Lost Honour Christopher Jefferies

[We3KingyofOblomovAre]

Is there another thread?
I searched.
God, I could barely watch, it was too awful. my heart bled for the poor man.

Just watching it and actually blubbing. That poor, poor man.

Remember they did exactly the same to poor old Colin Stagg.

Fuckers!

Just watching it and actually blubbing. That poor, poor man

Really? I didn't cry for him at all.

I think Christopher Jefferies is a very abrasive and unpleasant person.

But that doesn't mean that he should be fitted up.

I think that is the point of the drama.

You didn't cry for him at all? And?

He may well have been abrasive and hard to warm to but to watch someone have their life turned upside down like that was for me, very upsetting and I think Jason Watkins played the fear and confusion he must have felt marvellously.

I just watched part 2 and thought it was excellent. I remember very well how the press - specifically the Daily Mail because I don't read the others - really made it seem as though Jefferies was guilty as sin. They printed downright lies, such as he was friends with a convicted paedophile, amongst other things.

I saw him at the Leveson enquiry amongst many other victims of the press. One woman spoke very movingly about how her 16 year old daughter was murdered whilst at school and the press wouldn't leave them alone and printed lies about the girl to such an extent that her younger brother committed suicide. It was said at the enquiry that others had either considered or tried to commit suicide because of the press behaviour. There is every chance that Jeffries could have done the same and just because he's a highly intelligent and eccentric man who may appear to some people to be a bit superior and slightly difficult is no excuse for what was done to him. He was absolutely right to sue the press.

That doesn't that Jo Yeates wasn't the major victim, of course. She lost her life but her family, her boyfriend, Jeffries and indeed Vincent Tabak's unsuspecting girlfriend were all victims of the tragedy to some degree or other.

The part that got to me was when he was allowed to return to his flat.
He must have felt violated to walk in there and see all his possessions dumped on the floor.
Jason Watkins portrayed him brilliantly.

You didn't cry for him at all? And?

No I didn't. I've only watched the first episode.

As I've explained, I have experience of the monstered from the POV of the monsterer. It's not nice.

But I think the drama was very true to life of what I remember of the personality of Christopher Jeffereries.

It doesn't do any of us any good to pretend he was a nice man.

He was a superior fucking git. But he didn't deserve what he got.

I've only watched the first episode but think the programme showed that.

It doesn't help to try to pretend that all victims are always lovely. Sometimes they aren't.

That doesn't mean they don't deserve our sympathy.

I don't think anyone is pretending "all victims are lovely", I certainly am not. We all respond to things in different ways. I found it heartbreaking that someone who lived such a quiet and unassuming life, hurting no one had it ripped away as though it meant nothing. He had friends, people cared about him. Out of interest on what grounds do you say he's not a nice man? I can't say he is and I can't say he isn't. I certainly wouldn't form an opinion from a few TV interviews. Do you know him personally? He may not be everyone's cup of tea but that doesn't make him not nice. Personally I wondered if he might have some kind of social communication condition. Though I could be totally wrong.

That's my point NickiFury

Christopher Jefferies appears to be quite a cunty person. But not a murderer.

I think that's the point of the programme; that you can find someone objectionable at the same time that they can be benign.

It's ironic that you're defending him and getting at me.

I'm actually quite confused by your posts. "Defending him and getting at me". How am I getting at you? Are you one of those people who feel attacked when people challenge your opinions? You've made some pretty strong statements about CJ in your posts, I have asked a few questions on how you came to form those opinions? Have you met him? Or did you form those opinions by watching him on TV just like everyone else did, which as we saw resulted in him being vilified all over the media.

I said watching this programme upset me, you said "Really? It didn't upset me at all." I expressed why it had and you gave me a little lecture on how victims weren't always nice, I replied that I hadn't said they were.

I would really love you to quote where I have got at you because as far as I am concerned this was a discussion.

