Adolescence

[heartsinvisiblefury]

What an amazing piece of television. Stephen Graham is exceptional. Highly recommend this - on Netflix.

'The biggest error we can make as adults is to imagine we know what's going on for teens. The only way we can gain any insight is to let go of our preconceptions about what's 'realistic' and hear it from the horses mouths'

Well quite. We gain insight by talking to them. Ours all agree that grooming, drugs and gang culture are the biggest risk for teens not Stephen Graham's incel speculations.

What about the Southport killer ? Was he not an incel and I can see that kind of incel increasing.

It was so uncomfortable to watch them three in that car trying to get the day back. Mother and daughter on eggshells. I totally get everybody is scrutinizing teenager behavior and internet dangers here, but nobody sort of talks how bad this family dynamic is for a teenager boy. A lot of behaviors are learned from parents, if dad is expressing toxic masculinity day in day out, it will be very easy for a teenager to relate to Andrew Tate online. otherwise it would be repulsive. Potentially for a daughter to accept that it is okay to be treated that way too.

Before everyone goes interrogating their teenagers over what they watch on the internet, it is worth having a look at the relationships with their partners first I think.

@latetothefisting

obviously my DD is referring to the people her age that she actually knows. Not to the entire generation which is why she added maybe it’s a thing up north ie in a different demographic to us or more to a younger demographic

DD is well connected and knows a lot of people her own age. She is very sociable, very connected and very much in tune to people her age in our area.

also let’s not forget episodes of this show we’re filmed in whole real time takes

so they have to cleverly fit what they can in that time

which is why they did such an excellent job

ie the disruptive class had a newly qualified teacher, the female teacher who was pretty clueless was head of the primary not secondary school. The father son chat in the school.

it was a clever way to show the type of school they wanted without throwing blame on the whole education system, schools, teachers, parents, pupils etc

there are areas we can pick at of course but they worked within set parameters which we know and accept have limitations

I've seen a lot of people say the teacher showing them around was the head of the primary school but the subtitles said head of lower school. I was in secondary in the 90s, admittedly, but back then, lower school was years 7 to 9 and we had a head of lower school similarly. Not sure we had heads of years. I think she was supposed to be the head of the part of the school that Jamie was a pupil in.

The car scene was 13 months after his arrest, they had all had therapy... They were still devastated but I can see how 13 months after a death or tragedy you'd still have the odd moment of joy or normality. Also I got the impression they were all making an effort to be happy for the dad's birthday.

You missed the part where, when she was talking to Jade she specifically said she taught year 5, (which Jade repeated mocking her) so that school must have been an 'all in' type teaching ages 4-16/18, with "lower school" referring to primary.

She definitely wasn't supposed to be head of the part of the school Jamie was in, because she introduced herself to Jade saying Jade probably wouldn't know who she was (because she was from the lower school).

Honestly it was a bit of a weird choice because of course it would make more sense if it had been a senior staff member who actually knew the pupils involved acting as the intermediary with the police. And we didn't see any kids younger than Year 7 in the whole thing, so where was the "lower school" she was apparently head of? If it was on a different site it makes it even weirder that she was the one showing them around.

The only reason I can think of was they thought it would be more likely that a teacher for younger kids wouldn't have heard much about incels/Andrew Tate, so gave them the opportunity to give that exposition once the DI's son explained things to them?

I don't think the laughing, anger and crying at the same time is unusual. I've witnessed it first hand.

I agree that when you are stressed (for example grieving) I think it's quite normal to flip bewteen laughter / anger / tears and back quite quickly.

We gain insight with a slightly more nuanced approach than merely asking them directly what the risks to them are in their opinion and simply accepting it without any critical thinking of our own. Clearly if we apply critical thinking and a proper risk assessment we will see that teens who KNOW drugs, gangs and online predators are dangerous, will mitigate that risk. They will avoid drugs, not join gangs and treat people online with caution, thereby reducing the risk.
The problem with the Incel material is that it's insidious. Andrew Tate uses innocent content on fitness, tips for success in life and so on as a gateway to the harmful material. The adults I know who work with teens are not concerned about incel culture because the teens have told them Andrew Tate is dangerous, rather because they've told them Andrew Tate is great.

'We gain insight with a slightly more nuanced approach than merely asking them directly what the risks to them are in their opinion and simply accepting it without any critical thinking of our own'

I didn't say asking them. I said talking to them which involves a 'nuanced' approach and a 2 way open dialogue.

