Line of Duty (BBC) **Spoilers**

cee_jay

purifol0 wrote: »

Anyone else notice Steve's bad back only flairs up when he's romantically entangled and not say when he's in a car crash or fire fight. For a man who wears 3 piece suits every day & drives a company car he certainly hasn't had much luck with the ladies down the seasons.

He was well able to run from the surveillance car into the workshop as well for someone with a bad back!

As for not much luck with the ladies? He has had all the luck, every season he has been in bed with another woman.

ohnonotgmail

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

There was no 100k in the hotel room, the OCG gave Corbett's mrs the money and she was there at AC12 when Steve saw her, to tell Ted about it.

Moffatt was instructed by the OCG to tell the police it was 100k he gave to Ted, when it wasn't, so as to place suspicion on Ted.

That's my theory

why would the OCG give money to the widow of a police officer that infiltrated their group?

Louis Friend

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would the OCG give money to the widow of a police officer that infiltrated their group?

Lisa McQueen might have facilitated it. She seemed to have been waivering slightly.

ohnonotgmail

Louis Friend wrote: »

Lisa McQueen might have facilitated it. She seemed to have been waivering slightly.

yes but why? to what end? the ocg killed him because he was informing on them. what do they gain from giving money to his widow?

Hodors Appletart

her silence

ohnonotgmail

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

her silence

on what? she had no idea what he was doing. Plus if they thought that she had information and was willing to give it to the police they would just kill her. much cheaper.

Keyzer

ShineOn7 wrote: »

The user spoiled a future episode. Which is against Charter

Mother of God indeed

I'm only interested in one thing and one thing only. Bent posters.

If this person didn't follow the charter to the letter of the law, by god, there'll be hell to pay.

Mother of God...

chooseusername

funkey_monkey wrote: »

That was ridiculous. In that scenario you'd have plugged the other one in an instant - just like the 2 armed cops did at the warehouse.

But it's tv , you need a cliff hanger.
I was expecting Ennio Moricone music there.

Talisman

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

There was no 100k in the hotel room, the OCG gave Corbett's mrs the money and she was there at AC12 when Steve saw her, to tell Ted about it.

Moffatt was instructed by the OCG to tell the police it was 100k he gave to Ted, when it wasn't, so as to place suspicion on Ted.

That's my theory

That's a wild theory.

Moffat claimed to know nothing about the money - Carmichael said this in Hasting's interview. She also revealed that it wasn't £50k that was required for Hastings to buy into the property development but £100k. Only £50k was recovered in the search of the hotel room.

In the final scenes of series 5, Hastings gave Mrs. Corbett a padded envelope. Arnott found a similar envelope full of £50 notes in the attic during his unlawful search. The forensic analysis revealed that this money is from the same stash that was recovered from the hotel room - it's from the missing £50k.

Steph Corbett told Hastings that she needed to talk to him about the HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs). The link between Hastings, Mrs. Corbett and HMRC is the envelope of money.

Louis Friend

As an aside, I think Steph Corbett is hot.

saggycaggy

Not sure if this was mentioned before but interesting article on the inspiration behind series 6.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/line-of-duty-true-story-season-6-crime/

OmegaGene

the previous series of line of duty have been real brain twisters where we are unsure who is who but this one seems very straight forward, the two detectives working for the ocg seem to be so nervous they would crack in church confession never mind ac12 interviews.
the latest series is still a good watch but for me it is lacking something the previous ones had and that cliff hanger was a bit pony

gilly1910

trashcan wrote: »

Had no idea Martin Compton was Scottish until well after I saw him in LOD. As for Nesbitt, Irish actors can be a bit hit and miss with accents. Cillian Murphy is good in Peaky Blinders I think, Colin Farrell does a pretty good American accent, but Liam Neeson is dodgy with accents, even Brendan Gleason, who I really rate, can be a bit iffy, although his Trump was ok in fairness.

Cillian Murphy's accent is phenomenal in Peaky Blinders, I would hazard a guess that a Brummie accent would be one of the hardest of all to pull off.

gilly1910

purifol0 wrote: »

What year do you think it is?


Drones for visuals and tracking, A/V bugs for listening on premises. Every one of the crims has phones, sometimes multiple - they basically walk around with a wiretap and location tracker on them at all times. Wait til they hear about google location history!



There is a reason the US funds the NSA so much you know. Its way more effective than this 1980's stakeout bull****.



How many Gardai have comp sci degrees again? Any Certified Ethical Hackers among them? Plenty of em got 5 D's in the leaving cert & write everything on paper only. The most they know about hi tech comms is joining a whats app group.



I love the show but its embarrassing to see them radio-ing in license plates when ANPR systems in other countries have existed for 20 years, and using signatures for everything including taking out firearms.

