Line of Duty (BBC) **Spoilers**

razorblunt

Hollyworth wrote: »

Why was Jo portrayed as a victim. They even said tonight that she wasn't bent. Erm, huh? She most definitely was bent.

She may have been forced into doing things but that doesn't give her a pass. She was bent. Why am I supposed to have sympathy for her? Because she's a lesbian?

THIS!

Complete nonsense, they even threw a beautiful dog, twee cottage, cosy jumper and 'look, remember she's a lesbian' to hammer the point home too.

Didn't they go really hard on Manit when she was compromised?

dodzy

Sunrise_Sunset

Sunrise_Sunset wrote: »

So I guess this rules Buckles out as being the guy?

I didn't think it was him but then after last week's episode, I was thinking could it be something of a similar vein to Kevin Spacey's character in The Usual Suspects and he's just playing the dope.

My post after watching episode 2 and 3!! Couldn't even think of the character's name, but obviously it's Keyser Soze.
But Buckell's wasn't just playing the dope, he still was the dope!

Overall this season wasn't as enjoyable, nor the writing as clever either. They laid far too many "Easter eggs". There was an argument for any of them being H and it was just too much.

Far too many loose ends that weren't tied up too. This was something that happened last season too though. But the calibre of the writing was much better then so we could overlook a few things here and there.

The Jo storyline stank!!! I didn't like her character, I didn't feel sorry for her, and I didn't rate 90% of Kelly MacDonald's acting.

So did lakewell say anything to Steve in the van?

Having slept on it i have lots of questions

It’s like they skipped an episode and they are too embarrassed to say they forgot to press play on the right episode

HeidiHeidi

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, he apparently owned a mansion and a fancy SUV. He spent the first half of the interview saying 'no comment' to everything but was spilling his guts out towards the end, apparently just to show AC-12 that they were 'mugs'.

That was the clunkiest clanger of all for me. At least there was a bit of nuance to Jo's interview.

But Jo riding off into the sunset with a new gf, plush pad in the countryside and designer dog..... puhllleeease :rolleyes:

Clichéd, formulaic wrap ups all over the shop.

banie01

mewso wrote: »

AC12: Jo you are safe. Who was the top man?
Jo: It was that senile guy from an earlier season.
Senile Guy from an Earlier Season: Not a clue mate.
Chloe: Wait a minute it wasn't senile guy it was Buckles.
AC12: Ok but make sure Jo gets her witness protection for giving up the senile guy.

The gotcha moment of the buckles interview revolved around him making his evil genius monologue and then requesting immunity.

Thing is when it was pointed out to him that being guilty of murder or conspiracy to murder precludes the possibility of Witness protection. (Hence Buckles awaiting an application for public interest immunity).

Now murder and conspiracy to murder both have a range of excluded defences in the Common Law.
Duress and Necessity being foremost.

Jo's actions in facilitating the planned murder of a colleague are legally indefensible, it's a charge that she may manage an acquittal on but it's not a charge that can be swapped for immunity unless a public interest order was granted.
Now, given that her actual evidence provided zero evidence against an actual OCG member?
There is zero role for immunity or WP and let's be honest here...
Red headed girlfriend or not
She is as bent as an S-Hook!

The Ian Buckles actor either wasn't strong enough or wasn't given writing/direction strong enough to pull off that heel turn.

There was no real moment of a mask slipping, to reveal someone evil enough to casually order deaths. I mean is this incompetent fecker meant to be the one who ordered Kate's death.

It's one thing to fail upwards in a system layeted with safety nets and nepotism but no way would someone like that evade capture for so long

HeidiHeidi

https://twitter.com/Lineofdutyreact/status/1386662471511990272?s=19

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Ian Buckles actor either wasn't strong enough or wasn't given writing/direction strong enough to pull off that heel turn.

There was no real moment of a mask slipping, to reveal someone evil enough to casually order deaths. I mean is this incompetent fecker meant to be the one who ordered Kate's death.

It's one thing to fail upwards in a system layeted with safety nets and nepotism but no way would someone like that evade capture for so long

He didn't order the death (or decide she should die) , he just passed on a message.

Same as Jo did. The Jo witness protection thing is stupid, for the reasons outlined above


Be a bent cop for years, obstruct on investigation into a murder, frame a cop, try kill your direct report
Oh wait you are a lesbian, here's witness protection

chooseusername

Very disappointing ending,
I still don't believe he was "H".


