at the point at which they have had two years of paid employment so as to have the means to raise a child but that's very idealistic. Fascinatingly what that would mean is a raising of the age rather than a lowering of the age - when most folk went out to work at just 14, 16 was probably much more appropriate. Of course, had they started the process of legalising same-sex relationships in 1929 or 1940 then none of it would have occurred but presumably wars and national service prevented it.

[Conchis]

An opportunity was missed in not showing Thorpe leaping over hedges - one of his electioneering party pieces. I suppose H&S regulations made it too risky.

[Stunsworth]

Yes, see my #66 above. We are in the same boat - no bloody copy at a sensible price!

I had a look on Abebooks without success.

[Nick Armstrong]

I had a look on Abebooks without success.

Same here - if anything the prices seemed higher than on amazon...

[jean]

Possibly, but I thought it was more the case that Mangold was irritated at the way Thorpe could be cavalier, even reckless in his gay affairs precisely because he believed he could rely upon the establishment to look the other way, offering him protection that certainly was not available to his generally weaker and poorer lovers.

But I would have liked some acknowledgement that however privileged Thorpe was in contrast to other less well protected men, his behaviour was 'reckless', he was a 'security risk', entirely because of laws we now recognise as iniquitous.

I feel this even though as you say

It was surely the callousness of Thorpe's attitude in regarding people like Scott as dispensable, and eventually a nuisance to be eliminated, that Mangold was reacting to.

[LHC]

Same here - if anything the prices seemed higher than on amazon...

It’s currently available for £23.70 on Amazon (paperback, 1 copy only)

[Sir Velo]

But I would have liked some acknowledgement that however privileged Thorpe was in contrast to other less well protected men, his behaviour was 'reckless', he was a 'security risk', entirely because of laws we now recognise as iniquitous.

I feel this even though as you say

I think that would have required an entirely different type of programme. This documentary was focused on the Thorpe trial and the probable miscarriage of justice which arose out of it, not a critique of that society's persecution of homosexuals. I have to say I thought Mangold's approach was almost entirely lacking in any kind of reproach or disdain for gay men; his clear sympathy for Scott was surely evidence of that.

[aeolium]

But I would have liked some acknowledgement that however privileged Thorpe was in contrast to other less well protected men, his behaviour was 'reckless', he was a 'security risk', entirely because of laws we now recognise as iniquitous.

But I don't think he was a security risk entirely because of the law against homosexuality. He was a security risk because of his promiscuity which could have exposed him to blackmail or could have led to indiscretion. In the Profumo affair (another scandal in which there was the use of firearms and leaks to the press), the minister broke no laws by having an affair with Christine Keeler, but still had to resign. And in the 1970s Lord Lambton's liaisons with prostitutes were not illegal, but he was still investigated by MI5 and eventually had to resign. Burgess, who really was a security risk, seems simply to have taken no notice of the law.

I completely agree about the iniquitous laws but as Sir Velo says, that was not the primary focus of Mangold's programme.

Having greatly enjoyed the BBC drama on this, I wonder whether anything could be made, perhaps with the same writer-director partnership, of the life of Tom Driberg - to me, one of the most fascinating political characters of the C20. Francis Wheen's biography of him is a hoot, leaving you wondering time and again how TD gets away with it. And yet, on very many political issues, not least social liberalism and nuclear disarmament, he seems to have been on the side of the angels. The drama would have to be Rabelaisian, with some politics thrown in.

[Nevilevelis]

I think that would have required an entirely different type of programme. This documentary was focused on the Thorpe trial and the probable miscarriage of justice which arose out of it, not a critique of that society's persecution of homosexuals. I have to say I thought Mangold's approach was almost entirely lacking in any kind of reproach or disdain for gay men; his clear sympathy for Scott was surely evidence of that.

Agreed. Russell T. Davies touched very poignantly on that in his script (Scott's speech on the witness stand and the exchange between Thorpe and his lawyer), but I think Mangold was being very careful not to preach and show bias (unlike the judge!) by presenting the facts clearly and methodically. Personally, I don't need anyone to tell me who the villain was, and it was bigotry and tortured Thorpe as its player. His behaviour was utterly reprehensible and perhaps a more probing critique of the sexual politics of the time may see justice for Scott... I don't know. It made it to some T.V. news programmes, but the case is closed and Norman Scott still doesn't have an NI card! I hope, somehow, he may get justice.