I don't think Christopher Jefferies was or is abrasive, unpleasant, cunty etc. What is striking about him is that, despite his undoubted eccentricity and social awkwardness, he had a very loyal group of friends, his former colleagues were prepared to stand up for him, and so many of his former pupils had warm memories of him - to the extent that some were prepared to rally round and put themselves out to help him. He comes over as superior because he lacks social understanding, because he is pedantic, and because he has difficulty in comprehending the behaviour and interests of others. I'm not going to diagnose him, but it does sound as if he may have something in the nature of a social communication disorder. That certainly does not make him a cunt.

As for saying he has not had his life ruined because he has received compensation: nonsense. You have to remember that in order to receive that compensation, he had to take the major risk of putting his head above the parapet and go through all the strain of heavy duty litigation which involved investigators on both sides trawling through his life with a fine-toothcomb; and he must have known that the papers would be desperate to find whatever dirt they could to justify what they had printed. It was a brave thing to do, and he did it essentially because the worm turned and he finally decided that it was behaviour that the papers absolutely shouldn't get away with. He seems to have been living a happy, productive life when he got arrested, and he had his life turned upside down entirely cynically for the sake of selling a few papers.

I'm sure those papers took a calculated risk that if he was guilty the judge at his trial might chunter a bit but would probably let them get away with it; and if he was innocent he wouldn't dare to take them on. He gave them a very nasty shock when he did, and he rammed the lesson home when he gave evidence to Leveson. His evidence was particularly powerful, because he was a totally innocent person whom some papers chose to monster, and they couldn't use the excuse that he was a sleb who'd brought it on himself. The tabloids aren't going to forgive any of that easily. So popping up on here and making nasty insinuations that he's making a nice living out of it and is deliberately making a profit out of hurting Joanna Yeates' family is playing straight into their hands.

Limitedperiodonly

Oh, so you personally know Christopher Jeffries, do you? Presumably you must to feel justified in calling him a "superior cunty git*. Or did you just take that from the one single two minute clip that Sky News filmed of him?

By all accounts, most of former colleagues, pupils and friends do not (and never have) regarded him that way, so where the fuck do you get off making such a spiteful remark?

The programme was not about how "nice" he was, or wasn't - it was about one of the most shameful episodes in media history. A man who had led an entirely blameless life - a good, decent, productive life - was utterly annihilated in the most disgusting fashion simply because of the way that he looked.

The "point of the drama" was about the power of the media and the damage it can do when it runs amok. And the hideous and unpleasant habit some people have of judging people they do not know....like calling them "superior cunty gits", as an example.

makemine of course it ruined his life! the fact he has built his life back up again and sought compensation (of which he deserves every penny) doesn't mean his life wasn't ruined. Jo Yeates' parents will have built their lives back up but it doesn't mean they were ruined because of the murder of their beloved daughter.

What happened to CJ is in the interest of everyone. Whilst it's certainly not on par with being murdered it's still totally relevant as it shows the corruption of the police and press who get a few extra bucks for sensationalising. We have to live in a country where these organisations who should be 100% trusted are willing to feed a person to the wolves because they look and talk differently. You can't tiptoe around that, it needs to be exposed.

And I do believe that CJ's life still is in ruins to an extent for the simple fact that, despite being released without charge, the real murderer being jailed, his successful sueing of newspapers, apology from the police and this programme which tells his story - there will still be people who doubt his innocence. And makemine with theories like yours that he should just get over it go to show the lack of understanding of injustice.

If you google 'Joanna Yeates murder' his image still pops up on the 3rd picture. What a heartbreaking injustice for Jo's family, to have their daughters' story be all about someone else. But this is NOT the fault of CJ, it's a result of the disgusting actions of police and press, and to make sure it doesn't end up that way for someone else (to me it smacks of the Meredith Kercher murder where the onus is on an innocent party) we have to have people like him leading the way for accurate reporting.

Sorry it should have read "it doesn't mean Jo's parents lives werent ruined

Also forgot to say Jason Watkins was excellent as CJ. A die hard trollied fan here didnt know what to expect but I'm very impressed!

I think it's marvellous that Christopher Jeffries is apparently a superior cunty git who no one would like managed nevertheless to have a substantial number of loyal and devoted friends who stuck by him.

Isn't that astonishing?
It coukdn't possibly be that he is a perfectly nice man who does not come across well on tv? If only he'd behaved like we wanted him to on tv. He asked for it really.