I wont be watching "Line of Midwives"
or for that matter "Call of Duty" any more

Wallet Inspector

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

He didn't order the death (or decide she should die) , he just passed on a message.

Same as Jo did. The Jo witness protection thing is stupid, for the reasons outlined above


Be a bent cop for years, obstruct on investigation into a murder, frame a cop, try kill your direct report
Oh wait you are a lesbian, here's witness protection

There was no implication that being a lesbian swung it.

Biggeloe did some worse stuff (set up Ted) and she got witness protection. And she wasn't controlled and intimidated for years by family like Jo was.

ThunbergsAreGo

Wallet Inspector wrote: »

There was no implication that being a lesbian swung it.

Biggeloe did some worse stuff (set up Ted) and she got witness protection.

Of course there wasn't, I was just being a bit of an arse. But it was a bit silly she got a "happy" ending. Was more like "she's a mate of Kate, lets go easy"

She was as bent as Buckells. And she gave them nothing..

1st On

Don’t know if this gas been mentioned yet - but who ordered Jo to be moved from the prison to hillside? Chris and Kate’s names were on the production order - but someone must’ve instructed Chris to do it (or he is bent).

Stihl waters

Mad_maxx wrote: »

It's meant to be a metaphor for incompetents rising to the top, probably aimed at the current British PM

" failing upwards " in the words of Hastings

No offense to you but that's a load of bollox if they were hiding subtle digs in the series like that, they're giving the viewers too much credit (myself included) if they thought there would be a widespread understanding of all the little nuances and prompts, it just seems too far fetched if it has to be explained to us after the event with the people doing the explanation looking down on the great pitiful unwashed with an air of superiority, poor uneducated plebs

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

He didn't order the death (or decide she should die) , he just passed on a message.

Same as Jo did. The Jo witness protection thing is stupid, for the reasons outlined above


Be a bent cop for years, obstruct on investigation into a murder, frame a cop, try kill your direct report
Oh wait you are a lesbian, here's witness protection

A soldier passing on orders is still giving them.

He told Jo to kill Kate, no hesitation or remorse. There's just no way that a bungling toad like that could be the linchpin of any organisation.





But yeah, don't get me started on Jo's happy ever after, particularly after how they treated Maneet (who was actually following ACC orders, no?)

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A soldier passing on orders is still giving them.

He told Jo to kill Kate, no hesitation or remorse. There's just no way that a bungling toad like that could be the linchpin of any organisation.

Thats my point, he wasn't a linchpin, just someone passing on orders

Mad_maxx

Stihl waters wrote: »

No offense to you but that's a load of bollox if they were hiding subtle digs in the series like that, they're giving the viewers too much credit (myself included) if they thought there would be a widespread understanding of all the little nuances and prompts, it just seems too far fetched if it has to be explained to us after the event with the people doing the explanation looking down on the great pitiful unwashed with an air of superiority, poor uneducated plebs

None taken, I read that theory ( rather contrived one ) on Twitter

MoonUnit75

Stihl waters wrote: »

No offense to you but that's a load of bollox if they were hiding subtle digs in the series like that, they're giving the viewers too much credit (myself included) if they thought there would be a widespread understanding of all the little nuances and prompts, it just seems too far fetched if it has to be explained to us after the event with the people doing the explanation looking down on the great pitiful unwashed with an air of superiority, poor uneducated plebs

You have to remember most of these BBC regulars live in a Twitter bubble where this is plain as day. The only people satisfied with the finale are Labour activists who see Buckles as Boris and Hastings as Corbyn.

I nearly laughed out loud though how the only people who loved the Jo wrap up were the “pronouns in the bio” crowd but Jed still can’t please them all, saw a couple of tweets saying Kate ‘going straight’ again is homophobia :pac:

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Thats my point, he wasn't a linchpin, just someone passing on orders

He was the "fourth man", the big secret and meant to be able to "take AC-12 for mugs".



Without him the OCGs lose massive influence and power. That's a linchpin

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He was the "fourth man", the big secret and meant to be able to "take AC-12 for mugs".



Without him the OCGs lose massive influence and power. That's a linchpin

I read it slightly differently, they got the one passing on orders but there were others involved, including the Chief/Commissioner. All be it maybe not directly, but through inaction

qwabercd

Was there any explanation given as to why they pivoted from "H" to "the fourth man". Nearly felt like they had no link between the letter H and Buckells so they tried to write it out?