The brilliant Ben Wishaw on his role:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0_LKmr5zS0

NVV

[gradus]

Agreed. Russell T. Davies touched very poignantly on that in his script (Scott's speech on the witness stand and the exchange between Thorpe and his lawyer), but I think Mangold was being very careful not to preach and show bias (unlike the judge!) by presenting the facts clearly and methodically. Personally, I don't need anyone to tell me who the villain was, and it was bigotry and tortured Thorpe as its player. His behaviour was utterly reprehensible and perhaps a more probing critique of the sexual politics of the time may see justice for Scott... I don't know. It made it to some T.V. news programmes, but the case is closed and Norman Scott still doesn't have an NI card! I hope, somehow, he may get justice.

The brilliant Ben Wishaw on his role:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0_LKmr5zS0

NVV

No ni ... and therefore presumably no OAP ?

[gurnemanz]

Personally, I don't need anyone to tell me who the villain was, and it was bigotry and tortured Thorpe as its player. His behaviour was utterly reprehensible and perhaps a more probing critique of the sexual politics of the time may see justice for Scott... I don't know.

I couldn't help asking myself (and I've not read enough to know) how Thorpe really felt about things for the rest of his life. Did he suffer from any sort of ongoing guilt or regret about his lies and betrayal? Quite possible, I suppose, that this kind of arrogant egomaniac can easily banish pangs of conscience, either in self-delusion or sheer flint-heartedness.

Having been away, I've only just caught up with the last episode and the Mangold documentary. I've really enjoyed following comments and links here. Having been a Private Eye subscriber ever since late 60s it was was specially interesting for me to revisit their coverage via the link supplied above. I agree with comments about performances. Many fine contributions including Alex Jennings, ever impressive, as the self-deceiving and ultimately humiliated Peter Bessel and Blake Harrison as the wackily incompetent assassin.

Similarities with the plays of Joe Orton came to mind as I watched. How he would surely have revelled in the bizarre, scurrilous and farcically tragic proceedings if he had lived long enough to witness it all.

[Nevilevelis]

I couldn't help asking myself (and I've not read enough to know) how Thorpe really felt about things for the rest of his life. Did he suffer from any sort of ongoing guilt or regret about his lies and betrayal? Quite possible, I suppose, that this kind of arrogant egomaniac can easily banish pangs of conscience, either in self-delusion or sheer flint-heartedness.

Having been away, I've only just caught up with the last episode and the Mangold documentary. I've really enjoyed following comments and links here. Having been a Private Eye subscriber ever since late 60s it was was specially interesting for me to revisit their coverage via the link supplied above. I agree with comments about performances. Many fine contributions including Alex Jennings, ever impressive, as the self-deceiving and ultimately humiliated Peter Bessel and Blake Harrison as the wackily incompetent assassin.

Similarities with the plays of Joe Orton came to mind as I watched. How he would surely have revelled in the bizarre, scurrilous and farcically tragic proceedings if he had lived long enough to witness it all.

Yes, I do wonder myself, and I think your assessment is probably right. The contrast between his liberal political views and his apparent skullduggery (I've no doubt, myself!) is marked in the series and presumably quite accurate... ? (I wasn't here at the time.) Sexual desire, power & privilege - a toxic cocktail.

It's one of the best things I've seen on T.V. and I hope it cleans up at the BAFTAs. The heady mix of serious drama and farce was immediately compelling. It has led some to question how seriously Russell T. Davies took it. I would say, very seriously and add that comedy (of the darkest hue) doesn't necessarily signify a lack of gravitas. The ridiculous aspects are unavoidable. Any thoughts?

NVV

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, I do wonder myself, and I think your assessment is probably right. The contrast between his liberal political views and his apparent skullduggery (I've no doubt, myself!) is marked in the series and presumably quite accurate... ? (I wasn't here at the time.) Sexual desire, power & privilege - a toxic cocktail.

It's one of the best things I've seen on T.V. and I hope it cleans up at the BAFTAs. The heady mix of serious drama and farce was immediately compelling. It has led some to question how seriously Russell T. Davies took it. I would say, very seriously and add that comedy (of the darkest hue) doesn't necessarily signify a lack of gravitas. The ridiculous aspects are unavoidable. Any thoughts?

