Thanks RosieSW' for your link. Here it is again. It explained why Undercover turned out to be such rubbish. The arrogance of the writer, Peter Moffatt, and the complacency of the interviewer, Justin Webb, is breathtaking.
Moffatt was inspired to write something based on a real event, and there's nothing wrong or unusual with that. He met someone who was duped into a relationship with an undercover officer and she explained that what he envisioned couldn't happen. He obviously didn't take that very well.
He bleats that he wasn't making a documentary, but that wasn't the point. He was so wedded to his idea that he ignored someone who knew that it was completely unrealistic and pointed out why. He seems to be accusing her of wanting him to write her story. He even patronisingly suggests that she might get it if she watches the whole series.
It would have been better if he'd have scrapped the idea and written about what really happened - that could be made dramatic and entertaining too if he didn't want to do a straight documentary - or just binned it.
I wonder if by the time he met her he had a script, a deal and an outline cast worked out and thought: 'Oh bugger. Never mind, I've sold the show now.'
I liked the idea of this at first and even when I watched it and noticed the gaping holes I still kind of liked it. But now if there is a second series I'm not going to waste my time watching it because everyone involved had such contempt for viewers.
I don't usually get this worked up about telly 