Loafing Oaf

qwabercd wrote: »

Was there any explanation given as to why they pivoted from "H" to "the fourth man". Nearly felt like they had no link between the letter H and Buckells so they tried to write it out?

H from Steps's Christian name is Ian. So obvious they didn't need to point it out...

WhiteMemento9

Unearthly wrote: »

The only thing that could have made that worse is if Arya stabbed H in the back with a knife and a dragon burned down AC 12

That would have been a more believable ending.

HiGlo

qwabercd wrote: »

Was there any explanation given as to why they pivoted from "H" to "the fourth man". Nearly felt like they had no link between the letter H and Buckells so they tried to write it out?

I took it as that was done to ultimately assert that the letter H wasnt as significant as they thought and that could remove Ted from the suspicion by the viewers (and characters too I guess as they had considered Ted at one point) I know lots of people didn’t view it as that and continued to suspect Hastings.

I guess ultimately it was prob written in to the show to allow them more freedom as to who it was (they were running out of H’s hahaha).....

archfi

archfi wrote: »

Writer overdoes the agitprop then can't believe the reaction when his drama lacks any drama or sense by propping up his political bent in place of coherent drama and storyline.
At least the likes of Alistair Campbell (!) and the Islington set are pouring praise on him so all's good in Jedland meanwhile the ordinary tv watcher go WTF??!! and get patronisation in spades again by the 'ones in the know'
It's like the crew 'in the know' have avoided the root causes of what's changed since at least 2016 and continue smugly on their Carmichael way. Now that's ironic.

At least Doctor Who has a new partner in the dumpster of ruined shows.

While I wasn't a fan of the ending, the show has been intensely political since season 1. So in terms of political allegories I'd expect it.

tobefrank321

Vestiapx wrote: »

Was his motivation not to get Ted?

Wasn't there some link between Ted and Corbetts mother, who was from NI.

It was building up to a complicated ending where maybe Teds back story would play a role but in the end it was Buckells with a paper thin back story.

He couldn't spell definitely, was useless and yet was able to hide his role as a big mover in the ocg for years.

FunLover18

I'm not going to read back over the last 20 pages, I think I can gauge the overall impression and I think I'm aligned with most of it. I thought that was one of the most badly written episodes of TV in a long time. I've been forgiving of its over use of fan favourite lines and catchphrases but this episode honestly felt like it was written by an overenthusiastic fan. I think in Steve and Kate's pub scene they called each other mate in every sentence and the dialogue itself was so on the nose "it feels weird wrapping it all up".

I've seen a lot of people online praise the theme and say it is a more realistic and pragmatic ending with there being no mastermind and the real bad guy being mere greed and incompetence and that would be fair point but this show hasn't been realistic or pragmatic for a long time and that kind of ending only goes to make our heroes look like naive mugs for the last few seasons.

The fact they chose Buckles to be this genius go between for all the OCGs and the bent coppers also just totally stretches the suspension of disbelief and reeks of being a last minute decision. He can't have been someone so incompetent who fails upwards but also be competent enough to lead a double life. It really felt like Jed was trying to have his cake and eat it. I think I will rewatch this at some stage, certainly the first 4 seasons and it will be very interesting to see if the Buckles things fits with what's gone before. I don't think it will because I don't think Jed had clue what he was doing.

Overall I think this series would have been so much better had they just done a new bent copper per series rather than trying to tie it all together under one OCG and mastermind.

ShagNastii

Murmurs of a new season confirmed.

I don’t want to be negative but after last night I’ll stick a fork in it. Gone too off piste now to be redeemed.

Degag

Was Corbett Ted's son?

Or just the son of someone he cared deeply about?

appledrop

razorblunt wrote: »

THIS!

Complete nonsense, they even threw a beautiful dog, twee cottage, cosy jumper and 'look, remember she's a lesbian' to hammer the point home too.

Didn't they go really hard on Manit when she was compromised?

It was so bad that at this part myself and my husband were actually laughing!

Yeah because witness protection pays for a lovely fancy cottage, meanwhile Gill Biglow was in seen in a rundown long forgotten seaside town in witness protection which was much more believable!

Don't get the sympathy at all for Kelly McDonald character.

I'd have more sympathy for Lyndsey Denton than her. All she got was a council grave plot and no one at her funeral!