Set in a parallel Britain in which the death penalty has been re-introduced, this drama sees the trial of Gary Glitter for his true crimes committed in Vietnam.Set in a parallel Britain in which the death penalty has been re-introduced, this drama sees the trial of Gary Glitter for his true crimes committed in Vietnam.Set in a parallel Britain in which the death penalty has been re-introduced, this drama sees the trial of Gary Glitter for his true crimes committed in Vietnam.
- Awards
- 1 win total
Lai Thi Nguyen
- Mrs. Tran
- (as Lai Thi Nhuyen)
Garry Bushell
- Garry Bushell
- (uncredited)
Kristel Elling
- Witness
- (uncredited)
David Lyddon
- Rioter
- (uncredited)
Mike Parish
- Juror
- (uncredited)
Miranda Sawyer
- Miranda Sawyer
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This has to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious TV shows ever screened in the UK. It's like a Daily Mail or The Sun fantasy come to life. It even has Garry Bushell in it, it's that transparent. They try their best to make it appear deep and thought provoking but it's absolute twaddle catering to the pitchfork brigade and the type who watch and enjoy YouTube videos of "Paedo Hunters".
The writing is frankly absurd. There's a scene where Glitter's defence lawyer stands up in court and actually says "I am sickened by my client, I despise him, and he may even be evil, but...". I mean come on,the guy would never be employed again. Ridiculous sensationalist nonsense. Glitter is portrayed as a man so arrogant and lacking self awareness he declares in court that his 10 year old victim was asking for it because she dressed provocatively in "small shorts". It's so unrealistic it's like watching an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey written by someone on an acid trip. I was convinced I was watching a lost episode of Brass Eye it was so hilarious.
The writing is frankly absurd. There's a scene where Glitter's defence lawyer stands up in court and actually says "I am sickened by my client, I despise him, and he may even be evil, but...". I mean come on,the guy would never be employed again. Ridiculous sensationalist nonsense. Glitter is portrayed as a man so arrogant and lacking self awareness he declares in court that his 10 year old victim was asking for it because she dressed provocatively in "small shorts". It's so unrealistic it's like watching an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey written by someone on an acid trip. I was convinced I was watching a lost episode of Brass Eye it was so hilarious.
Talk about a one sided argument.
They start this by saying that the majority of British citizens are bloodthirsty savages who support state murder, in other words they are in favour of the death penalty.
This is a pro death penalty infomercial at best. With "Z" list "celebrities" like Ann Widdecombe and Gary Bushell supporting the death penalty while on the opposition are about 3 anonymous protesters that are portrayed as uneducated "Liberals" making me think this was written by an American.
The only others mentioned are Glitter fans wearing "save the leader" shirts. You don't have to support this vile man to hate the death penalty.
Whether you agree with state murder or not it cannot be introduced as innocent people WILL be sent to their death, this is totally unacceptable.
This would have made quite a good drama if only it were far less biased and showed the opposing view at all let alone fairly.
1/10
They start this by saying that the majority of British citizens are bloodthirsty savages who support state murder, in other words they are in favour of the death penalty.
This is a pro death penalty infomercial at best. With "Z" list "celebrities" like Ann Widdecombe and Gary Bushell supporting the death penalty while on the opposition are about 3 anonymous protesters that are portrayed as uneducated "Liberals" making me think this was written by an American.
The only others mentioned are Glitter fans wearing "save the leader" shirts. You don't have to support this vile man to hate the death penalty.
Whether you agree with state murder or not it cannot be introduced as innocent people WILL be sent to their death, this is totally unacceptable.
This would have made quite a good drama if only it were far less biased and showed the opposing view at all let alone fairly.
1/10
Very disappointing. I was somewhat led to believe that this programme would raise the issue of the death penalty as a matter of debate, but the real debate will have to be the mishandling by the programme makers. Quite aside from the fact that Glitter is charged with crimes committed beyond British jurisdiction, the fact that he is given only 30 days to appeal is quite frankly unbelievable. It's "Alice in Wonderland". This was a Britain that was so alternative that you expected the Prime Minister to be Robert Mugabe or Osama Bin Laden.
Furthermore there is the fact that this programme seemed only to "interview" those in favour of the death penalty, like Ann Widdecombe or Gary Bushell. There was nothing about the flip side of the coin, most notably the fact that justice has been known to make mistakes, or at the very least jailed people whose convictions are later questioned: Tim Evans (who was hanged), the Guildford Four or Barry George (convicted but later cleared of the Jill Dando murder).
On a separate note, the accidental music was dreadful and unnecessary. You cannot imagine the relief when we were sparred the playing of badly-tuned violins or the clonking of xylophones. It is time for this kind of thing to stop.
