I agree with the various posters who’ve questioned the writer’s assertion that the clues were all there. I formed the same suspicion as everyone else that it would be either Tom or Joe (and then changed my mind – I’ll never make a detective), but only because he was flying under the radar and the business of deleted messages and files, which pointed to Tom rather than Joe. On the morning after the murder, during that masterful tracking shot of Mark making his way down the high street, Joe seemed perfectly normal, joshing with Mark and Tom. We saw him going to bed after murdering Danny and moving his body, which must have taken some time, and he too would have been suffering from jetlag – quite some stamina! So at the very least you’d think he would have looked exhausted next morning even if he managed not to look haunted. He was trying to get Hardy drunk at dinner, perhaps to find out what he knew, but he could equally just have been an attentive host in that way that some people have of plying you with booze when you’ve already said no.
I’m a bit annoyed if the implication is that Steve was indeed psychic. He could have guessed the murderer would be someone close to the the family as most child murderers are, but how could have have known the rest? Watched the scene on the beach from his clifftop vantage point and guessed about the pendant perhaps? Read something about Hardy at the time of the Sandbrook case so knew he’d been to Broadchurch as a boy – would that information have been in the previous press coverage? If so then Karen would have known too. Not happy with that bit.
Ah but, in tv land, Alec will get his pacemaker fitted and be back in business and Ellie will be persuaded to return to her home town, perhaps by Tom.......
or....as someone suggested earlier, they make work together on cold cases - but then not sure how that would place them in Broadchurch
there was also a comment from Chris Chibnall saying that there was another story he had to tell about Broadchurch and now he has been given the opportunity to do so ( sorry I am not quoting that accurately but that's the gist of it )
so, could it be that the follow up Broadchurch story will not be a murder but a Broadchurch revisited type of drama - see how their lives are progressing etc
I am sure when Miller asked if anything could be done for his heart, Hardy said something like "a pacemaker would kill him". Could be a typical man overreacting
Not sure I would watch another one tbh.
Someone earlier suggested a Broadchurch trial which would be a good idea.
That's what I expected. He built it up so much in the interview I watched and thought this is going to be a brilliant ending.
Cannot see how there can be another one. Both OC and DT will have left the force. Miller not being able to face the villagers and Hardy was to clear his desk that day.
Right. I didn't see any interviews etc on the day. Avoided them. Someone posted on here that one of the producers(?) had said watch right to the end of the credits. So I assumed Chibnall would be using the credits again.
Have you a link to the Chibnall interview. I would like to see what he said.
Could have done without the continuity announcer as well. Even if she told us about the additional scene on facebook.
There is no such thing as a perfect television programme.
There is no such thing as a television programme that every viewer will enjoy equally.
Broadchurch was not perfect and was not everyone's cup of tea.
However, Broadchurch was the type of television programme that only comes along once in a blue moon, it was event TV, it was talked about endlessly in the media, it was all over twitter and facebook, it had millions of viewers completely hooked, and all in a style new to British made television.
It also had, IMHO, some of the best acting I've ever seen on the small screen, they may as well give Olivia Coleman her Bafta award for best actress now, her performance was simply outstanding.
On a personal note I can honestly say that it has been one of the best programmes I've ever watched in my 45 years, and I am so glad that this thread matched it in excellence and enjoyment, thanks to it's many posters clever and crazy theories, polite interactions and shared love of the show.
Thank you one and all, it's been a great 8 weeks.
Great post, Nige, agree with every last word. :cool:
Surely that was true: Joe had no motive in the conventional whodunnit sense. He was in denial. He could not accept that what he was doing was wrong. He literally denied it in the flashback to the murder. So Danny's threat to expose him was also a threat to his own state of denial, and by killing him he was able to continue to deny that he was a paedophile, even after he was arrested.
Betrayal and loss, atonement and redemption, Sandbrook and Hardy's water phobia, the friendly plumber with an arsenal of weapons, the preying “psychic” who nevertheless knows Hardy has been here before, why Danny skateboard through the deserted High Street to get to a house just across the fields- all dropped.
