America's Most Hated Family in Crisis & My Brother the Islamist

Scene of crimes: BBC Two Louis Theroux & BBC Three My Brother the Islamist

Defendants: Louis Theroux & Robb Leech

Case for the defence:

Two programmes in the space of a few days deal with what to many is an alien phenomenon – people who, devote their lives to God (or Allah) and letting everyone who isn't with them just why they're going to hell.

Louis investigates the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) - nominally Christians, but going by most of their comments, not a Christianity anyone else would recognise. As one protestor asks in the video – "did you think Jesus died just for you?"

Louis had been there before, for the 2007 documentary The Most Hated Family in America and returned to find how the 'most hated family' had changed – including the casting out of daughters by fathers due to what most would see as minor transgressions. Louis played the bewildered outsider who would never understand the cult's teachings, and they didn't seem to keen to take him on (or even one potential convert).

Robb, by contrast, was bewildered but not an outsider as his subject, Salahuddin, formerly known as Rich, Robb's step-brother. Both grew up in Weymouth but one day Rich read about his brother as being one of the extremists following Anjem Choudary, the 'mad mullah' who wants sharia law in Britain. This was odd to Rich as just a year before he had gone on a holiday to the Med together, presumably for the usual sun, booze and birds.

Now he was protesting military funerals and calling for adulteresses to be punsihed. Like the WBC, if you aren't with them you are against them and they want nothing to do with you other than let you know just how utterly wrong you are. Like the WBC, it cut up families – by the end, Robb could not take that his step-brother would only shake with his 'unclean' left hand. Not all converts were this distant - 17-year-old Ben (Ahsan) and his relationship with his mother, although not broken, was a another aspect to the documentary.

Despite being about two different religions, the style of interviewing – very much background, and letting the subjects peak for themselves – and topics of religion and family (and sanctimony) showed more in common despite the surface differences.

Both focused on people who saw problems in their world and turned to men who gave easy, un-nuanced answers – Fred Phelps (WBC) and Anjem Choudary (Islam). Of course, I hasten to add, the Chief Judge and the Judge System in no way falls under this and it does answer all life's problems.

 Witness statements:


"There was a mixture of bafflement and sadness in his voice as he tried to get his head around being told the young Muslims he’d encountered through Salahuddin, all perfectly welcoming, could never truly be his friends until he converted to Islam.

"That was never on the agenda and, by the end of his film, Robb and his stepbrother were as far apart as they were at the start." – My Brother the Islamist - Keith Watson, The Metro

"Despite their perverse attitude to proselytising, it is impossible not to conclude that the Phelpsites love publicity of any description. Theroux has given it to them in spades – many sects, convinced of their own invincible rectitude, can only dream of two hours of largely unchallenged primetime television. No wonder they welcome him. If there is a next time, he ought to take a theologian with him who might penetrate their carapace of biblical certainty and challenge them on their own ground." – America's Most Hated Family – Stephen Bates, The Guardian

"[Robb] Leach followed Salahuddin to east London, to find out what had turned him, within six months of converting to Islam, into a loudspeaker-toting fundamentalist. He didn't really reach a conclusion, but he did meet other converts preaching global jihad, including 17-year-old Ben, another white boy from Weymouth. That they reminded me strongly of daft Barry (Nigel Lindsay) in Chris Morris's sublime dark comedy Four Lions did not, alas, make them remotely funny." – My Brother the Islamist - Brian Viner, The Independent

"The "in Crisis" bit of the title turned out to be a bit wishful. Yes, a couple of members had managed to escape the lunacy and appear to have survived intact. But their departure had only stiffened the resolve of the faithful who – however close they'd been to the heretics – stuck to the party line that God knew exactly what he was doing and would take his revenge for eternity. The group also now have a weird line in bilious pop mash-ups, adding lyrics of venomous religious piety to chart-topping hits. One hopes that the younger members might still be saved but for the elders who continue to feed them poison the suggestion painted on an opposition poster seemed most appropriate: 'Drink the Kool-Aid already'." – America's Most Hated Family – Tom Sutcliffe, The Independent

Findings:

At first I wondered why the Mega City Prosecution Service brought both of these cases together to be tried – one's about  Grud-and-man bothering Christians, one about Alluh-and-man bothering Muslims. True, it's an archaic case as religion's no longer allowed – we have enough crazies without adding Grud to the mix – but on close examination I can see why.

