Last Night's Television - Collision, ITV1; The Execution of Gary Glitter, Channel 4
Crash, bang, wallop
The vehicular accident that kills or injures lots of people is fertile ground for dramatists. It offers the story-teller a way of bringing together a random cross-section of folk, and therefore an opportunity to create all kinds of juicily disparate characters, whose destinies collide in the blink of an eye, or the crash of a plane, train or automobile. On the silver screen this was done brilliantly by Paul Haggis, who wrote and directed the Oscar-winning 2004 film, Crash. Collision, which runs every night this week in what is beginning to look like a new trend for primetime drama, rather prosaically replaces the Los Angeles freeway in Crash with the A12 in Essex, but offers similar fare: ordinary people with lives in varying states of complication, whose stories are told in flashback after those complicated lives are suddenly reduced to a simple “deceased” or “critical” on a policeman’s wall chart.
The good news is that there is ample compensation for whatever Collision lacks in originality: plausibly interesting characters and an excellent script (by Anthony Horowitz and Michael A Walker), taut, pacy direction by Marc Evans and plenty of fine performances by a very good cast.
The ever-excellent Douglas Henshall plays the investigating detective inspector, required to give the case closer scrutiny than a pile-up on the A12 would normally receive in the Metropolitan Police because one of the Met’s own pursuit cars was involved and may even have caused the crash. But his emotions as well as his powers of detection are engaged because he has only just returned to work after what we are led to believe was the death of his wife, also in a traffic accident. There could be trouble ahead for DI Tolin. After all, some of us remember poor old George Carter going back to the job too soon after his missus was run over in The Sweeney, some 35 years ago. If you live in front of the telly for long enough, you can usually offer a fictional copper the benefit of your experience.
Anyway, others involved in the crash include a secretary either spying on or stealing from her boss; an attractive young woman about to introduce her boyfriend to her stern father; a piano teacher who seems to have some seedy secrets, possibly paedophilia; a low-level criminal illegally importing something from the Netherlands; and a shop owner who doesn’t like his demanding mother-in-law, and whose intentions for her seem not to be entirely wholesome. Which might very well be what you get if you randomly stop five cars on the A12.
The shop owner, incidentally, is played by Phil Davis, whose very presence in a drama like this is usually a guarantee of quality. The mother-in-law is Sylvia Syms, last seen in Blue Murder as a bag lady whose caravan was attacked by an arsonist, and once, in Ice Cold in Alex, a radiantly lovely nurse crossing the enemy-riddled Egyptian desert in a ramshackle ambulance. I wonder if it’s occurred to her that her long and illustrious career can be summed up as a series of vehicle-related traumas? At any rate, if Sylvia Syms offers you a lift, think twice.
Executives at Channel 4 no doubt thought twice before commissioning The Execution of Gary Glitter, a drama set in an imaginary Britain, in which the death penalty had been reintroduced for murderers and rapists of children under 12. To accommodate Gary Glitter as the first victim of this law, there also had to be further imaginary legislation, enabling people guilty of crimes committed overseas (in Vietnam, in his notorious case) to be tried here. All of which, for my sensibilities, amounted to several leaps of the imagination too far.
Gary Glitter might be a paedophile slimeball and all that, but television is itself guilty of an act of highly questionable morality to show him (as played, remarkably convincingly, by Hilton McCrae) weeping in his cell before being led to the scaffold. Even if you think the real Glitter has sacrificed the right to be treated with dignity, that’s not quite the same as television seizing the right (doubtless assuming that he won’t bother to sue for defamation) to put him to death. If he were actually dead, then fair enough. But he’s not, so at the very least, he should have been loosely fictionalised. A former glam-rock star called, say, Stanley Sparkle, who likes to have sex with children would have fooled nobody, but would have demonstrated a little more humanity.
Rob Coldstream, the programme’s writer and director, made an eloquent case in this newspaper yesterday for transmitting a drama that raised important questions about capital punishment (of which 54 per cent of Britons are apparently in favour), and I suspect that he has no more desire than I do to see the death penalty for sex offenders, or a Britain in which Garry Bushell and Ann Widdecombe are presented (as they were in his film) as the voices of reason. But somewhere in the moral maze that surrounds this issue, he took a wrong turn.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Using such a high profile convicted pedophile such as Gadd gave this drama added poignancy that would have been lost had the subject been fictional, even if loosly based upon Gadd's ertswhile alter-ego Gary Glitter . Likewise had the writers used another high-profile case such as Vanessa George the impact would have been far less as she has only ever been known to most of us as a pedophile.
