Judge John Deed Series 5 - Episodes 1 - 4 [DVD]

Product Information

White, Roland (14 January 2001). "An honest portrayal? Judge for yourself". The Sunday Times. Times Newspapers. Timms, Dominic (16 January 2006). "Shaw lays down the law". Media Guardian . Retrieved 27 April 2007. Or any channel for that matter? Because I'm trying to approach this in general terms in how any channel could theoretically restrict artistic expression simply because they don't share the beliefs expressed within a drama.

Presumably because of the "message" that it is seen to be pushing (according to the regulator). Imagine if, during the 70's, the BBC had broadcast a drama that was sympathetic towards the IRA and its aims. It would still be a fictional drama, but imagine the outcry.The series' creative interpretation of the law has led to a misconception by the public of what real law is like ( cf. CSI effect); in the second Damilola Taylor trial, the presiding judge warned the jury that if they copied Deed's actions in the then-recent episode " One Angry Man" (2006), in which Deed investigated a case and interviewed witnesses while sitting on a jury, they would "simply derail the whole process". [23] Critical reaction [ edit ] Staff writer (7 February 2006). "Dami judge warns jury". Manchester Evening News. M.E.N. Media . Retrieved 24 April 2007. Shepherd, Robert John (8 May 2006). "Region 2 Out This Week". DVD Reviewer . Retrieved 12 June 2007. It's just that it makes me think about to what extent content will be controlled, even if that control may be benign and sometimes for what a channel believes to be in the best interests of the public. a b Deans, Jason (4 December 2003). "Holiday Showdown flies off with viewers". Media Guardian . Retrieved 27 April 2007.

The factual accuracy of the series is often criticised by legal professionals and journalists; many of the decisions taken by Deed are unlikely to happen in a real court. The romanticised vision of the court system created by Newman caused a judge to issue a warning to a jury not to let the series influence their view of trials—referring to an episode where Deed flouts rules when called up for jury service. A complaint was made by a viewer about one episode claiming biased and incorrect information about the MMR vaccine, leading the BBC to unilaterally ban repeats of it in its original form.[1] Plunkett, John (22 November 2002). "Viewers find celebs a turn-off". Media Guardian . Retrieved 27 April 2007. Judge John Deed takes the case of Maurice Haart, a father accused of murdering the man who killed his daughter. Haart tells his barrister, Jo Mills, that he shot the man because he saw him driving the same lorry that he hit his daughter with, but he refuses to plead provocation. Deed's daughter Charlie introduces him to Rory, an environmental activist, and they are later arrested when they destroy GM crops. Deans, Jason (12 January 2007). "Viewers seek TV with better taste". Media Guardian . Retrieved 27 April 2007. A couple suffering from motor-neuron disease and cancer sue their local council, believing their condition has been caused by a communications antenna, used by the police, on the roof of their flat. The wife of an Iraqi minister approaches Deed, wishing to sue the British government because the use of depleted uranium by the army in Iraq has caused the deaths of members of her family. Meanwhile, Jo and Marc have set a date for their wedding, adding to the tension between Jo and John.I agree with you completely. I'm not sure some people realise just how dangerous measles can be. The son of a friend of mine had measles when he was young - before vaccination was available. Although he recovered with no obvious side effects, he died when he was 19 from what proved to be complications caused by childhood measles.