NVV

I still feel that it failed to provide the full political context. At the end of 1974, he had brought the Liberals up to nearly 20%. That was unprecedented in post war politics. By the time that the trial was occurring, around six months before the general election, they were on around 5%. Labour and the Tories were neck and neck. The old post-war consensus had already been lost within the Tory Party with the election of Thatcher as leader in 1975. It had not yet been lost within the Labour Party but it was teetering with an old Callaghan holding it together but deemed increasingly remote and a dire economy that had only just been kept afloat by Labour with the help of a Steel led Lib-Lab pact. The Liberal role in that pact had gained the admiration of some voters but not enough to turn the Liberal position around. It was clear to most - both the public and the establishment - that the post-war consensus was about to be lost in Labour too. That was subsequently proven by the defection of the Gang of Four who were to form the SDP in 1981, Livingstone taking over at the GLC within days of the 1981 GLC election even though the party had gone into the election under the leadership of the moderate Andrew McIntosh, and the election of Foot as leader of the national party.

The Americans who were always highly influential in our politics and on the verge of Reaganomics were wholly in favour of a Tory victory in 1979 and wanted Labour out at all costs although elements of the Democrats could have easily accepted a Liberal Government, however unlikely. We were not sufficiently involved in the EEC for that to have made much of a difference. And the Labour vote, while holding up, was flimsy especially in the south and the Midlands. While what remained of the industrial north was heavily unionised, white van man was not and felt that neither Labour or the unions were doing anything other than to oppose him as southern branches of the TUC ensured that the dead weren't being buried and rubbish was spilling over out of chutes in council tower blocks so that the stench of it was in every humble flat. In parallel, what had been deemed the layabout hippies (anyone with long hair) had been replaced by punks who were roaming past the WW2 bomb sites looking to many malevolent, seemingly the epitome of there being no future as they declared. Most over 30 were only starting to accommodate people of ethnicity, albeit with more aplomb than they were ever given the credit for, and the National Front had frequent coverage in the press for their significant fringe appeal. Hooliganism at football was rife and abhorred. There were IRA bombs. Uncomfortable as it is, the sexual reform of 1967 was probably seen by most as an element of the all round abyss and that continued for a long time. The absolute symbol of it came as late as 1983 - the Bermondsey by-election of 1983 in which Hughes (Liberal) defeated Tatchell (Labour) mainly because of the latter's stance on gay rights. It followed on from Harman first being elected in nearby Peckham somewhat against the odds.

I have always known that constituency well. She was regarded not only as a posh voiced outsider - she changed her accent during that campaign - but a proxy representative of all those peculiar Anna Raeburn sex talk radio organisations that had suddenly appeared in the 1970s. The National Association for Mental Health, later Mind, when mental illness was viewed as residing not in people's lives but wholly in "mental hospitals"; Shelter which was often seen as promoting homelessness rather than supporting homeless people (based on opinions about alcoholism, drug use and everyone having the responsibility to work); the Chiswick Women's Refuge Centre (seen as a post Cathy Come Home unmarried mothers sort of thing, irresponsible or depraved); and the National Campaign for Civil Liberties (occasionally vocal young trendy women talking about gay rights and abortion on "Any Questions" but mainly being associated somewhat subliminally in publications like the News of the World with campaigns against the National Front which, like Enoch, had "a bit of a point" and not only siding with but promoting child offenders). All such things were lumped in together by working class voters as a part of the downhill slide - big L Labour and only small l liberal - while the likes of Mary Whitehouse and later Dickens and Braine were saying from the old right wing of the conservatives that modernity was poisoning the minds of everyone's children.

In the midst of it all came the Thorpe affair. Given that a Lib-Lab Government in 1979 seemed the best option for retaining the old economic and social order, the Liberals had been quickly rebranded under Steel to distance the party from all that was lurid. Thorpe was shoved so far as was possible out of the limelight as a kind of yesterday's irrelevance even though he himself believed he was the future. In fact, there was as little publicity for him as possible between the Newton trial in March 1976 and his own trial in November 1978 during which time he was replaced as leader (Jul 1976) and there was the Lib-Lab pact (Mar 1977-Aug 1978) after which it was clear that the Liberals had not made enough headway. But that the incident on Porlock Hill had taken place between Margaret Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives and the stepping down of Harold Wilson as leader of Labour says quite a lot about Thorpe's political nous - he could already anticipate that the role he and the Liberals might play in 1979 could be very substantial - but so did others, perhaps especially in his party, and knowing what they knew about Thorpe, they saw the key role as being for themselves, and not least if the Thorpe affair could divert scrutiny from their own backgrounds.