The skill of the writers & producers to bring in all aspects of the process from the expediency of the politicians, the adversarial legal battle, the calm mechanical process of the 'hanging technician' through to the opportunistic street vendors and the YouTube montage No.1 download were all brilliantly married together. Add in the excellent acting performances, especially that of Hilton McRae (who played Gadd with almost unnerving accuracy) made the whole production believable.
Despite enjoying the drama I must admit that it did leave me feeling a little grubby - on one hand for believing that the death penalty might still have a place as the ultimate punishment for the heinous crimes that shock all reasoning people, and on the other hand for actually liking some aspects of Gadd's personality that exist beneath the glitter and the guilt.
Not asking Gadd for his permission (apparently he is threatening to sue the producers) somehow adds to the poignancy. I'm sure now he too feels he's been violated and abused, fortunately for him though he's old enough to understand - unlike his victims.
You smug obnoxious git.
DNA advances makes the chances of wrongful convictions miniscule
In this instance Bushell is the voice of reason.
If the program was supposed to "important questions about capital punishment", then it failed: I suspect many people watching would have agreed with it in Gadd's case. They should have thought of a totally fictional case and given far more arguments pro and con. The whole program just seemed like a show trial designed to poke two fingers up at Gann and little more.
I also agree that the choices for "voices of reason" were just not credible: Garry Bushell just was not convicing. And who would choose him rather than a high court judge or a barrister anyway for what was supposed to be a serious documentary written in a fictional UK? Again just a show trial - this time on the telly where most are these days...
Would world-of-water support the absence of hanging if one of their relatives had been killed by someone who had murdered before and had only served a few years in prison for it?
If you are religious you couldn't support the death penalty as it is for your god to give and take life, if you are not, then common sense and humanity would prevail over your barbarian views.
What would come next lynch mobs ?
Your silly argument is easily turned round if your child was convicted for murder and you knew without a doubt that he/she was innocent.
i suggest you write you fascist views in the Sun, you might get more support there.
Capital punishment is hardly 'fascist' as it existed and exists in all Communist states
Most of us would kill an invader to save a loved one
To execute someone who has been portrayed as 'inhuman' or 'a monster' or 'weird' may be easier than executing a more complex human being with friends and family and who also shares some of our own values.
Downfall, about Adolf Hitler is an intersting and controversial example of a film which humanized its subject. far from being 'not human' and 'nothing like us', Hitler was in fact shown to be very 'human.'
Indeed it was the dehumanizing of Jews et al by Nazis that allowed ordinary german people to stand by an accept the persecution. It is easier to kill something that has been de-humanized.
It was that kind of 3 dimenionality and complexity which The Executuion of Gary Glitter lacked. It allowed the public an easy ride and seemed aimed at a vengeance fed tabloid readership. Ironically wthe pages of many tabloid newspapers are often filled with a worrying kind of lurid sex-crime and death-scene detail that seems to attract the very kind of readers that the journaklists seek to condemn.
My own feeling on the dath penalty is quite simple.
As a detterent it clearly does not work. Serial killers are hardly likely to say to thesmelves...I'd better stop at one killing....I don't want to end up being hung for serial killing.
But more simply...
If my child hits another child, should I then hit my own child twice as hard and say...'There that will teach that hitting is bad.'
Likewise if someone kills, should we kill them in a legally premeditated/long drawn out ritualized way ..and then say say..There, that will teach you that killing is wrong."
Mixed messages do not make good parenting.
Nor do they make a good society.
Yes let us foam at the mouth with feelings of vengeance...but let us not act on them
S.E
Would his children admit that he is their father I know I wouldn't
It'll start off with child sex offences and murder, but sure as night follows day the scope will be widened. Drug traffickers, those who attempt terrorist acts, animal rights activists, political opponents...
Make no mistake: if someone close to me was murdered or raped I'd be inconsolable, angry, scared... I honestly can't imagine how I'd feel. I doubt it would be rational or clear-thinking though.
I'd want revenge.
And I think if we're really honest with ourselves, that's what the death penalty is about: revenge and fear. Handing that over to the state would be a grave mistake.
there also had to be further imaginary legislation, enabling people guilty of crimes committed overseas (in Vietnam, in his notorious case) to be tried here.
As I understand it, Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 grants this authority, it is in force today and it would cover the suggested situation.
Bye
Ian
The fact that the programme makers used a living person as the subject of the film made me feel very sympathetic towards Paul Gadd - I feel the programme makers may have shot themselves in the foot a bit if they intended stirring up the lynchmob mentality against Gadd.
