I will watch some more later today. I read quite an interesting article on one of those yahoo news slides (it is not really news so I assume it is correct) they were listing the countries that had falling populations through low birth rate and/or emigration elsewhere. I was surprised to see that the most of them were the old Iron curtain countries - Lithuania - Georgia - Latvia - Romania -Bulgaria - Ukraine - Estonia -Latvia -Moldova - Bosnia -- Croatia - Hungary - all make the list. They mention Japan (surprisingly - given the Asiatic refusal to control their birth rates) But what they didn't mention was that Japan has a significant gender skew - where women are increasingly out numbering men because modern Japanese do not want to marry and have children - they all want to be business women and earn their own living and choose their own lives which don't include being a man's servant. They are now intimidating the male population to such a degree that men don't want to have relationships with them - they prefer to have "virtual" girlfriends - is it called Manga? A cartoon girlfriend they take on holiday and buy virtual gifts for - I saw a whole documentary on it - apparently these manga apps are one of the biggest selling products in Japan. The suicide rate is high in Japan also - 88 people per day it says and they were old figures - so it is probably more now. Why are American writers anti - American? If they don't like what America is then go and live somewhere else and make your money there. It is the height of hypocrisy to me to bite the hand that feeds you. You only have to look at the names of writers to see why MONEY trumps patriotism every time.

Some of those emigres come to America. My next door neighbor is a Russian. He doesn't say much, to me anyway. No longer locked in their old countries they are seeking a better life elsewhere I guess. Some of them sometimes write something about what they see happening in America, urging us not to do what the communist countries did. But the leftists here are delusional. They don't really think, they are brainwashed with leftist dogma and driven by hatred of conservatives. Obama is a communist and he did much to harm this country. Leftists are driven by the idea that they can be in charge and have power to tell everyone else what to do and how to live. It's an emotional position. The idiots don't realize that if they destroy our freedom they won't be the ones in charge. They are what the communist leaders call useful idiots who help them take over countries, after which they are no longer useful to them. ...That is weird about Japan. With so many women around you would think it would be easier for men to find someone, but I guess feminism is destroying that society, if what you read is correct. I have no doubt it is.

2 By the way I am starting to watch Criminal UK now. Those dumb bastards are interrogating Alec Hardy, they think he is a doctor. He should just have them contact the Broadchurch police department and get this cleared up.

I can't believe they said they had been talking to him for 23 hours. That doesn't seem like it should be legal, and anything one said under such duress should be deemed invalid and not allowed in evidence. What else do they do? Water torture?

Is that lady beside him supposed to be his attorney? I am not familiar with the British legal system.

When they say they have been talking to him for 23 hours what they mean is that they have been talking to him at regular intervals which must include meal breaks and toilet breaks and a lawyer (The lady sitting beside him) can be present if requested. The police must audio tape the interview but it is not compulsory to video tape it. They are not allowed to interrogate him for 23 hours straight. .The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you. They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, eg murder. You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act. They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, eg murder. I am honestly not sure if the breaks are included in the 24 hours because then anyone could say they are tired and demand 8 hours sleep - they could take two hours over lunch and so on. The police code is heavily in favour of molly coddling the criminal - have no fear - and the criminals know every word of it. Re- The Americans - phew - I have collapsed in a heap - I have finally finished it !!. I found it stupid that Stan types into his search engine - Philip Jennings and gets "no results" same with Elizabeth and the name of the company. There must be thousands of those names in the database - and the name of the travel agency - there must be a paper trail of who owned it before - when it was bought - the amount paid - their tax returns etc etc. And that priest - did God whisper in his ear it's ok to betray to save the church - does the name Judas ring a bell ? Poor Oleg - the least guilty of all of them and he gets the worst punishment. And Paige - what does she intend to do? She has gone back to the safe house so is she thinking of trying to resume that "work". Poor Philip - he has to hang up his cowboy boots forever - I don't think he will ever "get used to it" I am not sure why they would be welcome back in the USSR if Elizabeth has destroyed everything the Centre had been working towards for years. I think they would more likely be assassinated on their return.