Both documentary makes are restrained and let the subjects speak on their own, even if it were me or another Judge they would have a very long list of questions to answer under interrogation. Both groups, both fundamentalists, were nice enough individually (subject to any crimes they may have committed, I haven't investigated them. Yet) but as a group hateful. Both protested against soldiers, and told others that hell is the coming price of their disbelief. Wish I was there, they'd see the cubes as their punishment soon enough.

Both groups of perps were doing their best to work the primitive 21st internet and media to their advantage and encourage others to hate in their own special way. Already there are so many crimes that this should be a summary case against them – they're easily looking at isolation for the rest of their lives, with the potential for cryogenics to ensure that they do not escape their just punishment with death.

There were differences between them of course. The WBC had women as active as the men, something the Muslims did not approve of (so add sex discrimination to the charge sheet). My Brother the Extremist also had some more nuanced members than the WBC group, even those who left. The Muslims too were keen on converts, while the WBC wallowed in smugness as their belief of being the elect. While they both seemed to be keen for the Apocalypse, the WBC came across as so shallow that it was almost all it wanted – one of the subjects herself said she 'hoped' it would be soon.

Of course the overall difference is that My Brother the Extremist was more personal that Theroux's investigation, and Theroux's ignorance and unchallenging tone was a pain, while Robb's could be seen as someone who wanted to remain with his brother.

Verdict & sentence:

As I said, the charges against the subjects are so obvious that there's no need for a defence for them, they're already being prepared for isolation.

Theroux, you have mitigating circumstances for wanting your subjects to speak out, but by descending to their level by giving your beliefs you then don't defend them or challenge theirs. This is bad practice, albeit not a custodial offence, so let this be a mark in your official government file.

Robb Leech, by contrast, your lack of challenging of the subjects appeared to allow you to gather more evidence against them and as such is excused. I want to see further evidence of your work, however, just to be certain.

The Unsettling Case File of the Reimagined Detective

Scene of crime: BBC One

Defendants: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss

Case for the defence:

Sherlock re-imagines Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Victorian 'consulting detective' in modern London, complete with Baker Street address and Afghan war veteran Dr Watson as his sidekick.

While how Dr Watson and Holmes meet, and displays of Sherlock's observational powers, stay true to the original version, things soon take a turn to the modern in these cases. However, murder and crime – as well as his nemesis, Morairty – are, unfortunately, timeless.

Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Sherlock and Martin Freeman as Dr Watson and in the first episode, A Study in Pink, an update on A Study in Scarlet and its poison pills.

Witness statements:

"Sherlock worked because it was having fun. It also let down the po-faced pretence that the suffocating abundance of TV detective shows often labour under: that the detective actually cares about the victims. This Holmes revelled in horror: “Four serial suicides and now a note. It’s Christmas!” How have Barnaby, Taggart, Marple et al hidden their own jubilation for so long?

"The new Sherlock is quite clearly a sociopath: we were told that he is incapable of friendship, has no interest in sex, and takes drugs. Quite gone are the hints, obfuscations and unsaids in Rathbone and Brett’s films that meant we were never quite sure if Holmes was a total nut job or a jolly decent bloke. Here we have only a nut job – albeit a brilliantly portrayed one – and that, I think, is a bit of a shame." – Serena Davies, The Daily Telegraph

"I like Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role. He has the right edge and energy, the razor-sharp mind, but also the lack of social skills and impatience that appears to border on cruelty...Less successful is the story of this opener, called A Study in Pink. A disgruntled cabbie with a terminal condition forces random people into playing Russian roulette with deadly pills. They all lose.

"I had a nagging sense of recognition throughout. There's something about the pace of it, and the comedy; even the youthful hero with the cheek and the cheekbones and the geeky chic - charming, attractive, but asexual . . . what is it reminding me of? And then it came to me! It's no surprise I suppose, given who's behind it, but I think Steven Moffat has created Sherlock Whoms." - Sam Wollaston, The Guardian

Findings:

Modernising classics can be dangerous, and as such I've locked away in secure isolation several writers who have tried to do so. They don't mind, they're so wrapped up in their own brilliance that they fail to notice where they are.