I sincerely hope Gadd successfully sues the programme makers.
To those who have previously trotted out the tired old cliches "what would you do it if was your child?" - I would be devestated and I would do what I could to surround my child with love and affection such that they may, one day, get over what happened. As for the perpetrator: I hope they be locked up and treated for the sickness that they have which attracts them to under-age children.
At a time when tensions between the traditional beliefs of the western world (Anglican/Catholic etc) and those from the east (Muslim etc) have never been higher, do we really want to bring about the values of Muslim Sharia law into our society? What's the next step after a hanging in prison? a public hanging? why not a public stoning? the end result is the same. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Perhaps I'll leave the last word to the review carried in the Radio Times - "a strange, often repellent film ... and you might just feel a bit grubby afterwards"
The death penalty will always be an emotive issue whether you are for or against but to those who thought last nights offering was good thought-provoking entertainment, may I suggest they might like the idea of it being used as a pilot for a new series? For the next imaginary Britian episode, how about the same law being re-introduced for treason with a 'parallel' Prime Minister in the Dock? Forget the Old Bailey and have a TV show trial on Saturday/Sunday night presided over by so-called 'celebrity' judges, followed by a rigged audience vote - isn't that our favoured platform for 'justice' now?
p.s. Also a good economic move, how many prison spaces will be made available!
Richard McEvoy
serving soldier
Does anybody think you'd have been safer on a cursory stroll through London 100 years ago? Every generation is brought up with the belief that everything is going to the dogs, and invariably, it doesn't. Compare what we live through these days to the hellish environment of the first or second world wars, and I think you'll agree, we live in good times.
As for the death penalty, it is clearly barbaric. It does not stop murder or rape or other perverse sexual acts, otherwise it would never have to be employed.
First, its clear bias in favour of capital punishment. It was presented in such a way as to make this potentially attractive to liberal-left types. (For example, we were shown a culturally and ethnically mixed jury consisting of several women.) The anti-death penalty voices were few in number, and were invariably shown to be crushed either by the superior passion (in the case of the young woman protestor) or the rhetoric (in the case of Glitter's defence counsel) of their adversaries.
Second, its inaccuracies and implausibilities. I suspect that the programme's writer/director/producer, Rob Coldstream, is rather a young man. It would be natural for such a person to assume that the conduct of the trial and execution would proceed along lines similar to the contemporary United States, with unanimous-jury verdicts (presumably after procuring a "death-qualified" jury), jury sentencing, executions carried out not first thing in the morning, but later in the day (to allow for last-minute pardons). (The only significant departure from American practice was the arbitrary "execute within 30 days" rule, brought in allegedly (but implausibly) as a "humanitarian" measure.)
Third, the cowardly defamation of a living person ill-equipped to fight back. I find Paul Gadd (Garry Glitter) an utterly repellent man, but it is for courts of law to deal with him and those like him, not the makers of semi-fictional television programmes. If Coldstream wanted to make a case for the death penalty, it would have been more courageous to have had an anonymous, completely fictional paedophile as his central character. Paul Gadd is already known to the general public, and is an almost universally reviled figure; consequently, the serious issues have mostly been pre-judged. (Indeed, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that Coldstream is relying on such prejudice to tip his wavering viewers in favour of the pro-death penalty stance his programme presents.)
The programme made no effort to consider the implications of such a criminal justice policy in those cases where guilt was less certain. Apart from the inherent barbarity and vileness of judicial executions (with its brutalising effect on society), the impossibility of reversing a wrongful execution must remain the single most compelling argument against its re-introduction.
I have already mentioned the manipulative use of women and minority-ethnic characters as jurors. Strangely enough, this is one aspect of the programme that was not implausible. It should be a warning to those on the liberal-left that the social conservatism of many minority-ethnic people is not merely an acceptable cultural variation (as they seem to think), but an unavoidable social fact with serious implications.
I supported the death penalty before seeing this - but afterwards I have changed my mind.
Although we might all support hanging for murder - where do we draw the line about capital punishment for other crimes?
Glitter wasn't charged with violent rape - but technical rape because he had sex with a 10 year old.
I think hanging is too severe for such crimes - the 10 girl may quite easily get over it and live a full normal life. He should be imprisoned of course - but execution should be reserved for crimes that rob others of life.
And the danger thst it might be used for a whole variety of other non violent crimes (like denial of the holocaust or political sedition or desertion in war) means that I've changed my mind.
NO DEATH PENALTY HERE.
Thank you Channel 4 for educating me.