We all can apply critical thinking to this overblown, overhyped load of simplistic rubbish. I shouldn't have watched it as Graham was in it but it's been pushed so much by Netflix I thought maybe this time he was in something decent but nope, sniffing and staring with painfully long scenes including incompetent psych session plus the neverending van/b&q episode.

I thought it was a marvellous piece of television, it was one of those rare pieces that feels like you are watching real life, not actors. I think it’s interesting that some viewers feel that the scenes were drawn out, I think we’ve just got used to rapidly changing scenes in modern dramas, this forced the viewer to keep attention to more subtle drama in dialogue, facial expressions, nuances and unspoken trauma. Episode three was fascinating in this sense. I thought the final episode was very moving, showing a family trying to create normality and realising that they’d never have that again. The contrast between the story they recollected about the school disco and the dark world of incel, porn and naked selfies that teenagers today are exposed to, was very apparent.

It was an interesting perspective looking at an incident through the eyes of the perpetrator’s family. The one-shot episodes really made me feel involved as a viewer as if I were a fly on the wall observing these people’s lives. I’m sure there were inaccuracies as regards to school and police procedures but it is in essence a drama not a documentary and the focus should be on the story and what the characters represent.

I think the female perspectives were still present just more subtle - the wife trying to emotionally regulate the husband, the sister trying to forge an identity under the shadow of her brother’s crimes, the psychologist who moves between an aggressive young man and a leery security guard. It provoked us into thinking about masculinity, how our society is defining it and warping it, without telling us what to think. We were shown the two sides to Jamie - the scared little boy and then the darker side to him and left to judge for ourselves who was to blame for the crime- the boy, the internet, the school, the parents or society as a whole.

Whatever you think of Mr Graham’s acting skills, he had got everyone talking and that’s what the arts are here to do.

It irritated me as the last two episodes were wrong way round.

In episode three, jamie was being assessed via psychologist for the purposes of a presentence report.

But it was only seven months after the incident and he had not stood trial yet. He was pleading not guilty. He had maintained his innocence.

It was completely inaccurate to assess him for a presentence report at this stage. A presentence report is obtained after a conviction by a jury or following a guilty plea. The judge will adjourn the matter for several weeks whilst a presentence report is obtained. The report does exactly that it's provided before a sentences handed down by a judge so that they can take into account certain matters, such as a psychologists report.

A presentence report would not be obtained.Seven months after the incident and before he had stood trial. What if Jamie had been acquitted by a jury? Then what was the point of the presetence report obtained months before. There would be no sentence to hand down if he was acquitted.

Episodes, three and four ought to have been the other way around. Dad's fiftieth birthday ought to have been episode three where jamie decides to plead guilty. Then episode four ought to have been the psychologist review because he's pleaded guilty, and now a presentence report is needed for the judge to decide on his sentence.

They weren't for realism and accuracy and got it completely wrong.

I don’t think she was doing a pre sentence report. She was instructed by his solicitor, not the court.

Watch it again, she says to Jamie she's instructed to provide her pre sentence report.

Hmm…yes that is weird then.

I watched the first two episodes and found the plot, dialogue, and characterisation utterly unconvincing. The acting may be good but it doesn't alter the fact that the script is poor, and the writers have totally failed to do their research on many levels (I am talking about the police, justice system, and schools here, all of which I have experience of, rather than social media).

Even the processing when he arrived at the station. He was asked for his full name, but not his date of birth.

They showed the tediousness of having every single finger printed and placed on that machine but couldn't even be bothered to ask him for his date of birth.

Omg this is show is still being discussed on telly. The kid playing Jamie and the DS on This Morning this week constantly rattling on about his performance and what a powerful show it is. I really wish they'd get someone on putting the other side forward that no, someone like Jamie is not representative of who commits murder in this country and Graham's simplistic take on it is absolutely ridiculous.

Well @Gloriia you are still discussing it on here

Wow. You really don’t understand it do you?

It is Stephen Graham who doesnt understand 13yr old behaviour.

I have a different opinion to you, as do many. That doesn't mean comprehension is a problem.

The point of the show is clearly to make people think..it could happen to me, my son, my family..If you want something different..
Then I recommend you watch Top Boy.

It's ok I can find programmes. I watched this as it is being pushed relentlessly by Netflix.

Yes if a show makes people think then great but it must be plausible and this wasn't.

I have cut to the end of this thread to ask something-full disclosure, I haven’t watched it at all.

But isn’t the ‘adolescent’ actor just Too Young? He’s pre-adolescent. Would such a boy have the sexual urges you’d imagine he’d need to experience to feel so strongly about this girl’s (I assume) rejection of his romantic advances to kill her?

I must be missing something!