Sandbrook was explained last week when Alec gave his story to Maggie and Olly.
Nige didn't have "an arsenal of weapons", he had a crossbow that he used to kill pheasants to sell on and supplement his income.
Danny wasn't going to Joe's house that night, he was going to the hut, which was not "just across the fields", it was near the cliff top.
Oh and by the way, Joe didn't just "phone and fess up", Alec already suspected it was him before then.
That's not an unanswered question though as Joe told Hardy the reason he went to the hut again was so Hardy would catch him but when Miller showed up as well he ran.
Getting Becca to light the beacon at the end was rather thoughtless.... They might as well have got joe to light the other one !
That was beyond odd, to be honest.
I do wonder if they filmed various possibilities and the affair could have been in/out depending on how they felt at edit time. It would explain why everyone seemed to be JUST FINE about the affair.
Getting Becca to light the beacon at the end was rather thoughtless.... They might as well have got joe to light the other one !
I thought that at the time but thinking about it maybe it was a sign that giving what had happened to Danny the affair is insignificant and the community has forgiven her
Not had time to read all posts, but I think re;; next series they could just just feature the town & the characters from this series, they can all have a tale to tell or base it on the local newspaper and it's reporters bringing in new stories, on how the town recovers from the murder and trial to come later.
Nige didn't have "an arsenal of weapons", he had a crossbow that he used to kill pheasants to sell on and supplement his income.
When Hardy was looking round Nige's garage, the first time he was taken in for questioning and just before he found the dog in the garden, he found a cupboard with several rifles. The crossbow was on top of the cupboard. It struck me as odd at the time that they were not under lock and key - if they were licensed then he would have to store them safely, and if they were not licensed then it should have been followed up.
Oh and by the way, Joe didn't just "phone and fess up", Alec already suspected it was him before then.
Because then we wouldn't have had the ramped-up tension of Hardy approaching the house and walking past Tom before going into the garden.
Not sure if this has been brought up, or if I am missing something obvious... but why didn't Joe just throw Danny off the cliff, rather than getting in a boat etc...?
Also, a second series is possible. They could attack it from many angles, but I don't think that they should do it for the sake of it. If there isn't a good method in there, just make a new show.
Not sure if this has been brought up, or if I am missing something obvious... but why didn't Joe just throw Danny off the cliff, rather than getting in a boat etc...?
Wasn't the boat used as a place to remove any traces of forensic evidence before placing Danny on the beach in some sort of misguided attempt at compassion towards his parents?
In response to all those querying my suggestion that the programme tried to normalise paedophilia.
I was extremely disappointed with the ending, to find it was linked to paedophilia, which seems to be an obsession in the media now. And because of the ending I reflected on the whole series and realised that in fact the paedophilia theme had been there throughout, with many attempts to promote it as acceptable.
Beth got pregnant at 14 and had her daughter at 15, that is absolutely against the law but Beth and Mark were portrayed at a loving normal decent couple.
Their daughter, at the age of 15, is having sex with her boyfriend. That is against the law, but it was portrayed as something normal that a lot of teenagers do.
The newsagent, when aged 42, had sex with a 15-year-old girl, but he was portrayed as a very sympathetic character because he then went on to marry her and their son was killed in an accident.
Pauline Quirke's husband had sex with their daughter. This was not portrayed as normal, but it continued the theme of paedophilia.
Then we have Joe, claiming to be 'in love' with Danny and at the end of the episode when David Tenant is trying to comfort Olivia Coleman he says we can never know what is in another person's heart.
I do feel there is too much about paedophilia on tv and we are all, to an extent, being 'groomed' into changing our thought process about it, being made to think about it and the perpetrators, and trying to understand them. I don't want to understand them, if I understood them I'd be one of them.
Is the day coming when paedophiles are going to have rights and laws created in their favour?