Philip Jennings is a common enough name that he should have found thousands of them just in the local region. He must have used other qualifiers for the search. Also, presumably the Soviets have worked out how to backstop their identities so anyone checking should find a seemingly normal set of data. So I don't know what sort of search he was doing there. Maybe the writers were hoping that we wouldn't ask too many questions. Stan finally found a Philip Jennings with the same date of birth and birth place who died at birth or when young or something. This is a common trick when taking a false identity, apparently. Stan found the same with Elizabeth. I think that was the moment they thought, oh shit! It's them! I think the priest had divided loyalties, obviously. He wasn't KGB, I don't think. I think he was just someone with sympathies who the KGB found useful as an asset. So I wasn't too surprised they were able to make him cave under the pressure of destroying the Russian church in America, and presumably in all western nations. What did you think of the scene where Elizabeth tried to keep lying to Paige about sleeping with men as part of her work? She had already promised not to lie to Paige, but to keep some things secret. Paige initially didn't like any secrets, but once she met Claudia it seems that issue was resolved and she didn't mind the secrets. But Elizabeth was not supposed to lie to her. So when Paige put it all together about that young fellow Elizabeth slept with and tricked into recording a meeting at the State Dept and confronted her mom, Elizabeth tried to maintain her lie. But Paige wasn't having it. I thought it was revealing the way Elizabeth reacted when she realized her manipulation of Paige wouldn't work to protect her lie anymore. She didn't apologize for lying about not lying to her. Instead she became angry and defiant, as if to say OK, so what if I lied to you? She launched into an angry justification for sleeping with men. She grew up sleeping around in order to survive is basically what she told Paige. It didn't matter, it was just sex. Not exactly the way she raised Paige of course. I thought Paige would have countered with something like "Fine, you grew up differently, your attitude toward sex is different than it is here. But you could have told me that instead of lying to me. You promised not to lie to me anymore, but you keep doing it. So I cannot trust you. I don't see how any one can trust you." But the writers didn't want to point out Elizabeth's flaw there. Elizabeth justified her use of sex, but ignored the issue of her continual lying to Paige. And they left it like that. And Paige went to the safe house after she got off the train, and took a shot of vodka. What the hell is she going to do now? She has already been brainwashed into leftist thinking. I suppose she could just join the Democrat party and feel right at home there.

When Stan met the three of them in the parking garage I thought Philip and Elizabeth missed their chance at escape. They should have said "Oh my God! What is that behind you?!" And when Stan looked behind himself they should have quickly donned their fake hairpieces. Stan would turn back around and say "Who the hell are you? Where did the Jennings go?" Paige could shrug her shoulders and point to the door leading to the apartments above and tell Stan "I don't know these people. My parents ran that way". I mean, with such incredibly effective hairpiece disguises, that should have worked, right? ;-)

Their fate back home, and Oleg's fate in the US jail, they all hinged on whether Gorbachev could remain in power, if he could withstand the coup attempt. If he did, then they would be in good standing at home, in fact they would be treated as heroes for helping foil the plot to discredit him. And Arkady Ivanovic could prevail upong Gorbachev to get Oleg released and sent back to the USSR, where he would also receive a hero's welcome. The show never visited that issue but left it unresolved. I guess they wanted us to feel sorry for Oleg Burov.

Philip will miss America but is sanguine enough to be able to adjust to anything he has to. Elizabeth will continue to be righteously outraged about every damned thing. She will be happy that she has nothing to eat but beet soup and crap like that because she can then act like a martyr and blame her food on the evil Americans who have somehow been making the supermarket shelves bare. But who will she kill now? Without any Americans around she will probably start searching for bourgeois Russians, those who are not sufficiently committed to living in poverty like she is. Then she will have sex with them and kill them afterward, like a queen bee or something. So I guess she will find happiness at home after all.