The collapse of the Lib-Lab pact required an immediate different strategy from the old post-war consensus which was not only seen as responsible for economic mismanagement but presiding over the most wide ranging social anarchy. It also knew that it could be further attacked for never having taken on police corruption, institutionalized child abuse and more. Consequently, it sought to sharpen the lines. It would depict the malaise as a modern malaise and tackle it head on. The police were required to investigate "modern" corruption in their forces. Thorpe would be brought to trial for a lurid newsworthy incident and that it had its origins in 1960-61 would largely be lost to the general public. The main point to be conveyed to the public was that his drama was symptomatic not of Lib-Lab but of the late 1970s. Many folk were so confused that they probably saw the alleged murder of an individual by an authority figure and the homosexuality of the one who was the alleged victim (though not necessarily with total belief in the fact that Thorpe himself was homosexual) as debatable in terms of any seriousness of "criminality". There was little sympathy for Scott. At least the Liberals had somewhat got their act together under the leadership of the business like Mr Steel. That was the tone. Furthermore, perhaps he could knock some sense into Healey, should he take over from Callaghan, as he would either be as slippery as Wilson or just cave in to Benn and Scargill. It was this which underpinned the old establishment's strategy in the months towards May 1979. Steel's Liberals to be the "In Coalition SDP" even before the SDP is invented but first let's give the consensus momentum by dealing with blimmin' Thorpe. Even with all of that swirling around, the Conservatives only managed an overall victory of 43.

None of that tone - significant, crucial and pivotal : it largely explains how Britain is today - is really conveyed in the 2018 drama. In fact, "A Very English Scandal" in choosing to place the events in a plausible old England context does so to the detriment of the political context in which it really resided. I'd suggest incidentally that the parallel in the public's mind was the strange disappearance of my own school's alumnus, John Stonehouse, an ex Czech spy, in 1974 rather than, say, Profumo and that it could be the next television drama of its kind.

[Nevilevelis]

I still feel that it failed to provide the full political context. At the end of 1974, he had brought the Liberals up to nearly 20%. That was unprecedented in post-war politics. By the time that the trial was occurring, around six months before the general election, they were on around 5%. Labour and the Tories were neck and neck. The old post-war consensus had already been lost within the Tory Party with the election of Thatcher as a leader in 1975. It had not yet been lost within the Labour Party but it was teetering with an old Callaghan holding it together but deemed increasingly remote and a dire economy that had only just been kept afloat by Labour with the help of a Steel led Lib-Lab pact. The Liberal role in that pact had gained the admiration of some voters but not enough to turn the Liberal position around. It was clear to most - both the public and the establishment - that the post-war consensus was about to be lost in Labour too. That was subsequently proven by the defection of the Gang of Four who were to form the SDP in 1981, Livingstone taking over at the GLC within days of the 1981 GLC election even though the party had gone into the election under the leadership of the moderate Andrew McIntosh, and the election of Foot as leader of the national party.

The Americans who were always highly influential in our politics and on the verge of Reaganomics were wholly in favour of a Tory victory in 1979 and wanted Labour out at all costs although elements of the Democrats could have easily accepted a Liberal Government, however unlikely. We were not sufficiently involved in the EEC for that to have made much of a difference. And the Labour vote, while holding up, was flimsy especially in the south and the Midlands. While what remained of the industrial north was heavily unionised, white van man was not and felt that neither Labour or the unions were doing anything other than to oppose him as southern branches of the TUC ensured that the dead weren't being buried and rubbish was spilling over out of chutes in council tower blocks so that the stench of it was in every humble flat. In parallel, what had been deemed the layabout hippies (anyone with long hair) had been replaced by punks who were roaming past the WW2 bomb sites looking to many malevolent, seemingly the epitome of there being no future as they declared. Most over 30 were only starting to accommodate people of ethnicity, albeit with more aplomb than they were ever given the credit for, and the National Front had frequent coverage in the press for their significant fringe appeal. Hooliganism at football was rife and abhorred. There were IRA bombs. Uncomfortable as it is, the sexual reform of 1967 was probably seen by most as an element of the all-round abyss and that continued for a long time. The absolute symbol of it came as late as 1983 - the Bermondsey by-election of 1983 in which Hughes (Liberal) defeated Tatchell (Labour) mainly because of the latter's stance on gay rights. It followed on from Harman first being elected in nearby Peckham somewhat against the odds.