With respect, you're mixing up a lot of variables here and coming out with one definition/answer to explain them.
BIB1 - they were a 'normal, loving couple'. What they did was have a sexual relationship, a consenting one, before the legal age of consent. That does not, and did not, make Mark a paedophile or Beth his victim. I work with teenagers and I'll tell you now that loads of them are in relationships with other teenagers, sexual ones, but if I followed your strange logic I'd also be surrounded by paedophiles because one or other of the couples is over 16 and the other under 16. But would anyone actually think that it was anything to do with paedophilia, rather than just exploring teenage sexuality? Which links to...
BIB2 - Chloe is exploring and indulging her sense of teenage sexuality, just like Mark and Beth did. You might not approve, but like it or not that IS what a lot of teenagers do! For many (most) it's just a passing thing, for some (like Mark and Beth) it's something that lasts into a life of committed parenthood. But neither are examples of paedophilia, just because one is over the age of consent and the other isn't.
BIB3 - Are you honestly saying that you've never heard of a teenager pupil/teacher relationship before? Wrong ethically, yes, and legally if the pupil is under 16, but I can give you many examples of nearly-16 year old girls (and boys) who have had crushes on teachers and believe it's love. I know - I was one of those (although I was 17 - but it was still something the teacher had to tread carefully with when I told him how I felt, and he had a 19 year old son so was well into his 40s). But back then, in my idealistic teenage days, I'd have married him in a heartbeat if he'd asked me (and of course, in my dreams, he did) and it really did feel that 'real' to me, just as I'm sure it did to whoever Jack's young pupil was. Jack didn't make a habit out of 'picking up' 15 year old girls any more than the girl made a habit of going after every teacher she had (we can assume). They fell in love. Massive age gap, yes, teacher in position of authority which he didn't react properly to, yes, teenage girl who was 15 but considered age to be of no matter, yes - but it wasn't paedophilia. In fact, that was the whole point of the Jack story line and suspicions - the thing that made his eventualy suicide for being hounded wrongly so awful.
BIB4 - Susan's story, which you say 'continues the theme of paedophilia', but is in fact the first time it appears as a theme as defined by what true paedophilia is. The other examples you cite above aren't paedophilia.
BIB5 - What Joe claimed to feel for Danny was complicated. His motives for it - something that was 'his' - are complicated, and we don't know what may have happened if he hadn't killed Danny accidentally. At that point he hadn't engaged in serious sexual activity with Danny (as confirmed by the tests they did on Danny's body). Not all paedophiles engage in sexual activity with the youngster or youngsters they form unhealthy attachments to, and all have different definitions to about what (to quote Joe Miller's own words to Danny last night) is "wrong and sick". You have proven that point yourself!
I am not sure where you get the idea that we are being 'groomed' to accept paedophilia as normal. I have, sadly, more experience of it in real life than I would like - I obviously don't want to go into why, but suffice it to say I make my comments in response to yours with some insight which means I have to take issue with some of your blanket terms and approach.
You also say you don't want to understand the mind of a paedophile, but that is exactly why you don't understand the differences between true paedophilia and the examples you give which you think are examples, but really aren't. I don't want to know what I know, and the people I know who've been abused didn't want to experience it, but actually they felt that 'understanding' was an important step on the road to not being a victim, and it is why they wouldn't class Mark and Beth as paedophilia, or Dean or Chloe, or Jack or his pupil/wife. Whether you feel it, believe it or like it, they aren't the same thing.
I know the board will have moved on a lot from when I started my reply this morning, so maybe it doesn't matter now, but Broadchurch wasn't a 'paedophile agenda' issue and to try and say it was is misleading and misguided, albeit I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you've confused your own strongly held moral beliefs about sexual activity between all teenagers and older partners with what is understood in the world of child protection to be true paedophilia.
Not sure if this has been brought up, or if I am missing something obvious... but why didn't Joe just throw Danny off the cliff, rather than getting in a boat etc...?