Moffat has good form – he updated Doctor Who and brought it to a wider audience without succumbing to question-mark bedecked tailoring. And gains judicial approval here is Cumberbatch, who manages to keep Holmes' solitude and idiosyncrasies and make them believable, he's lost some of the superman qualities of the original. In addition, Mrs Hudson now has some character to her.

Character, in general, I approve. Script, I don't.

Starting with a press conference – or as it's known to the Judges, an exposition plant – and lazy, heavy, references to blogs and texts doesn't make a great start. Nor is making us believe that army doctors are sent out to fight.

It also repeats itself many times – saying out loud the CGI text, which analysis suggests is 'Holmesvision', although it is more TV for the learning impaired – or characters repeating what has just been said. But I repeat myself. Unnecessary and awful. It also has Dr Watson as a voice but not an actor – he says things are "fantastic" but fails to act or react that way.

As for tropes, you're already guilty of the press conference. You then descend to contrived coincidences and the atmospheric, abandoned warehouse. There is also a lot of stupidity proportional to the density of the plot, where Holmes is brilliant enough to notice tiny mud but not that he didn't order a cab despite the cabbie's persistence.

All in all, Holmes himself is brilliant, but he's surrounded by lesser beings. Shame that includes the scriptwriters.

Verdict & sentence:

First, counsel for the defence - 12-weeks in isolation for expressing doubt on the ability of the Judges to remove crime. I always knew you were on the side of the perps, now you are one.

Moffat and Gatiss, in your defence Holmes is rounded, and believable, and an improvement on the original. However, you sacrificed the other characters, particularly Dr Watson. For this you get a mere decade in isolation, and in recognition of your past talents, you will be eligible for parole after nine years.

However, you will report to me in a month's time for there is something I must deliberate on. The original Holmes was not just a detective, he changed the shape of policing and was an inspiration to forensic detection, something to which I and my fellow Judges are greatly indebted. Your current version of Holmes is a variant on the current crop of TV detectives, not the unique one of the original. What I need to decide is whether producers of your calibre are capable of such brilliance or if you are guilty of nothing more than being yourself. It is also your sentence.

Case dismissed, don't let me see you here again on this charge.

The Walking Dead

Scene of crime: FX UK

Defendants: Executive Producer Frank Darabont & Gale Anne Hurd

Case for the defence:

The dead walk! The Walking Dead began life as a comic book before being signed up to a limited run of six episodes to see if their was appetite for seeing the undead eat the living. There is, and there'll be 13 more episodes hitting our screens in October. This first series has introduced us to sheriff's deputy Rick Grimes first as he awakes from a coma to discover that the undead have mostly conquered the world and then on his quest to Atlanta, Georgia, US as he hopes to find his family.

The short (by US standards) series means that he's reunited by the third episode, much to the disquiet of friend and colleague Shane Callies, who had taken Rick's place as man of the family in more ways than one. The survivors include a range of mostly working-class to lower-middle class survivors based on a hill on the outskirts of the city. With minorities forced to live with racists, and the living desperate to survive, momentum comes from the human drama rather than any zombie-slaying.

By the end we discover that these are Type P & Type F zombies due to an infection of unknown origin that turns all who are infected into the undead in hours. With no city safe due to the sheer mass of zombies, the survivors are determined to find somewhere they can live in peace.

Witness statements:

"Finally! We’ve waited so long – far too long – for a zombie TV series to arrive, and the quality of Frank Darabont’s adaptation of Robert Kirkman’s ongoing comic is such that it’s been well worth the wait... Our only disappointment is that the series’ initial order is just six episodes. IT’S NOT ENOUGH!

"Our only complaint is that six episodes simply ISN'T ENOUGH!

"The way the scriptwriters handle the character of Shane continues to fascinate." – Edited statements from Ian Berriman, SFX

"The more I think about it, the more I believe that the way the big writing shake-up of The Walking Dead staff is going to make or break the show. Although I might be overestimating the importance of the event, the exact nature of which is still elusive, it definitely looks like Frank Darabont wants to take a more auteur-driven approach to the show, working hands-on with all the scripts and only farming out stories to freelancers when absolutely necessary.