Why objectionable - or superior and cunty as you so charmingly put it? He wasn't intersted in popular culture, he didn't have a television, he was trying to hide his baldness, he liked reading and studying and playing an instrument, he despaired of bad spelling.
God - what a bastard. Let's lynch him.

Going as far as calling someone you don't know a cunt because of a few TV clips, really limited? How juvenile.

This morning I watched the first part which was generally excellent and thought-provoking, and I found Jason Watkins' performance very enjoyable. Having just read the full interview CJ and JW did in the print edition of the Radio Times, I've discovered that the performance was exaggerated. I know that one purpose of the TV program was to entertain but feel a bit unsettled about this given the real-life tragedy.

I agree with some other posters that the broadcast date was insensitively timed.

^It coukdn't possibly be that he is a perfectly nice man who does not come across well on tv? If only he'd behaved like we wanted him to on tv. He asked for it really.

That isn't what I'm saying pagwatch and I'm sorry if you think it is. I said as much in earlier posts but you and others probably missed them.

It's not that the real life Christopher Jefferies didn't come across well on TV. On one occasion I saw he didn't - but he was being doorstepped at the time and I'd defy anyone to perform well in that circumstance. He came across perfectly reasonably at Leveson and in other interviews I've seen.

It was that the play portrayed him as a man who could be difficult, abrasive and yes, cunty, at times.

How else would would you describe someone who was rude and dismissive to a postman making pleasantries, was rude to Jo Yeates and her boyfriend and insulting about their motives when they asked permission to do a bit of gardening and superior to a police officer who apologised in advance for his poor spelling? So abrasive, in fact that his solicitor had to advise him to tone it down a bit.

I'm quite sure all those instances happened because it was a very well-made and unsensational drama into which Christopher Jefferies appeared to have some input.

My point is that it was refreshing to see a drama where you were asked to have sympathy for someone for whom the unpleasant phrase 'doesn't suffer fools gladly' could have been coined. They didn't make him out to be a lovely person for whom it would be easy to feel sympathy.

And I did. Though I didn't blub. Something tells me that Christopher Jefferies might not welcome that. But I don't know him, so perhaps he might.

Ok limited.
That makes more sense to me.
Thank you.

Thank you too pagwatch. What I meant was that sometimes people do behave oddly and are a bit hard to love but that doesn't make them murderers or fit targets for vilification. I took that message from the programme and admired the writer for it.

Maybe I didn't put that over very well at first.

When I was watching it earlier I thought the same as icimoi about him being socially awkward and felt a huge amount of empathy. It then crossed my mind about him having Asperger's and in the Radio Times interview he hints he may have AS.

Well, you did call him a cunt based on one TV interview you saw with the real CJ, but your recent comments are a bit more clear.

Well, you did call him a cunt based on one TV interview you saw with the real CJ, but your recent comments are a bit more clear.

Thank you for your kind response Southeastdweller but, channelling the spirit of Christopher Jefferies: 'Why don't you learn English comprehension - or in plain language, to read things properly?'

My comments were based on the play and I can't see how you interpreted it otherwise.

I remember watching him being talked to on TV and thinking: 'WTF! You superior cunt.

You referred to the real C.J here, did you not, miss journo?

Yes, they reconstructed that Sky TV confrontation accurately in the play, which is what I was remembering.

In fact I'd say that the fictional Christopher Jefferies came over slightly better in it than my memory of the real event. But, as I said, I wouldn't blame anyone for their response to being monstered.

And while you're quoting, I said this in the same post:

I can see why people took against him. But being a cunt is not an excuse for libelling someone, however much we hate them.

Seeing as you are so concerned with accuracy and things being taken out of context and all.

I am actually amazed he only got £200k for the total destruction of his life!.
Sadly this "Small" amount will not stop Newspapers looking for dirt or printing "shit" on anyone they feel will sell papers.

I can not begin to imagine , what it must be like to be "convicted" by the media of Murder based on your Hair cut or by the way you talk.

People need to think on here, what would they do if they were arrested by the Police because they happened to be in the wrong place. The other thing people need to realise how would you talk to any media person if your life had been ripped apart by them ?