Joe was going to dump Danny out at sea(or should that be channel). We see him stood up in the boat with Danny in his arms. But he couldn't do it. So decided to dump him further down the coast where he would be found. I suppose it was the compassionate thing to do, in his eyes.
Loved it. I kept going back to Joe as the suspect, but I'm not disappointed that it was him. I didn't guess the reason why, I don't think anyone did really, but I preferred that it was Joe and not, say, the postie or the farmer for completely unforseen reasons. I normally love films/programmes with a massive twist, but felt that there had been enought twists and turns throughout the series for there to need one at the end.
I have a kind of theory about the ending - maybe they had planned to tie up some of the loose ends ie, not-so-psychic Steve, Sandbrook, the postman argument etc, and were going to do that in the last 5 mins, but because the late decision was made to commission a second series, they had to leave some questions unanswered, to be answered in the next series, and just extended the beacon lighting bit? Just a thought.
That's an interesting theory. They had said the extra 5 minutes was for tying up loose ends, I suppose it depends how recently they decided on series 2 .
In classical whoduntis everything shown is either a false or genuine clue to the murderer's identity, or a counterpoint sub-plot. The audience satisfaction comes from puzzling out which is which. The emotions of the sub-plots contrast with those of the investigation Typically the 'tecs follow a train of false clues to that lead to the wrong 'spec, until a false clue is inverted to show the chain of events in a different light, which reveal the killer.
As a whodunit, Broadchurch at first seemed unconvincing and aimless. The odd couple 'tecs (DI troubled and cerebral, DS cheerful and practical) failed to investigate the obvious, and we too often had to share the low-level bickering of the grieving Latimer family.
Gradually though, we saw that everyone had something to hide. Not just the usual 'specs: psychotic Nige, Rosemary West-alike Susan, lonely old Jack who entertains himself by reading Jude the Obscure. Mum's pregnancy was “complicated”. Dad's alibi of adultery was uncorroborated, and undermined by dodgy domestic electrics and a self-straightening duvet. Sister Chloe stashed drugs in her room; the late Danny £500 in his. The Reverend was an abstaining alcoholic with ready access to boys. Two broad stories emerged: a paedo ring, and a drug-smuggling ring.
How might they be resolved? These stories raised the serial beyond the clue-testing of a whodunit. The clues could not be tested. Everything shown had several plausible causes and meanings. Chibnall seemed to be asking us to look beyond the murder mystery to the unravelling of secrets and lies that Danny's death precipitated. How far would we lie to avoid exposure of ourselves or our loved ones? For healing and reconciliation to occur, the truth must be confessed and atonement made. The defiant outsider Hardy was brought in to force the Wickerman town to confront its collective demons, and in so doing to confront his own, which were killing him. What had appeared to be an embarrassingly poor police procedural, a whodunit in search of a who cares, had become by the end of the penultimate episode a rich and satisfying brew of of sub-texts of betrayal, loss and the penance that must be made to earn redemption. Arthur Darvill promised his big moment, a la Rev Spacey-Trellis: “In a very real sense, we are all guilty.” Love thy neighbour. Judge not that ye may be judged.
None of which were resolved in the final episode. For no other reason than that it was the end of the series the killer phoned Hardy and 'fessed up. No surprise- he'd been hiding in the traditional spot, the nice guy just off the action. No particular motive- just lost his temper. All the stories that could have been told about him- his childhood experiences in Wales, why he had stop working as a paramedic, what he wanted from Ellie and got from Danny- went untold. So did the story of Ellie discovering something that pointed to her husband and struggling whether to report it or conceal it. Or if discovered by SOCO Brian, whether to sleep with him in return for him concealing it.
Betrayal and loss, atonement and redemption, Sandbrook and Hardy's water phobia, the friendly plumber with an arsenal of weapons, the preying “psychic” who nevertheless knows Hardy has been here before, why Danny skateboard through the deserted High Street to get to a house just across the fields- all dropped.