"I don't think we'll really be able to judge this show fairly until it gets the time to stretch in its 13-episode second season." - Leonard Pierce, The AV Club

Findings:

Case for the defence is commended for using Comic, not Graphic Novel. Take away the pictures and you rarely have the kind of sound dialogue and character development that makes a good novel (and one year for Public Lechery for those who just complained that they'd miss the most common superpower).

This is demonstrated in episode Vatos by the comic's author, Robert Kirkman, which is by far the weakest episode. The series as a whole has weak dialogue and broadly painted characters, most of whom are barely seen and their names forgettable, but Vatos is the nadir. I'm expected to believe that hardened perps are really just nurses and porters looking after the aged, and that a simple couple of lines of dialogue can change everyone.

In terms of characters, honest Rick Grimes is only interesting because he's compared with his pallid wife. Instead, and like Mad Men, it's the morally confusing characters who are of most interest – former partner (and unaware cuckold) Shane and racist-but-practical Daryl are the two who are the most human and most interesting. Other times when we are introduced to characters it's jaw-grindingly clear who will die, as is the case with two girls fishing and bonding and reminiscing about their father. It's not just a zombie bite that can induce vomiting.

Despite this the series as a whole moved at a good pace – while Vatos had one character rescued in the same episode, another rescue was drawn over two episodes (or perhaps even series). The scientist and the Centre for Disease Control was rather clunkily done, and with a heavy dose of Exposition Computer.

Verdict & sentence:

My judgment is appropriate to a series on the undead – it's not a full reprieve, nor a full punishment. On the whole, the characters are pale, disposable and it's heavily signed when they are of importance. However, some such as Shane and Daryl stand out and will continue to generate interest. Likewise, the focus on the human drama over zombie slaying has stopped this from rotting in the schedules.

Yet some episodes have been clumsily done and the usual zombie clichés – relatives who won't slay their loved ones, people unprepared to fight – are there. That they have chosen to site themselves in Camp Sitting Duck with no defence nor weapons or training is a dissolution of their civic service. Judges know how to cope with zombies –start shooting and don't stop till the undead are dead.

Overall, I look forward to judging the second series. Case adjourned.

Case File 007Wii: GoldenEye 007

Scene of crime: Wii

Defendant: Eurocom, developer

Case for the defence:

GoldenEye 077 is a first-person shooter reimagining, not a remake, of the 1997 N64 classic of the same name. With Daniel Craig replacing Pierce Brosnan as Bond the game has been given a darker feel to reflect how the latest Bond films.

Likewise the original story has been reimagined, mostly following a modernised version of the GoldenEye film and new versions of the original characters appear, including Alec Trevelyan and Xenia Onatopp.

Released only on the Wii, players can use the Wiimote, the Wii Zapper, Gamecube or Classic controllers to play the game, giving the welcome option to play the 'traditional' way with controllers, or point at the screen and shoot with the Wiimote. The game engine is based on Dead Space so has a developed and smooth Wiimote use, although aiming is still rather shaky.

The dark tone is clearly aimed at the Call of Duty market, where grey and moody (or, if in the desert, sandy and moody) are the prevailing tones. In addition, the free online multiplayer option means that Nintendo's rather sparse online community has a new title to play with.

Witness statements:

"Playing updated versions of the original Dam and Facility levels in the single-player campaign is a fun experience at first, but the game as a whole suffers from generic level design, awful quick-time events, and a terrible final boss fight...

"GoldenEye 007 doesn’t feel like the retro dream it’s meant to be. This Bond game is lost in limbo somewhere between last generation and modern day shooters. Only diehard Bond or FPS fans with nothing but a Wii should bother picking this one up." – Tim Turi, GameInformer

"Despite some painfully dumb enemy AI, the campaign is worth your time, especially since it won’t take long, and the multiplayer split-screen is a blast — both in the actual gameplay and the nostalgic feelings it will illicit.

Overall, GoldenEye 007 does the name proud. A good reboot of a classic game, and a must have for the FPS starved fans on the Wii." – Ryan Fleming, Digital Trends

Findings:

Reimaging is the same as a remake, just as every time a perp engages in a "trivial matter" he soon finds out that he's actually carried out a major infraction of the law. And that's just what this is, a big crime that's trying to get away with it.