When they were talking about back stories being more convincing for second generation illegals - Claudia told Elizabeth that their cover stories would not withstand deep investigation - I thought then - that's not very efficient is it - their lives and liberty are at stake and you can't provide them with good documentation? It didn't say much for the Centre. And look how quickly Stan found them out - that could have happened at any time over the 20 odd years they were working. No - I didn't really buy that storyline. You and those hairpiece disguises - you are so funny !! I watched Elizabeth bare faced lie to Paige's face and then justify her actions by that old chestnut about when I was growing up I had to do anything to survive - she seems proud of it if anything. Actually I would challenge that statement - did every young woman in Russia turn to whoredom to survive then? Did they all join the KGB? Sorry Liz - it was your CHOICE - nobody held a gun to your head. And Paige - one minute she is horrified by the blood and the gore and the nuts and bolts of "the work" next minute she has donned her silly hat and joined forces with them - then she is horrified again when she realises her mother has spent her life sleeping with any man she is required to. I am not sure what hurt her the most - the lie or the whoredom. She said she would never forgive her mother if she lied to her about this incident - and Elizabeth just went ahead and lied anyway. I think Paige knew then that she could never trust another word that came out of Elizabeth's mouth. I think she decided right then and there that she wasn't going to become like her mother. I think she will find a job and an apartment and look after Henry. Philip may accept life in Russia - even the KVASS (Jeez - doesn't that sound horrible) but it will never make him happy. He will be given some boring job and become a Mr Nobody. Elizabeth will not be happy with this - she will long for more action - more wigs - more men. She will find a way of getting back into the spying world and will travel frequently leaving Philip to his own devices. His love for her will gradually fade as he realises the "work" has always been more important to her than he has. One day he will get news that she has been stabbed in the throat by a KGB agent employed by Claudia - and she will die. Philip - alone and desperate for love and company will seek out Martha - she will be overjoyed - they will raise lots of children together. Oleg will commit to spying for America and they will release him - he will rejoin his wife and child and send the Americans algorithms of trains arrivals and departures and passenger numbers. He will shave that bloody beard off.

2

Criminal UK. I know this first episode will probably end up showing that the doctor, who I can't help but think of as Alec Hardy, is guilty. And I hate that, and not just because I know him as the detective from Broadchurch. I find the police interviewers in this show to be extremely smug, sarcastic, arrogant, and have a tendency to personally insult the suspect. They don't have compelling evidence against him and must rely upon making him confess. They don't allow for a presumption of innocence though they lack compelling evidence to the contrary. So I don't like them for that. Also, I don't know if you have ever been falsely accused of something and had everyone believe you were guilty when you were not, but if you ever have, then you would automatically hate people who act the way those police are acting and talking. When you are innocent and someone speaks to you in this way, it is an awful feeling. There is nothing you can say or do which will not be interpreted as a validation of the view that you're guilty. I'm telling you, when you are looked at and treated this way, and you see that nobody believes you, goddamn it is a terrible feeling. Is the accused required to answer each question asked of him? I noticed one time a policeman told the doctor to speak up for the microphone. I was thinking I would take a piece of paper and write No Comment on it and place it in front of me. And what the hell is wrong with that attorney? There were a couple of times she might have spoken up but remained silent.

1-When they were talking about the amount of force required to smash a skull into 16 pieces saying that a human hand could not do it, that it would require perhaps a garden shovel, his attorney asked them to try to describe it in a different way. That is when the black detective told Jennings that if Jennings were ever in a hotel room with the detectives daughter, he would crush his skull, though he said it in different words. He said something like what happened to his stepdaughter required less force than would be applied to Jennings head. -Why the hell didn't the attorney object to this obvious threat of physical violence against her client? It was obviously intended to convey intimidation and hatred toward her client.