Broadchurch will return, perhaps to spin out these stories instead of showing them. But will 9 million viewers want to be suckered again? Episodic 'tec shows are becoming habitual offenders for great build-ups and crap reveals. Move along please, nothing to see.
Fab post Avid_Viewer , though I don't expect many people to agree. Like you, I felt that Broadchurch ultimately fell down on the plot details, and that it was unsatisfying not to know either Joe or Danny better. The family and community reactions were brilliant, blew me away in fact, and I still feel sad now (lunchtime the following day!) But I can't get away from a feeling of disappointment that Joe's character was not better explored, nor his relationship with Danny.
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned in wanting to really understand the motive, and not just be incredibly moved by the event and it's ramifications.........:(
I didn't analyse anything - I let it all wash over me, and I loved last night's episode all the more because of it, I think. So powerful.
With respect, you're mixing up a lot of variables here and coming out with one definition/answer to explain them.
BIB1 - they were a 'normal, loving couple'. What they did was have a sexual relationship, a consenting one, before the legal age of consent. That does not, and did not, make Mark a paedophile or Beth his victim. I work with teenagers and I'll tell you now that loads of them are in relationships with other teenagers, sexual ones, but if I followed your strange logic I'd also be surrounded by paedophiles because one or other of the couples is over 16 and the other under 16. But would anyone actually think that it was anything to do with paedophilia, rather than just exploring teenage sexuality? Which links to...
BIB2 - Chloe is exploring and indulging her sense of teenage sexuality, just like Mark and Beth did. You might not approve, but like it or not that IS what a lot of teenagers do! For many (most) it's just a passing thing, for some (like Mark and Beth) it's something that lasts into a life of committed parenthood. But neither are examples of paedophilia, just because one is over the age of consent and the other isn't.
BIB3 - Are you honestly saying that you've never heard of a teenager pupil/teacher relationship before? Wrong ethically, yes, and legally if the pupil is under 16, but I can give you many examples of nearly-16 year old girls (and boys) who have had crushes on teachers and believe it's love. I know - I was one of those (although I was 17 - but it was still something the teacher had to tread carefully with when I told him how I felt, and he had a 19 year old son so was well into his 40s). But back then, in my idealistic teenage days, I'd have married him in a heartbeat if he'd asked me (and of course, in my dreams, he did) and it really did feel that 'real' to me, just as I'm sure it did to whoever Jack's young pupil was. Jack didn't make a habit out of 'picking up' 15 year old girls any more than the girl made a habit of going after every teacher she had (we can assume). They fell in love. Massive age gap, yes, teacher in position of authority which he didn't react properly to, yes, teenage girl who was 15 but considered age to be of no matter, yes - but it wasn't paedophilia. In fact, that was the whole point of the Jack story line and suspicions - the thing that made his eventualy suicide for being hounded wrongly so awful.
BIB4 - Susan's story, which you say 'continues the theme of paedophilia', but is in fact the first time it appears as a theme as defined by what true paedophilia is. The other examples you cite above aren't paedophilia.
BIB5 - What Joe claimed to feel for Danny was complicated. His motives for it - something that was 'his' - are complicated, and we don't know what may have happened if he hadn't killed Danny accidentally. At that point he hadn't engaged in serious sexual activity with Danny (as confirmed by the tests they did on Danny's body). Not all paedophiles engage in sexual activity with the youngster or youngsters they form unhealthy attachments to, and all have different definitions to about what (to quote Joe Miller's own words to Danny last night) is "wrong and sick". You have proven that point yourself!
I am not sure where you get the idea that we are being 'groomed' to accept paedophilia as normal. I have, sadly, more experience of it in real life than I would like - I obviously don't want to go into why, but suffice it to say I make my comments in response to yours with some insight which means I have to take issue with some of your blanket terms and approach.
