Nadim Zahawi overacting as himself in Post Office drama

E

equaliser

Well-known member
It's badly written, with the clunkiest exposition I've seen in a long time, but it's undeniably moving for the simple reason that it depicts such humble and blameless lives being ripped apart. It is twee, though, and it wasn't until a good way in that a non-white story was aired, with the the Brummie Sikh wife portrayed as a jibbering wreck - in contrast to the 'keep calm and carry on' type white folk.

Similarly, the Tory MP is a kind of white knight in shining tweed. Then, what's this? Nadim Zahawi, portraying himself as the people's champion. That would be the same people whose pot the multi-millionaire dipped into to heat his stables. The same people defrauded by £3.7 million when he pretended his, ahem, father-in-law's Gibraltar-based trust was the 'owner' of the 20 million in shares from the YouGov polling company he founded.
 
equaliser said:
It is twee, though, and it wasn't until a good way in that a non-white story was aired, with the the Brummie Sikh wife portrayed as a jibbering wreck - in contrast to the 'keep calm and carry on' type white folk.
Click to expand...
Are you including the keep calm and carry on white man who jumped in front of a bus?

These were real people portrayed in the drama. Alan Bates was the individual who started the sub-postmasters fight back. Lee Castleton was the first person the Post Office deliberately and callously bankrupted to make an example of him. Jo Hamilton was integral to getting her MP James Arbuthnot involved, who was the only one seemingly fighting their corner early on. I don't see how this story could be told without these three white people as the main focus.
 
WilliamMunny said:
Are you including the keep calm and carry on white man who jumped in front of a bus?

These were real people portrayed in the drama. Alan Bates was the individual who started the sub-postmasters fight back. Lee Castleton was the first person the Post Office deliberately and callously bankrupted to make an example of him. Jo Hamilton was integral to getting her MP James Arbuthnot involved, who was the only one seemingly fighting their corner early on. I don't see how this story could be told without these three white people as the main focus.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the story and have followed it in Private Eye down the years. Certainly, given that the sub-post office is a quintessential village/suburban institution, a certain amount of tweeness was inevitable and understandable. However, let's be honest, when was the last time you went into a sub post office that wasn't run by someone from the sub-continent, either by birth of background? To that extent, I though having an all-white cast in the first three stories showed poor judgement.

I didn't suggest either that the story could be told without the main characters being who they were. I'm talking about the tone of the piece. You don't go to mainstream drama expecting massive subtlety, but this one, admirable as it was in many ways, had a tin-eared element that wallowed in popular tropes in a rather facile way.
 
equaliser said:
However, let's be honest, when was the last time you went into a sub post office that wasn't run by someone from the sub-continent, either by birth of background? To that extent, I though having an all-white cast in the first three stories showed poor judgement.
Click to expand...
This morning, but I don't disagree on the point you're making with regards to under representation.
 
equaliser said:
I'm well aware of the story and have followed it in Private Eye down the years. Certainly, given that the sub-post office is a quintessential village/suburban institution, a certain amount of tweeness was inevitable and understandable. However, let's be honest, when was the last time you went into a sub post office that wasn't run by someone from the sub-continent, either by birth of background? To that extent, I though having an all-white cast in the first three stories showed poor judgement.

I didn't suggest either that the story could be told without the main characters being who they were. I'm talking about the tone of the piece. You don't go to mainstream drama expecting massive subtlety, but this one, admirable as it was in many ways, had a tin-eared element that wallowed in popular tropes in a rather facile way.
Click to expand...
It's based on a true story. I'm pretty sure that they haven't left out any major characters. Look at the footage Alzi posted and you'll see Bates and Hamilton sat behind Vennells as she is lying through her teeth (not sure if its Castleton sat next to Bates).

The point of the drama was to bring the scandal to the attention of the wider public and it has been tremendously successful in that regard. Whether or not it had a tin-eared element that wallowed in popular tropes in a rather facile way, as far as I'm aware nobody around the scandal has suggested it was anything other than truthful representation of events that happened in real life.
 
equaliser said:
However, let's be honest, when was the last time you went into a sub post office that wasn't run by someone from the sub-continent, either by birth of background? To that extent, I though having an all-white cast in the first three stories showed poor judgement.
Click to expand...
The story was specifically Mr Bates vs The Post Office. The characters were therefore all associated with the JFSA and appeared in the sequence that their stories unfolded. You're looking for a slight that simply doesn't exist. As for James Arbuthnot being a 'white knight' I suggest you read or watch some interviews with him because he certainly never lays claim to any credit whatsoever despite being a leading player within parliament.
 
chickenrunner said:
The characters were therefore all associated with the JFSA and appeared in the sequence that their stories unfolded. You're looking for a slight that simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking for a 'slight'; I was passing comment on the production and how it unfolded to me as a viewer. It was a good way in before we got away from a mono-cultural vibe and I thought that a little regrettable is all. As for "the sequence their stories unfolded", maybe. But why did we get the cuddly cake-baking sub-postmistress when she first realised something was wrong with the system and much later the Sikh couple when they were already in court? Or put another way, if the Sikh couple were the first ones arrested, do you think ITV would've shown them first up?

