A very English Scandal

Maybe not Scott but there were infamous incidents of ‘rent boys’ and public toilets. Of course some of those people blackmailed.

I am not sure a member of the lower orders was raped or otherwise oppressed. Scott had a choice of refusing all the way through the process. He could easily have decided to blackmail JT. I am sure he would have paid up to keep all things quiet. That sort of thing happened a lot in the past (and probably still does).

MOnica wrote:

Good and evil can exist side my side in people and frequently does. I see no dichotomy between the two sides of JT.

I agree MOnica same as one must agree that none of us is Jesus Christ. However the prejudice that members of the lower orders may be raped or otherwise oppresssed is wrong , as I'm sure most of us agree.

I see nothing wrong with your first paragraph, Jalima.
On re-reading, it sounded like gobbledegook!

Good and evil can exist side my side in people and frequently does. I see no dichotomy between the two sides of JT.

JT had no power over Scott when the affair started. Scott was not forced or coerced into the relationship. The problem was, if the drama is to be believed, is that Scott fell deeply in love with Thorpe, who wasn't remotely in love with him and as far as JT was concerned the relationship ended when Scott left him to go elsewhere.

This is a pattern of human relationships that is only too common across all the combination of gender relationships, someone has a brief affair with someone, it breaks up and one moves on and the other doesn't, but remains bewitched and in thrall to their previous lover.

Give JT his due, though, despite being ferociously politically ambitious, he stuck with a party whose principles he believed in, even though their chances of getting near any power were, almost negative when he joined. Had he compromised his principles and joined the Conservative party he would undoubtedly have made very rapid progress up the greasy pole.

Homosexuality was illegal at the time of his affair with Scott, but after one election, there was a real possibility that he could have become a coalition partner. I can see how, a man in Thorpe's position at that time, faced with the prospect of power on one side and a gay lover who kept popping up like a game of Whac-a-Mole, and threatened his career at a critical moment and whose revelations could see him exiled from his whole life, his reputation ruined. At such a critical time a man in extrenis might well consider murder.

I see nothing wrong with your first paragraph, Jalima.

Compartmentalising is polite name for prejudice maybe.

That first paragraph sounds a bit odd, I tried to change it but it obviously didn't work!

Yes, it is strange that someone who campaigned for human rights and freedoms, was against apartheid yet could behave so ruthlessly and I think he was bisexual rather than homosexual but obviously had a need which was against the law then.
What would have happened nowadays I wonder?

Perhaps he could compartmentalise his thoughts and conscience, persuade himself that what he was doing was necessary for the greater good of the party and his political ideals.

Jalima wrote:

Jeremy Thorpe was very good MP, a good leader and a reformer - but a flawed character who will always be remember for this scandal.

That summary was needed. Thanks.
However isn't there a principle at stake; that upper class oppression of lower classes was and still may exist? JT was a liberal and I can think of liberals in my family who would regard rape of a minor as more than a flaw. Scott was not a minor in years, but he was a minor in power. The principle I refer to is that a man with power has the responsibility to serve and take care of social underlings, whether that social underling be a student, an employee, a patient, a child, a prisoner, aged person, etc etc.

In the play, Thorpe's defence was that he tried to help Scott but did not have sex with him. This defence, if true, overarched any legal consideration and would still be a defensible position today when homosexuality is not illegal.

I haven't watched it all but I expect the NI card was just his way of keeping in touch.

Even if Scott had left his NI card with his employer, when he did a bunk with the letters (Episode 1), I am sure if he contacted the NI office a couple of years later, he could have got a replacement card.

I was working then, but never lost my card, so had no reason to know what the system was then.

Still not got around to watching it. I think I might as well give up trying. It obviously sends me to sleep.

DH not DHA!

I wondered about that too, M0nica
DHA said - 'oh, just get him another NI card for goodness' sake. It would save a lot of trouble'. Did Scott leave the card with his previous employer and then leave in a hurry?

It was a criminal act in those days paddyann and most men would cover up the fact that they were gay, particularly those in public life.

I started work in the 60s and had worked at Saturday and holiday jobs and never had a NI card as you describe but I did have a number. I was sent a plastic NI card when I was in my 50s. DH knows his number off by heart.

Monica I have no issues with gay people ,my cousin my neice several family friends are all gay I've worked with gay men and women since the 70's some who like JT tried to cover it by marrying and having a family but most who were and are happy to be who thay are.JT was a vile man,he arranged to murder someone to cover up his real sexuality .He may have been a good constituency MP but not a good man .

I didn't suggest anything of the sort ,just that the network in Westminster was still around hiding the crimes of the "honourable" members .FACT .Its well documented that Mrs May "lost" all the documentation pertaining to paedophiles ,just like MI5 sticking details of JT in a safe where it wouldn't be seen again

There is one thing that has puzzled me about this story, and I am assuming everything happened as described.

Why did Norman Scott find it so difficult to get another NI card? In the 60s we all had physical cards, which had stamps stuck in them or were stamped and when you left a job the card was given to you with your P45. Now, I am sure there were plenty of people, who, for good reason or bad managed to lose their cards before they started a new job and contacted NI office in Newcastle directlyfor a duplicate card. The NI office would have all the details on their files. There must have been a system to deal with this. I am sure you did not need to approach your past employer or an MP to sort this out.

I just do not understand why this was such an issue for Norman Scott.

But it was the silly way the shooting was carried out that made the whole thing so unbelievable at the time. The idea of a murder plot involving a party leader seemed so far fetched and then to have someone shoot the dog instead of the man sounded very amateur. Norman Scott just sounded like a complete fantasist. But of course we did take it for granted that a married man with a child couldn't be gay.

It's a good actor.

I feel sorry for the dog.

I think her name is Eve Myles. Of course. I was trying to think where I had seen her before and she was in Torchwood!

paddyann I think that is a pretty despicable thing to infer.

* Paddyann* are you suggesting that because JT was gay, it was likely that he was also a paedophile? That is a very old fashioned and prejudiced view. There is no evidence I know of to support the view that gay people are more likely to be paedophiles than straight people.

Merlotgran to answer you question Norman’s welsh girlfriend was found in a Very hot room where she had committed suicide and they made something of the smell, well they would wouldn’t they? The actress was the lovely leading lady from Keeping Faith. I think her name is Eve Myles.

I thought the tragic deaths of the two wives/girlfriends involved was a bit glossed over. It was all about the feelings of the men! Perhaps the situation of homosexuals in public life in that period needed to be made clearer for younger audiences.

Excellent acting again though.