I would hazard a guess that calling in the reg plates to control is just for show, the UK has had ANPR since 2005, and would be light years ahead of our technologically inept Police Force. Also as already been pointed out, a lot of unmarked branch cars would not have ANPR fitted . Also 20 officers to stakeout one person over a 24 hour period is again a huge exaggeration, and probably again is just to add dramatic effect to an already extremely dramatic show.

Seathrun66

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes but the significance of it wasn't the same back then - nobody knew that it was set after the shoot out so how could they complain?

And if it hadn't been mentioned again now, I wouldn't have remembered it at all - that's if I even saw it at the time (I generally don't watch trailers, for exactly that reason)

People speculate here at length. are usually off but often right. Was the repeated mention of Tommy Hunter as Jo's Dad a spoiler? Was the February trailer designed to mislead or real footage from the next episode?

Getting overwrought about speculation and having a go at fellow posters is pointless. The episode has not occurred yet and we don't know what will happen. Had someone seen a preview and revealed information that would be very different. They haven't so best to chill and wait until Sunday evening.

Seathrun66

ShineOn7 wrote: »

The user spoiled a future episode. Which is against Charter

Mother of God indeed

I think you should be taking that up with the BBC. The trailer was posted here in February and discussed at length. I'd also avoid media coverage of the series as this is all over the net.

Tzardine

Seathrun66 wrote: »

PlHad someone seen a preview and revealed information that would be very different. They haven't so best to chill and wait until Sunday evening.

Is this not exactly what happened. It was a preview for next week's episode that was shown after Sundays episode that contained the spoiler. And the person posted that spoiler here.

Seathrun66

Tzardine wrote: »

Is this not exactly what happened. It was a preview for next week's episode that was shown after Sundays episode that contained the spoiler. And the person posted that spoiler here.

It was a series teaser from late February, discussed here at length at the time.

Poster(s) now speculating about the relevance of it.

I don't recall any trailer after this week's episode, though I could be wrong.

CoBo55

Yay it's boards tennis...

Keyzer

<snip>

Mother of God

The Black Oil

OK. The thread has *spoilers* in the title, hence the content of episodes up to and including 6.05 are fair game for discussion without spoiler tags. Anything doing the rounds online for future episodes warrants the use of spoiler tags as nothing is really confirmed, and some people don't want to know things prior to something airing. Promos can be very misleading and are not typically shared in the thread, bar the main trailer. If we can now please move on from flinging tomatoes at each other and return the thread to its typical liveliness, otherwise we'll have to dust off the template for issuing reg 15s.

Tzardine

The Black Oil wrote: »

OK. The thread has *spoilers* in the title, hence the content of episodes up to and including 6.05 are fair game for discussion without spoiler tags. Anything doing the rounds online for future episodes warrants the use of spoiler tags as nothing is really confirmed, and some people don't want to know things prior to something airing. Promos can be very misleading and are not typically shared in the thread, bar the main trailer. If we can now please move on from flinging tomatoes at each other and return the thread to its typical liveliness, otherwise we'll have to dust off the template for issuing reg 15s.

For the DIR, I am nodding my head in agreement.

Hercule Poirot

Can that post from Wallet Inspector, and the subsequent replies, be deleted please?

Fitz*

That's twice now that posts like the above in this thread have spoiled future episodes. Since Sunday night. It's only Tuesday!

Sexual Chocolate

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Can that post from Wallet Inspector, and the subsequent replies, be deleted please?

You guys are worse for believing cast credits and IMDB ect. Just take things as they come while watching the show.

The only way I'll know or believe if "XYZ" is or isn't appearing in next week's episode or only a certain amount of episodes is if I do or don't see them. Not cos IMBD says so.

salmocab

Sexual Chocolate wrote: »

You guys are worse for believing cast credits and IMDB ect. Just take things as they come while watching the show.

The only way I'll know or believe if "XYZ" is or isn't appearing in next week's episode or only a certain amount of episodes is if I do or don't see them. Not cos IMBD says so.

In fact I’d go as far as to say that IMBD would be a great way of setting red herrings as especially for a show like this everyone thinks they are detectives.
Using a well known actor like Nesbitt just for a picture would be a great way of getting people talking about his future part without him ever having to be in an episode.

Keyzer

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Can that post from Wallet Inspector, and the subsequent replies, be deleted please?

Are you serious Sonny Jim?

That would be considered tampering with key evidence in a high profile case. Speaks volumes about your character Inspector.

Shame on you, Mother of God.

Hercule Poirot

Keyzer wrote: »

Are you serious Sonny Jim?

That would be considered tampering with key evidence in a high profile case. Speaks volumes about your character Inspector.

Shame on you, Mother of God.

I reserve the right to be questioned by someone at least one rank superior.....

HeidiHeidi

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Can that post from Wallet Inspector, and the subsequent replies, be deleted please?

If the posts get deleted, will you be able to unknow what you know (or think you know)???

Hercule Poirot

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

If the posts get deleted, will you be able to unknow what you know (or think you know)???

For other people's benefit rather than my own