Gameplay is grey. The original game, which I booted up on the N64 in the Hall of Records, is Bond through-and-through, from the mock BBCFC classification (impersonating a government department, ten years to the development team on that one) to the 'dossier' save files and Bond music. The Wii version starts with a long, flat copyright notice and fades to grey and generic music that could be found in any shooter.

I like having options and stuck with the Wii Zapper as it reminded me of my own Lawgiver, but that the training mission consists of assassinating government staff is not condoned.

Verdict & sentence:

The last time I sentenced someone for Remake Perpetuated as a Reimagining I had to go up against Charles Bronson. I won.

Nothing tells me that this is Bond, the atmosphere is lacking and it's replace with Daniel Craig and voice acting that has so many flat lines I've declared the script legally dead. I think that's for the best for even the afterlife is beyond my jurisdiction, for now.

The gamemakers have taken Call of Duty and simply added Daniel Craig's features and a vague reference to the 1995 film. Then they added shaky controls and a pedestrian gameplay, other than Bond can now happy slap and upload the contents to YouTube with his mobile phone.

Verdict: Execution. I would consider using a PP7 to carry this out but not being Bond fans you wouldn't recognise the reference. On your knees and face the wall.

Case File C00G4N: The Trip

Scene of crime: BBC Two

Defendants: Producers Andrew Eaton and Melissa Parmenter

Case for the defence: Comedians and impressionists Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon star as semi-fictionalised versions of themselves in a six-restaurant, Michelin-starred tour of the north of England. Although based on their real live personas, this is presented as a standard comedy format and not as a documentary, once popular in the early 21st-century.

Coogan is supposed to have accepted an Observer commission to review restaurants in a bid to impress his American girlfriend Misha, but when she pulls out he takes Rob instead. Along the way they bicker, usually in-character as a celebrity, do drugs, cheat on partners and try and get one up on the other. They also eat some exceedingly good food.

Witness statements:

"Underneath it all, though, runs the question of what it is the Coogan character thinks he’s looking for in life. Largely improvised, the programme blooms to become a very touching exploration of friendship and ageing.

"Nothing happens. Everything is happening." - Damien Love, The Herald

"It’s determinedly uneventful, hardly penetrative in terms of character and not especially funny. But what in other hands would be maddening, or soporific ends up being strangely beguiling – an exercise in trying to hold an audience with the tiniest of titbits. Coogan and Brydon give the viewer so little that after a while you start filling in the gaps yourself. Ultimately, of course, it’s all down to the relationship, and here the implication is plain – the two of them belong together." – John Preston, the Daily Telegraph


Findings:

By rights I ought to commit summary justice – two comedians playing exaggerated versions of themselves, swearing to never return to British TV, this has "meta" written all over it, and for the public good that's an automatic execution. However, they just get away with it – just – as they don't draw obvious attention to it. Even Brydon calling "you're stuck in a metaphor" to Coogan as he falls off stepping stones comes across as genuine rather than contrived.

The problem is the storyline. It doesn't completely lack one, with Coogan's attempts to work out where his live should go and what family means, but it doesn't go deep. The pilot, with the tension between Brydon and Coogan, both slightly envious of the other, and Coogan and his ex, led to laughs amongst our test group. However, it never goes further and like Brydon's constant use of impressions, it gets grating.

At the Justice Department we know to spot tell-tale sings in perps if they are behaving in a pretentious manner in public (sentencing guideline: five to 50 years stretch in the cube). Philosophy, particularly foreign philosophy, poetry. The pair are in the Lake District, so poetry is the charge. But beyond Brydon memorising a poem, he goes no further, learns nothing, does nothing. Brydon is Coogan's catalyst but not much more. Instead of creating depth, they flesh out or bring in some minor characters. It's no substitute.

Citizens looking for more will be, perhaps like the comedy pair spoiled on Michelin-starred food, be looking for more.

Verdict & sentence:

Occasionally, a judge has to use discretion and balance mitigating factors against the crime. Reluctantly, I am going to admit mitigating evidence here and restrained from the summary execution. However, let us not forget that a crime has taken place.

