A Very British Scandal

A Very British Scandal is a recent three part BBC drama based on true events regarding a curious case in British political history involving sex and subterfuge in the corridors of power. It's been well-received and well-reviewed and Hugh Grant's performance has been lauded.

In the 70's a bizarre incident was brought to the attention of the public when the leader of the Liberal party was accused by his secret ex lover of trying to have him assassinated. The attempt was botched but unfortunately the lover's dog was caught in the crossfire. If you haven't picked up on it yet, the central love affair between two men. This, along with the Profumo Scandal which also escalated and and destroyed the career of a Member of Parliament, always stuck out to me as a fascinating curio. But I think the main feeling I take away from these events, aside from relishing a bit of juicy gossip, is that 'you had to be there'.

I went through a period of reading a lot of books about British history post World War II. I had a compelling desire to find out how the modern world I came to exist within was brought about. Whilst I am aware that everything is always changing and the world is constantly on the move. I'm also aware that a long of things stay the same and more to the point, people tend to stay the same. History is my passion because the more I learn about the past and what has gone before, the more I can make sense of the world I am in now.

My knowledge of the events depicted in A Very British Scandal and my general understanding of what happened between Jeremy Thorpe and Norman Scott was that it was all just a bit odd. The curiosity and the fascination derived from the fact that it was a love affair between two men and a dog died but from my recollection none of it really added up.

Russell T Davies wrote the three part drama as a proud gay man (thanks for Queer as Folk Russell!) and it is abundantly clear that lying Jeremy Thorpe is the villain and Norman Scott (proud gay man) is hero of this story.

Perhaps it's the historian within me questioning every narrative placed in front of me, or perhaps it's my compulsion to empathise with every person I encounter, but I really feel awfully terrible for Jeremy Thorpe. No,not the character Hugh Grant was playing in this TV drama but the actual real life man who lived and walked on this earth. A man who didn't have an easy life and is now deceased unable to defend himself.

The whole debacle is written with Jeremy Thorpe as a manipulative and conniving man who hid his homosexuality and had a jolly good time reaping the benefits of a political career that the establishment afforded him until it all came crashing down. The drama unequivocally indicates that it was the Establishment who orchestrated the cover-up and Thorpe was completely guilty of trying to murder to Scott. Thorpe hid the relationship and was so intent of keeping it a secret because being gay was illegal at the time of the relationship and also it would have been a PR nightmare. In addition Norman Scott intermittently harassed Thorpe about his National Insurance card and Thorpe's superiority and ignorance meant that this wasn't resolved maintaining an unwanted connection between them. (Am I to understand no one in the history of the world had ever lost their National Insurance card and contact with their employer and had no other option to obtain one?)

The most irritating aspect of the whole drama was the dialogue. Why would such a man rant about wanting to have someone murdered? Why would he casually chat with his mate about planning to marry a beard, sorry, respectable woman? Why do people keep extolling the virtues of Norman Scott being so vocal about his homosexuality? It could just be exposition to service the plot and compel the drama but it didn't feel like natural conversation at all. It really irritated me that some of the characters were simply saying things to fit the agenda of the writer. Not that the characters had much about them aside from the actors playing them.

There has never been a definitive confirmation of what happened and why it all happened in such a way. Jeremy Thorpe, as can be expected, ignored the whole incident in his memoirs and we're working from details which have been revealed after the fact. There's a part of me which doubts whether or not Thorpe intended to have Scott assassinated. In my mind I always figured it was a case similar to that unfortunate incident involving Thomas Becket... But I suppose that wouldn't make an interesting drama (although Blackadder wrung some comedy out of the Becket incident).

Perhaps I'm just naive and a bit emotional at the minute, but A Very British Scandal was a virtue signalling piece of propaganda lauding the bravery of those who speak out (in this new era of #metoo) and ignoring the human beings in the mix. I was hoping for a fair and interesting insight into a confusing and event. Perhaps it was the time constraints which hampered a deeper investigation but it just felt lacking, at least to me. Good drama needs good guys and bad guys but real life involves ordinary people and unknowns. I really think there could have been more to Jeremy Thorpe, some complexity, some humanity but there wasn't a chance to really explore that. I suppose I felt bad for the wrong person in the end. I hope that doesn't make me bad.