napev7
Joined Jan 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews29
napev7's rating
This is an unusual CC story because I'm not sure if a surgeon has ever been charged with manslaughter in real life as the result of an unsuccessful operation. Even a civil case would be unusual.
One correction about the previous review though - Barbara Lott played Ronnie Corbett's mother, (not wife) in 'Sorry'
The wait for the jury's verdict is more gripping than usual and well done for the jury's 'foreman' being a woman, although I don't know if it was the programme makers or the jury themselves who made this particular decision.
The surgeon is played by an Australian and his character is also from the same country.
One correction about the previous review though - Barbara Lott played Ronnie Corbett's mother, (not wife) in 'Sorry'
The wait for the jury's verdict is more gripping than usual and well done for the jury's 'foreman' being a woman, although I don't know if it was the programme makers or the jury themselves who made this particular decision.
The surgeon is played by an Australian and his character is also from the same country.
This has the potential to be a good story but in my opinion, fell below the usual standard which we have come to expect from the series.
The defendant keeps pulling faces and making childish and mildly offensive, gestures but the judge does not admonish him for any of these. This is in marked contrast to other CC stories where the judge is quick to warn the defendants about their misbehaviour.
Early on in the story, mention is made of a can of petrol that was used to set fire to the house, but there is no mention of the fact that it would have either disappeared or was checked by the police for fingerprints. Fingerprints are very rarely, if ever, mentioned in CC stories anyway and the series is often fatally over-dependent upon the recollections of witnesses.
The best thing about this particular story is the appearance of Mike Pratt ('Randall & Hopkirk Deceased') as a character witness for the defence.
The defendant keeps pulling faces and making childish and mildly offensive, gestures but the judge does not admonish him for any of these. This is in marked contrast to other CC stories where the judge is quick to warn the defendants about their misbehaviour.
Early on in the story, mention is made of a can of petrol that was used to set fire to the house, but there is no mention of the fact that it would have either disappeared or was checked by the police for fingerprints. Fingerprints are very rarely, if ever, mentioned in CC stories anyway and the series is often fatally over-dependent upon the recollections of witnesses.
The best thing about this particular story is the appearance of Mike Pratt ('Randall & Hopkirk Deceased') as a character witness for the defence.
This story is similar to a very early CC treatment (R. V Lord, Season One) in which a female schoolteacher is suspected of having too much interest in a schoolboy, although she is charged with assaulting a police officer rather than any sexual offences. The difference with this one, though, is that sex takes centre stage.
As was usual for CC stories, there is no forensic evidence or CCTV to aid the prosecution case and the case ultimately rests on the credibility, or otherwise, of the witnesses.
The actor playing the schoolboy appears to be much older than 15 (the age of his character) but this may have been to avoid controversy. Even so, it is remarkable that a story like this was shown at lunchtime in 1973, when surely there must have been at least a few children watching it on TV. I just hope that it wasn't screened during the half-term holiday!
The episode is also worth watching to see Garfield Morgan and Maureen Lipman.
As was usual for CC stories, there is no forensic evidence or CCTV to aid the prosecution case and the case ultimately rests on the credibility, or otherwise, of the witnesses.
The actor playing the schoolboy appears to be much older than 15 (the age of his character) but this may have been to avoid controversy. Even so, it is remarkable that a story like this was shown at lunchtime in 1973, when surely there must have been at least a few children watching it on TV. I just hope that it wasn't screened during the half-term holiday!
The episode is also worth watching to see Garfield Morgan and Maureen Lipman.
Recently taken polls
5 total polls taken