The producers and Steve Coogan, I sentence you to re-education classes. Rob Brydon, you never did much, you are free to go – once the Justice Department surgeons remove your vocal chords.

Birdsong

Scene of crime: The Comedy Theatre, London

Defendants: Stage adaptor Rachel Wagstaff, director Trevor Nunn. Original author Sebastian Faulks.

Case for the defence:

Sebastian Faulks' World War I epic Birdsong has been in film development limbo for several years, its subject – the 1910 meeting of a young Englishman and his affair with his French hostess, his subsequent service in the war, and his descendents' lives in the 1970s – has been thought inadaptable. However, Wagstaff does so and despite trimming the 1970s section, this is an epic at around three hours with one intermission and a five-minute break.

The play starts, as we're told on the projector screen, in 1910 in a very conventional play, one that could have been written at the time – a young Englishman, Stephen Wraysford, arrives at a well-to-do family house and is entertained. So far so conventional, but when he hears his host beating his wife, Isabelle, Wraysford's attraction to this older woman grows until they embark on an affair. They are found out and elope, but before long Isabelle tires of their poor life and returns, devasting Wraysford.

Act I ends with the sound of war and the stage comes to life – the moving backdrop is now not just a projector screen but three-dimensional, the trenches. As we return in Act II, we're introduced to Sapper Jack Firebrace, a pious man who has a turn at entertaining the troops in drag, but he angers the-now Lt Wraysford by sleeping on duty. Despite the threat of execution for this, the two become friends, or as close as two solitary types can. Wraysford wants to see Firebrace's tunnels beneath the Bosch's lines and despite attacking in the bloodbath of the Somme stays at the front.

His previous life catches up with him when his unit is stationed in Isabelle's old village and he seeks her out. Finding her, seven years later he still loves her despite her wounds, but Isabelle has fallen for a German soldier and won't return to Wraysford. Nor will she tell him about his son. Isabelle's sister tries to, but it is for nothing and he returns to the front. By 1918 he is down in the mines with Firebrace when the Germans devastate their tunnel network, Wraysford manages to blast his way out, saved by a German soon after the Armistice is signed.

Witness statements:


"Nunn’s direction is sometimes turgid, with unconvincing sing-songs round the piano. The play’s most moving moments are the simplest, with Lee Ross as the sapper Jack Firebrace writing letters to his wife and reading her replies. Thanks to Ross’s beautifully simple and direct performance, the scene when he receives terrible news from home is by far the most moving in the play. It is not an easy thing to play uncomplicated goodness without sliding into sentimentality but Ross resists the temptation and moved me to tears.

"…Nevertheless this stage version strikes me as cumbersome and unnecessary, and never comes close to matching the dramatic power and extraordinary tenderness of RC Sherriff’s Journey’s End, written from his personal experience of the Great War, rather than based on scrupulous research like Faulks’s novel. My advice would be to stay at home and read the novel, or better yet, a collection of the great poems written by Owen, Sassoon and others who actually served in the First World War." – Charles Spencer, the Daily Telegraph

"Wagstaff’s version retains many of the novel’s intriguing elements: its concern with class, its sense of war as an exercise in blinkered bureaucracy, its depiction of an early-20th century crisis of masculinity. It’s poetic, too, and beautiful in places, thanks to John Napier’s clever designs, which make generous use of projections by Jon Driscoll and Gemma Carrington. The sound, by Fergus O’Hare, is also excellent. Besides Barnes, there are skilful performances from Zoe Waites, Nicholas Farrell, Genevieve O’Reilly, and above all Lee Ross as Jack, a tunnel-digger with a quirky music hall sensibility. Yet whereas the novel is often claustrophobic, here there is less visceral immediacy. Events are narrated when they really need to be dramatised. The result is too rhetorical: we’re told what we ought to be shown. Barnes has an elegant way with his expository speeches, but Trevor Nunn’s production is often static, and, for all the gravity of its subject matter, it doesn’t engage us fully." – Henry Hitchings, the Evening Standard