2- When the black detective began telling the doctor about the cameras and how the jury would see and hear everything, and how it would be damning to him, etc. He also wanted to know why the doctor wasn't doing everything he could to find out who killed his stepdaughter. This was clearly getting to the doctor. The attorney should have said something to prevent her client from responding. She should have said something to the effect that the doctor cannot know who killed his stepdaughter, and that no man would speak to the police when the police a-have accused him of being the killer, b-have demonstrated that they are not interested in looking for the actual killer, c- have maligned, insulted and expressed seething hatred toward him, and d- have expressed a willingness to murder him by extreme physical violence, i.e. by smashing his skull. In the US, if an interviewer makes such a veiled threat against the accused, even if they confess it would be ruled inadmissible in court. The accused in some cases feel coerced, or fearful for their lives. It is similar to beating a confession out of a suspect. If they are interrogated every waking moment, threatened, etc. sometimes suspects with low IQs will make false confessions. There have been cases like this where the real culprit was later categorically proven to be someone else. What does the court say to the falsely imprisoned man after that?

I know that investigators try everything to get someone talking to them, which is the absolute worst thing anyone can do, especially if they are innocent. If an innocent man speaks to the police, even if everything he says is true, his words can still be used to convict him. The police and prosecutors do this stuff everyday, but the average person has no idea of how the system works.

Anyway, the investigators try to make the suspect angry so he will respond in some way, in any way. In America anything you say will be used against you, but not for you. If you make a statement which is exculpatory, it cannot be used to help you in court, because it is considered heresay evidence. However if you say something which implicates you in the crime, the prosecution can have it entered into evidence by questioning the police interviewer about it. What you say cannot help you. I heard a law professor speak about this once, and it really opened my eyes.

Even innocent people, who deny guilt, may make a small error of fact which will hang them. People make errors. It is human nature. They can show that you said something which wasn't true, and this can both discredit you, and make lead to a charge of lying to an investigator.

Even if you’re innocent, even if you only tell the truth, and say nothing incriminating, and it is videotaped, you answers may still crucify you if the police don’t recall your testimony, or their questions,with 100% accuracy. For example what if the police question you about a murder on videotape, but earlier when you were picked up for questioning, the officer said they wanted to ask you about a shooting. On video you say you don’t even own a gun. Even though this may be true, the video shows you with knowledge it was a shooting, when the question was about a murder. In court you could explain that another officer mentioned it was a shooting. But what if that officer doesn’t remember saying it was a shooting? Now it is your word against his. If the court or the jury believes the police officer, you will be convicted of lying to the police, even though you told the truth. You can avoid this by not talking to the police.

Police may collect mistaken evidence which calls into question your truthful answers. Any time your statement is successfully portrayed as a lie, you will be convicted for lying to the investigator.

The name of the game is convictions, not justice.

Don't get me wrong, I am on the side of law and justice and I support the police, generally speaking. But if you are ever suspected of something, you should never talk to the police, especially not without a lawyer present.

OK, I paused the episode while typing this note. I imagine they will show this doctor is in fact guilty. I mean, what would be the point otherwise? The name of the show is Criminal. But I cannot stand the way the police act in this thing, and I don't want 'Alec Hardy' to be guilty of anything.

Here is what he should say: "Have you guys seen the show Broadchurch? Come on, take a good look at my face. I'm not even a doctor, you idiots."

I have never thought about it in those terms - I am what you would probably call guileless in some situations. Given what you say I would be very wary of opening my mouth at all in those circumstances. Thankfully I have never been in a situation where my word was doubted - I don't lead a very adventurous life! Having read what you wrote if it ever happens to me I will keep completely silent until my lawyer shows up !!. I think I heard one of the detectives say something like "No Comment is not accepted as a valid legal response" - every body says it though. Even in actual film of interviews - Harold Shipman had three responses - yep - nope - no comment. And the yeps and the nopes were in response to - was he going to talk to them - nope - you intend to remain silent - yep - did you administer a noxious substance - no comment. I think that this particular episode was quite well written - leading down one path before ending up at another with the same facts before you. But I think this kind of show can only be watched so often before the outcomes become predictable and guessable. I saw absolutely no point in the lie about his colleague having a daughter - what difference did they think that would make to the doctor? He certainly gave no impression of empathy at all so that was just to lead up to the revelation that he didn't have one - who cared?

