Though I would disagree there: each to their own view.Believable. But not true. Its an important distinction.
It was a real person being depicted. Unless you know him personally, I'm not sure you are entitled to a view on its accuracy, are you?Though I would disagree there: each to their own view.
I obviously do not know him personally: but merely say the way he was portrayed rang totally true in terms of my experience of academics. I notice, for example, there was no rebuttal of the sly move whereby his name was on the car park exhumation order and Philippa’s not. And I ask you: have you even seen the film?It was a real person being depicted. Unless you know him personally, I'm not sure you are entitled to a view on its accuracy, are you?
If a judge can have such a view so can I: it’s not like Starmer’s Labour Party: dissent is not yet illegalIt was a real person being depicted. Unless you know him personally, I'm not sure you are entitled to a view on its accuracy, are you?
His view is based on actual facts tho, not a vague impression of the probable fact that academics can be arseholes.If a judge can have such a view so can I: it’s not like Starmer’s Labour Party: dissent is not yet illegal
Yes, but deciding thar someone must a shower of shit, because that is the way that Steve Coogan decided to portray them in a film is not the approach one would expect from Urban75's foremost investigative journalist; not illegal, just bad form.If a judge can have such a view so can I: it’s not like Starmer’s Labour Party: dissent is not yet illegal
It wasn't obvious. From what you posted, you appeared to have knowledge about the accuracy of the portrayal - the details, not the general vibe.I obviously do not know him personally: but merely say the way he was portrayed rang totally true in terms of my experience of academics. I notice, for example, there was no rebuttal of the sly move whereby his name was on the car park exhumation order and Philippa’s not. And I ask you: have you even seen the film?
the Sheffield chief exec promised to sue Channel 4 for their portrayal of her during the covid parties. She never did though. Almost as if the portrayal was reasonably accurate.Cue up Paula Vennels & Angela van den Bogerd suing ITV.
It's a great film with a pantomime villain. Probably not a documentary though...This is just making me want to see the film...
You haven’t seen it…its on Netflix I think (I have the DVD)I mean clearly from my above comment I haven't seen it, but I know that it's very dodgy in legal terms to portray a named real life person in a particular way and just because some academics are like that doesn't make it OK to portray an individual a particular way if it's untrue or without factual evidence.
Anyone know what streaming service if any this is on? I'm intrigued now.
Its a great film: though a tad too sympathetic to RIIIThis is just making me want to see the film...
Maybe: but you’d have to be to persevere like she didPhilippa Langley is a bit of an oddball though, isn't she?
Not probable, more invariableHis view is based on actual facts tho, not a vague impression of the probable fact that academics can be arseholes.
Yes, but deciding thar someone must a shower of shit, because that is the way that Steve Coogan decided to portray them in a film is not the approach one would expect from Urban75's foremost investigative journalist; not illegal, just bad form.
Coogan plays Langley's husband, the academic is played by Lee Ingleby.
Wasn't aware of the film before but I definitely want to see it now that it's been Streisand Effected by the lawsuit
I see a gimp who I have put on ignore has commented![]()
Coogan plays Langley's husband, the academic is played by Lee Ingleby.
Wasn't aware of the film before but I definitely want to see it now that it's been Streisand Effected by the lawsuit