"The weakest part of the play is the first third which deals with the sojourn of a young Englishman, Stephen Wraysford, in the Amiens of 1910. As a working guest in the house of a rich manufacturer, he falls in love with his host's wife, Isabelle: an experience that colours his whole life. But, although we see the affair through Stephen's eyes, this feels like filleted Faulks. The industrial unrest that provides a context to the affair is cursorily dealt with. Even the anguish of the cuckolded husband, who in the book rushes from room to room seeking evidence of tainted bedsheets, is reduced to a single cry of jealous rage. But when the play moves to the western front, from 1916 to 1918, it exerts an emotional grip" - Michael Billington, the Guardian

Findings:

Starting a play with not one but three "as you all know" in the first thirty minutes is an automatic year in the cubes. I don't care that you may be trying to evoke the plays of the period, with the preconception with witty talk and singing songs, it comes across as sloppy.

Despite the background of industrial unrest and illicit love – not punishable, yet – the first act feels like any other Edwardian play. It's not until the sound of war that things change for the better. It's not that the first act is bad, but this is a story about war. Here we can commend the director and set designer for not just the uniforms and props but recreating trench and tunnel warfare on stage.

As a Judge I know no woman, but even for me the romance and love was unconvincing and it seemed more an infatuation than a romance. Once together they had some chemistry, but Isabelle could have equally rejected instead o accepted Wraysford's love.

Regarding Wraysford, he seemed lacking. Ben Barnes played him well, particularly as he is on stage for most of the time, but the script took you places and abandoned them. Twice – with card reading then divining the augers - suggested that some hint of his future was to come about, but to no avail. Finally, the theme of Birdsong, and Wraysford horror of birds – the play starts with him describing such a nightmare – goes nowhere. There is an incident with carrier pigeons but no more.

Finally, and appropriately – even I have a sense of humour – the ending. For a long play it felt rushed and not quite clear on its message and what has come from all this.

Verdict & sentence:

Moving and official Justice Department Commendation for Barnes, but Wagstaff and Nunn, I'm taking you down to the cubes. One year for "as you all know" – correction, one year per "as you all know" – and another two for leading us nowhere. Start singing birdies, hope you like your new cage.

Mad Men Exhibit I – The Beautiful Girls

Scene of crime: AMC (US)

Defendants: Writers Dahvi Waller and Matthew Weiner

Case for the defence:

First may I praise you Judge Kritic for your prescient public statement on the lead you have with the Three Dead Kings for now Ida Blankenship has joined the ranks of the dear departed. It simply remains for Duck Phillips to journey to Resyk for your prediction to be complete. May the citizens rejoice at yet another public display of the all-knowingness of our Judges!

Yes, The Beautiful Girls saw the oldest girl, Don's secretary Miss Blankenship, "died as she lived, surrounded by the people she answered phones for", as Roger put it. Her last words were to ask if Don was visiting the toilet. Unfortunately for Don, her death was at her desk in full view of the meeting room with clients and led to sitcomesque attempts to conceal then remove the body. Pete Campbell, although he said nothing, was the man despatched to move Ida and is silent gestures stole that part of the show, edging out Harry's plaintive cry that his mother made the makeshift burial shroud.

Roger, former subject to the Queen of Perversions, seemed to be affected by her death but it did not stop his attempts at wooing Joan. Feeling he had overstepped the mark on discovering that Joan's husband was off to Vietnam, he sent stereotypical Swedish masseuses to "rub her the right way". His demand of a dinner date, eventually accepted, and a mugging that left them bereft of jewellery and cash, led to the mutual rekindling of their romance – with Joan making it clear to Roger she did not regret it.

Dr Faye was another woman to have no regrets in this episodes as it started with her orgasmic screams at the start of the episode. By the end she also states that she had no regrets over being childless, even if it did mean she couldn't deal with normal kids, let alone Sally Draper. Like many a paranoid woman, Dr Faye saw Don's requests for help as premeditated tests – ones that she failed, as Sally hated her.

Why did she get to meet Sally? Because Don's daughter sneaked into the city to see her dad and a kindly stranger took her to SCDP. The fact that Abe, the anti-establishment journalist that Peggy kissed at the party several episodes ago, witnessed Don being "bad with money", as Betty once put it when he tried to hurl dollars at the stranger, probably didn't help Abe's view of 'the Man' being a cruel beast. His attempts to convert Peggy to this initially hit all the wrong notes but by the end of the episode some of what he said had been digested.