Dammit. I don't like seeing David Tennant in this role. I know him as Alec Hardy, a man incapable of committing such a crime. He should have stayed in Broadchurch.

So why did the police wait until the last seconds to present their evidence to him? I think they needed to get him talking so they could get him to admit to certain facts. They wanted him to put his carefully crafted story out there, the one he thought would explain the evidence in the room. But all that did was show that he had a temper and he hit his step daughter hard enough to knock her back into the table which cut her arm. He was confident that he had constructed a story which would explain things and would exonerate him. But he hung himself. Once he admitted what he did, then they could destroy his carefully crafted defense by showing him the evidence that his daughter was in the boot of a car exactly like his. According to him, he didn't see her after he left the hotel, but they showed that was likely not true.

But I still couldn't stand the way those police talked. Not just what they said, but how they said it in the first part of the show.

I like to watch reality shows about police interviews. I saw a show like that once. The investigator featured in that show was very calm and polite, almost friendly. People want to talk, especially when the investigator becomes silent, when he pauses for a long moment. That creates an uncomfortable tension and the guilty party often feels a need to speak. I think I would have been good at that job. I have good intuition, sometimes very good. If I did it regularly I am sure I would get very good at interviewing suspects.

@strangebedfellows said:

I think I heard one of the detectives say something like "No Comment is not accepted as a valid legal response" - every body says it though.

As far as the statement "No Comment is not accepted as a valid legal response", I don't know what they are talking about. I think that may have been a trick to get him to talk. I checked and British law clearly protects the right to refuse to answer questions before and during trial. Also, no negative inference is allowed because someone refuses to answer questions put to him and he may not be punished for failure to answer. Watching the first part of episode 1 I thought I would get very tired of having to repeat No comment over and over again. It seemed as though perhaps they were trying to get under his skin by firing so many questions at him so rapidly like that. Then telling him it wasn't a "valid legal response" may have been a trick to trigger some other response. Another interesting fact: the police are allowed to lie to you when they question you, and at other times also I suppose. So we shouldn't make too much of that statement.

By the way, here is a video of that law professor telling you why you should not talk to the police. He speaks during the first half of the video, and a police officer talks during the second half. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&fbclid=IwAR3LFDhHZsTvuvv0PVoRKdZ2B_E039TX05miSxfA6kRNHhK6fG0QGY05NaE

For Goodness sake - how can justice function under that volume of ridiculous laws, how can people ever know if they are breaking any? I will definitely be saying nothing should I ever be arrested !! We have thousands of laws in Britain which are completely irrelevant and outdated and yet some crimes have to be tried under these laws because no new ones have been passed that address the crime committed. Yet - M.P'S when fighting Brexit can invent and pass a new law within twelve hours when it is expedient for them. We don't have a constitution in Britain - although oddly Southern Ireland does. There has never been a referendum on whether we want a Constitution - probably because they wouldn't like the result - but hey - who pays any attention to referendum results in this country? We didn't have a referendum on capital punishment either - again - because they probably knew what the result would be. I have no idea what I shall watch next - I don't really enjoy one room dramas. I shall try the next one - but if it doesn't engage me it's going off !!

Season 3 of Glitch is on Netflix now!

Whaaaa!! Whoopee doo - we've got it too. I may have to watch the last episode of the last series unless the "previously on "Glitch" fails to make me recall what happened. Watch this space.

Update - just thinking this thread is getting pretty unwieldy - if you start a thread on "Glitch" I'll pick it up and we can continue - what do you think?

Sounds good. I will start a new thread on Glitch