Furthermore there is the fact that this programme seemed only to "interview" those in favour of the death penalty, like Ann Widdecombe or Gary Bushell. There was nothing about the flip side of the coin, most notably the fact that justice has been known to make mistakes, or at the very least jailed people whose convictions are later questioned: Tim Evans (who was hanged), the Guildford Four or Barry George (convicted but later cleared of the Jill Dando murder).
On a separate note, the accidental music was dreadful and unnecessary. You cannot imagine the relief when we were sparred the playing of badly-tuned violins or the clonking of xylophones. It is time for this kind of thing to stop.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
This mock documentary is a fictionalized account of a modern Britain in which the death penalty was reinstated for the most serious offences in 2005 and, after all the legislation has passed, in 2009 former glam rock pop icon Gary Glitter (eerily embodied by Hilton McRae) is to become the first man to be put to death, following another law that allows British citizens to be tried for crimes committed abroad, in Glitter's case the rape of some girls in Vietnam. As the title suggests, he is found guilty and sentenced to hang on the recommendation of the jury. From here, with the use of stock footage and various commentators putting their views forward, we delve into the complexities surrounding bringing the death penalty back, how as a society we have lost track of how to keep an effective lid on serious, violent crime (as Ann Widdecombe notes: "We've forgotten there is such a thing as evil") and how the image of Glitter fell down in everyone's minds.
One of the first points the film puts forward is that a significant proportion of the British population supposedly support the return of the death penalty for the most serious crimes. With this in mind, there must be a strong emphasis that that is the direction the film is trying to guide us in. This unexpected and high concept idea of having someone as high profile as Glitter as the first person to be executed gives some serious food for thought. Though most of the commentators are in favour of the death penalty and the opponents generally relegated to smaller segments, it still doesn't end up coming across as a lynch mob sort of film, just a rather grim and bleak one. In the ten years since the shocking truth about Glitter came out to now where he is hated enough for this to happen, one thing you can't accuse him of is fading into the background.
So, pretty grim, downbeat and in the end very distressing viewing then, but at least it will get you thinking. ***
This mock documentary is a fictionalized account of a modern Britain in which the death penalty was reinstated for the most serious offences in 2005 and, after all the legislation has passed, in 2009 former glam rock pop icon Gary Glitter (eerily embodied by Hilton McRae) is to become the first man to be put to death, following another law that allows British citizens to be tried for crimes committed abroad, in Glitter's case the rape of some girls in Vietnam. As the title suggests, he is found guilty and sentenced to hang on the recommendation of the jury. From here, with the use of stock footage and various commentators putting their views forward, we delve into the complexities surrounding bringing the death penalty back, how as a society we have lost track of how to keep an effective lid on serious, violent crime (as Ann Widdecombe notes: "We've forgotten there is such a thing as evil") and how the image of Glitter fell down in everyone's minds.
One of the first points the film puts forward is that a significant proportion of the British population supposedly support the return of the death penalty for the most serious crimes. With this in mind, there must be a strong emphasis that that is the direction the film is trying to guide us in. This unexpected and high concept idea of having someone as high profile as Glitter as the first person to be executed gives some serious food for thought. Though most of the commentators are in favour of the death penalty and the opponents generally relegated to smaller segments, it still doesn't end up coming across as a lynch mob sort of film, just a rather grim and bleak one. In the ten years since the shocking truth about Glitter came out to now where he is hated enough for this to happen, one thing you can't accuse him of is fading into the background.
So, pretty grim, downbeat and in the end very distressing viewing then, but at least it will get you thinking. ***
Our nation is not split on capital punishment, the majority are in favour. Accordingly our elected representatives simply won't give way to that point of view. Good I say, as I don't feel we should judicially kill people. Yet equally I do believe in democracy and the will of the people.
On this issue of course it's not up for debate at any serious level, as close examination would expose the lie that Parliament is a representative democracy. I feel that this drama is too close to the bone and as such those of us who can be bothered to rate this show are generally going to not like the narrative. So in order to continue to close down the debate it gets marked down as being a poor quality programme. It's not poor it's very good, too good. That's why the general view is that it isn't - it's a form of liberal censorship. Very disappointing - but that's life.
On this issue of course it's not up for debate at any serious level, as close examination would expose the lie that Parliament is a representative democracy. I feel that this drama is too close to the bone and as such those of us who can be bothered to rate this show are generally going to not like the narrative. So in order to continue to close down the debate it gets marked down as being a poor quality programme. It's not poor it's very good, too good. That's why the general view is that it isn't - it's a form of liberal censorship. Very disappointing - but that's life.
Did you know
- TriviaGary Glitter lodged a complaint with Ofcom about the show, alleging unfair treatment. The complaint was not upheld.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Screenwipe: Review of the Year 2009 (2009)
Details
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content