Richard's genuine concern for the new house parlormaid has eyebrows raised and tongues wagging.Richard's genuine concern for the new house parlormaid has eyebrows raised and tongues wagging.Richard's genuine concern for the new house parlormaid has eyebrows raised and tongues wagging.
Photos
Grace Dolan
- Customer
- (uncredited)
Ann Plenty
- Customer
- (uncredited)
Dennis Plenty
- Customer
- (uncredited)
Maisie Trent
- Waitress
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis episode takes place in October 1906.
- Quotes
Sir Geoffrey Dillon: [to Bellamy] It is my experience that most of the harm in this world is done by peple trying quite gratuitously to do more good than they can possibly achieve. Give me an honest villain every day.
Featured review
Great episode - legal psychology correct - details wrong
Just being a stickler for the details of libel law.
I assume that the letter was written and published in some public forum - otherwise the defence of qualified privilege was available if it was just written to the family. In other words, Bellamy had a clear duty to report the allegation of rape to the family (and to the police) which would have shielded him from libel, absent malice or recklessness (which would amount to malice in the eyes of the law). However, it would have been up to the other side to prove malice, not for him to prove absence of malice.
In fact, being a member of Parliament, Bellamy had the option of raising this issue in Parliament where his words would have been subject to absolute privilege which would have shielded him 100% from a lawsuit. Of course, it would not have protected him from the whispers regarding his motivation, nor censure from his peers for misusing his position...
Regardless, proving the truth of the allegations would have been a sufficient defence in the circumstances in this case. Truth is almost always an adequate defence and certainly is with regards to reporting a serious crime.
The family would have been equally reluctant about a lawsuit as it could have turned either way and would have been equally expensive and ruinous to pursue on their part. However, the episode captures the psychology and ugliness of the affair. Being cornered, it would have been a very dirty fight as the family tried to prove malice and Mr. Bellamy trying to both prove the correctness of his allegations and destroy the reputation of his foe.
Just pointing out that Bellamy's legal position was far stronger than depicted by his solicitor and he would have known it. The risks to him politically and in society were however accurate and the advice to retract was sound and is likely what a solicitor would have given to protect the Bellamys' interests.
The legal inaccuracies do not take away from this great episode. The psychology and cynicism about the legal system is absolutely spot on and deserved. I was greatly impressed by the plot, especially given that it came out in 1971.
I assume that the letter was written and published in some public forum - otherwise the defence of qualified privilege was available if it was just written to the family. In other words, Bellamy had a clear duty to report the allegation of rape to the family (and to the police) which would have shielded him from libel, absent malice or recklessness (which would amount to malice in the eyes of the law). However, it would have been up to the other side to prove malice, not for him to prove absence of malice.
In fact, being a member of Parliament, Bellamy had the option of raising this issue in Parliament where his words would have been subject to absolute privilege which would have shielded him 100% from a lawsuit. Of course, it would not have protected him from the whispers regarding his motivation, nor censure from his peers for misusing his position...
Regardless, proving the truth of the allegations would have been a sufficient defence in the circumstances in this case. Truth is almost always an adequate defence and certainly is with regards to reporting a serious crime.
The family would have been equally reluctant about a lawsuit as it could have turned either way and would have been equally expensive and ruinous to pursue on their part. However, the episode captures the psychology and ugliness of the affair. Being cornered, it would have been a very dirty fight as the family tried to prove malice and Mr. Bellamy trying to both prove the correctness of his allegations and destroy the reputation of his foe.
Just pointing out that Bellamy's legal position was far stronger than depicted by his solicitor and he would have known it. The risks to him politically and in society were however accurate and the advice to retract was sound and is likely what a solicitor would have given to protect the Bellamys' interests.
The legal inaccuracies do not take away from this great episode. The psychology and cynicism about the legal system is absolutely spot on and deserved. I was greatly impressed by the plot, especially given that it came out in 1971.
- lhhung_himself
- Dec 31, 2011
- Permalink
Details
- Runtime50 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content