I think we all know the answer.
 
equaliser said:
It's badly written, with the clunkiest exposition I've seen in a long time,
Click to expand...
When did everyone become such an expert in everything,

Btw for such a badly written clunky drama it’s change the Face of uk politics and has had the biggest single impact in tv history.
 
Jedi boro said:
When did everyone become such an expert in everything,

Btw for such a badly written clunky drama it’s change the Face of uk politics and has had the biggest single impact in tv history.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert, but I do teach English for a living, I trained as a journalist, have worked as a professional writer and had paid-for contributions published in the national press. I feel qualified - at least to an extent - to call out exposition.
 
equaliser said:
I'm not an expert, but I do teach English for a living, I trained as a journalist, have worked as a professional writer and had paid-for contributions published in the national press. I feel qualified - at least to an extent - to call out exposition.
Click to expand...
Did it work though ???

I think they mad it “entertaining” to make it watchable by a mass audience as there was nothing in this drama that was new or not mentioned in the panorama doc.

but it still wasn’t widely known.

Look at the impact in such short period it had.

Btw it walk the BAFTAs as well.
 
Last edited:
equaliser said:
.................................... if the Sikh couple were the first ones arrested, do you think ITV would've shown them first up?

I think we all know the answer.
Click to expand...
Rather than confect racism within the dramatisation perhaps worrying about racism in what really happened might be more pertinent. Ironically the mix of those prosecuted reflects the ethnic mix of SPMs of whom 60% are white, perhaps not surprising given that those prosecutions were triggered by random computer errors that struck without fear or favour. However the Post Office's categorisation of black SPMs as 'negroid' was most certainly racist and the sentencing of non-white defendants by the courts suggests to me a degree of discrimination against them i.e. Jo Hamilton pleaded guilty to false accounting involving £36,000 and got a suspended sentence, Rubbina Shaheen pleaded guilty to false accounting involving £43,000 and was sent down for 12 months.

However the real point in all this is a group of people, the sub-postmasters, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, political affiliations, etc., etc., need to have their lives 'put back together' (in so far as that may be possible) and it needs to happen very quickly.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
I'm not hearing much criticism of the judiciary. It was the judges that passed sentence.
Click to expand...
It was but I seem to recall that a number pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of false accounting rather than theft so the judge was sentencing not deciding guilt.
Also about one third of the 100 cases referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been turned down because they were believed to be guilty and not part of the Horizon mess.
 
equaliser said:
However, let's be honest, when was the last time you went into a sub post office that wasn't run by someone from the sub-continent, either by birth of background?
Click to expand...
I'm 75 and I've never been in one that was run by that stereotype
 
Jedi boro said:
Did it work though ???

I think they mad it “entertaining” to make it watchable by a mass audience as there was nothing in this drama that was new or not mentioned in the panorama doc.

but it still wasn’t widely known.

Look at the impact in such short period it had.

Btw it walk the BAFTAs as well.
Click to expand...
Oh, without a doubt and all power to those who brought it to the screen; proof that 'art' can cut through in a way no amount of serious analysis ever can. If I sounded sniffy about its quality it was only because I had very high expectations when I finally got down to watching it. For what it's worth, I think the best writing that's being done these days is in TV drama, a genre that really hit its stride from the Sopranos on for me. It showed you could develop character in the long form in a way film never can.
 
equaliser said:
Oh, without a doubt and all power to those who brought it to the screen; proof that 'art' can cut through in a way no amount of serious analysis ever can. If I sounded sniffy about its quality it was only because I had very high expectations when I finally got down to watching it. For what it's worth, I think the best writing that's being done these days is in TV drama, a genre that really hit its stride from the Sopranos on for me. It showed you could develop character in the long form in a way film never can.
Click to expand...
Sopranos is incredible ( btw 25 yr anniversary this year) but as I say I think the twee angle was intentional as they needed to show the innocence of the accused with no real ambiguity because it was really their story.

An incredible piece of work to do look at the impact it’s had.

Shocking truly shocking story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top