This episode was called The Beautiful Girls and while there were some stylised scenes, particularly when Betty came to collect Sally and half the office women where there, it was not about looks but personality. In previous defence statements I have defended Pete as being one of the most interesting characters on the programme, but this episode showed that this is ensemble and the girls are just as deserving of a solid defence.

Witness statements:

"It didn't trouble me that the mugger was black, though it did bring into relief the extent to which the struggle of women in the workplace has replaced the Civil Rights Movement as the series' political undercurrent. [...]

"This is more of an observation than a complaint. The shift in focus makes a lot of sense dramatically: In Peggy and Joan, and now Faye, SCDP has three very different women through whom to explore 1960s workplace realities like the ones Julia's mom powerfully conjured." - John Swansburg, Slate

"We never learn why Miss Blankenship ended up alone and in contact with virtually no one outside the SCDP staff—beyond Roger’s Queen Of Perversions line, I guess—but she was doubtlessly given a different set of choices than those presented to other women on the show, and different from those Sally Draper will face when she grows up.

"Maybe 'choices' is the wrong word. It’s the one Fay uses to describe how got to her late thirties childless but accomplished. But where Fay talks about choices, Peggy talks about limitations. After Joyce leads her into an unexpected date with Abe, she at first recoils at the notion that the nice Fillmore family could be racist then turns the discussion to women. 'Most of the things Negroes can’t do, I can’t do either,' an opinion that takes Abe by surprise. It’s a false equivalency for the reason Abe points out, and for others. But her gripes are legitimate, even if downtown progressive types like Abe—and the counter-culture of the later parts of the decade—couldn’t see them at the time." - Keith Phipps, the AV Club

Findings:

First, Citizen Attorney, Judges do not need flattery, we know the work we do. Second, I agree with your description as this being 'sitcomesque'. Not only the removal of Miss Blankenship's corpse but the orgasmic screams at the start and Roger juggling his telephone calls, all were a tone away from the usual drama. In addition, the clanging of "gee what happened to this neighbourhood?" before the mugging was hard to ignore.

I found this episode far more stylised than normal. While the director no doubt congratulated himself for how the women looked, particularly in Betty's scene in the office, it was guilty of being too staged. Mad Men is highly stylised, yet manages to create a bubble of believability – The Beautiful Girls swelled this bubble and it burst.

The symbolism of the mugging was not lost, although of course I remind all citizens it is their duty to report crimes immediately, lest you be in violation of our ordinances, and Outraging the Public Decency instead of reporting a mugging is not the right option. Both Joan and Roger having their wedding rings taken away by a stranger but they chose to act as if they were single was an interesting development. Roger has been flirting with Joan for some time, and she was an ice queen at the start, but I am not sure if I approve of the new relationship.

The Citizen Attorney barely mentioned Don but I would like to. I am not sure that Don would ask his new conquest Dr Faye to take his child home as he is a man who keeps a clear division between his professional and private life (apart from sex). Even if he does blame it on his secretary's death, Don has previously shown himself to be the type to keep both lives separate unless he can carefully manage this. This lessens the effect of Sally's scene that rouses the entire office – had Don shown how much he valued his private life then the mortifying embarrassment he showed would have been clearer.

Don at least is showing other changes – for the best. He comforts Dr Faye when she confides her insecurities to him. Other, past, lovers, including Betty, would have been scorned. However, Dr Faye's revelation that she 'couldn't sleep' due to thinking and that she wants a dinner to talk to him does not bode well. My mole in the relationship world states that this is not a good thing. May the next bit of evidence attest or deny this.

Verdict & sentence:

Group culpability is a cornerstone of our justice system. However, in this case I am going to split the two writers. Dahvi Waller and Matthew Weiner wrote this together, but I suspect it was Waller that set the sitcom tone. True, Weiner is the producer and could have reined it in, or even set the direction, but the circumstantial evidence is against him. Waller, get your stuff, you're doing time. Two months, cubes, now.

Where are you going Citizen Attorney? I'm not done yet. For nausea-inducing sycophancy in your defence statement I'm sending you to the cubes for a year and stripping of your right to practice.