I have always known that constituency well. She was regarded not only as a posh-voiced outsider - she changed her accent during that campaign - but a proxy representative of all those peculiar Anna Raeburn sex talk radio organisations that had suddenly appeared in the 1970s. The National Association for Mental Health, later Mind, when mental illness was viewed as residing not in people's lives but wholly in "mental hospitals"; Shelter which was often seen as promoting homelessness rather than supporting homeless people (based on opinions about alcoholism, drug use and everyone having the responsibility to work); the Chiswick Women's Refuge Centre (seen as a post Cathy Come Home unmarried mothers sort of thing, irresponsible or depraved); and the National Campaign for Civil Liberties (occasionally vocal young trendy women talking about gay rights and abortion on "Any Questions" but mainly being associated somewhat subliminally in publications like the News of the World with campaigns against the National Front which, like Enoch, had "a bit of a point" and not only siding with but promoting child offenders). All such things were lumped in together by working-class voters as a part of the downhill slide - big L Labour and only small l liberal - while the likes of Mary Whitehouse and later Dickens and Braine were saying from the old right wing of the conservatives that modernity was poisoning the minds of everyone's children.

In the midst of it all came the Thorpe affair. Given that a Lib-Lab Government in 1979 seemed the best option for retaining the old economic and social order, the Liberals had been quickly rebranded under Steel to distance the party from all that was lurid. Thorpe was shoved so far as was possible out of the limelight as a kind of yesterday's irrelevance even though he himself believed he was the future. In fact, there was as little publicity for him as possible between the Newton trial in March 1976 and his own trial in November 1978 during which time he was replaced as leader (Jul 1976) and there was the Lib-Lab pact (Mar 1977-Aug 1978) after which time it was clear that the Liberals had not made enough headway. But that the incident on Porlock Hill had taken place between Margaret Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives and the stepping down of Harold Wilson as leader of Labour says quite a lot about Thorpe's political nous - he could already anticipate that the role he and the Liberals might play in 1979 could be very substantial - but so did others, perhaps especially in his party, and knowing what they knew about Thorpe, they saw the key role as being for themselves, especially if the Thorpe affair could divert scrutiny of their own backgrounds.

The collapse of the Lib-Lab pact required an immediate different strategy from the old post-war consensus which was not only seen as responsible for economic mismanagement but presiding over the most wide ranging social anarchy as well as knowing that it could be further attacked for never having taken on police corruption, institutionalized child abuse and more. Consequently, it sought to sharpen the lines. It would depict the malaise as a modern malaise and tackle it head on. The police were required to investigate "modern" corruption in their forces. Thorpe would be brought to trial for a lurid newsworthy incident and that it had its origins in 1960-61 would largely be lost to the general public. The main point to be conveyed to the public was that his drama was symptomatic not of Lib-Lab but of the late 1970s. Many were so confused that they probably saw the alleged murder of an individual by an authority figure and the homosexuality of the one who was the alleged victim (though not necessarily having total belief in the fact that Thorpe himself was homosexual) as debatable in terms of any seriousness of criminality. There was little sympathy for Scott. At least the Liberals had somewhat got their act together under the leadership of the business like Mr Steel. That was the tone. Furthermore, perhaps he could knock some sense into Healy, should he take over from Callaghan, as he would either be as slippery as Wilson or just cave in to Benn and Scargill. It was this which underpinned the old establishment's strategy in the months towards May 1979. Steel's Liberals must be the "In Coalition SDP" even before the SDP is invented but first let's give the consensus momentum by dealing with blimmin' Thorpe. Even with all of that swirling around, the Conservatives only managed an overall victory of 43.

None of that tone - significant, crucial and pivotal : it largely explains how Britain is today - is really conveyed in the 2018 drama. In fact, "A Very English Scandal" in choosing to place the events in a plausible old England context does so to the detriment of the political context in which it really resided. I'd suggest incidentally that the parallel in the public's mind was the strange disappearance of my own school's alumnus, John Stonehouse, an ex Czech spy, in 1974 rather than, say, Profumo and that it could be the next television drama of its kind.

You should have written it!