You also say you don't want to understand the mind of a paedophile, but that is exactly why you don't understand the differences between true paedophilia and the examples you give which you think are examples, but really aren't. I don't want to know what I know, and the people I know who've been abused didn't want to experience it, but actually they felt that 'understanding' was an important step on the road to not being a victim, and it is why they wouldn't class Mark and Beth as paedophilia, or Dean or Chloe, or Jack or his pupil/wife. Whether you feel it, believe it or like it, they aren't the same thing.
I know the board will have moved on a lot from when I started my reply this morning, so maybe it doesn't matter now, but Broadchurch wasn't a 'paedophile agenda' issue and to try and say it was is misleading and misguided, albeit I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you've confused your own strongly held moral beliefs about sexual activity between all teenagers and older partners with what is understood in the world of child protection to be true paedophilia.
A marvellous post and a really helpful way of analysing the story. Thank you.
Joe was going to dump Danny out at sea(or should that be channel). We see him stood up in the boat with Danny in his arms. But he couldn't do it. So decided to dump him further down the coast where he would be found. I suppose it was the compassionate thing to do, in his eyes.
Okay, that makes sense. I remember the bit about Joe making out that he did him a favour by not dumping him in the sea, but I just presumed it was his plan to place him on the beach all along.
Was it just a coincidence that he was placed under the point where Danny was going to jump (and his blood fell) anyway? Or was it planned, to make it look like suicide? (Or can it just be put down to nervous logic in the heat of the moment).
Right. I didn't see any interviews etc on the day. Avoided them. Someone posted on here that one of the producers(?) had said watch right to the end of the credits. So I assumed Chibnall would be using the credits again.
Have you a link to the Chibnall interview. I would like to see what he said.
Could have done without the continuity announcer as well. Even if she told us about the additional scene on facebook.
Comments
No. I should have put smilies on the post. We're cool:cool:
I’m a bit annoyed if the implication is that Steve was indeed psychic. He could have guessed the murderer would be someone close to the the family as most child murderers are, but how could have have known the rest? Watched the scene on the beach from his clifftop vantage point and guessed about the pendant perhaps? Read something about Hardy at the time of the Sandbrook case so knew he’d been to Broadchurch as a boy – would that information have been in the previous press coverage? If so then Karen would have known too. Not happy with that bit.
I am sure when Miller asked if anything could be done for his heart, Hardy said something like "a pacemaker would kill him". Could be a typical man overreacting
Not sure I would watch another one tbh.
Someone earlier suggested a Broadchurch trial which would be a good idea.
thank you all
This and the many other unanswered questions.
Right. I didn't see any interviews etc on the day. Avoided them. Someone posted on here that one of the producers(?) had said watch right to the end of the credits. So I assumed Chibnall would be using the credits again.
Have you a link to the Chibnall interview. I would like to see what he said.
Could have done without the continuity announcer as well. Even if she told us about the additional scene on facebook.
Great post, Nige, agree with every last word. :cool:
Surely that was true: Joe had no motive in the conventional whodunnit sense. He was in denial. He could not accept that what he was doing was wrong. He literally denied it in the flashback to the murder. So Danny's threat to expose him was also a threat to his own state of denial, and by killing him he was able to continue to deny that he was a paedophile, even after he was arrested.
Sandbrook was explained last week when Alec gave his story to Maggie and Olly.
Nige didn't have "an arsenal of weapons", he had a crossbow that he used to kill pheasants to sell on and supplement his income.
Danny wasn't going to Joe's house that night, he was going to the hut, which was not "just across the fields", it was near the cliff top.
Oh and by the way, Joe didn't just "phone and fess up", Alec already suspected it was him before then.
That's not an unanswered question though as Joe told Hardy the reason he went to the hut again was so Hardy would catch him but when Miller showed up as well he ran.
That was beyond odd, to be honest.
I do wonder if they filmed various possibilities and the affair could have been in/out depending on how they felt at edit time. It would explain why everyone seemed to be JUST FINE about the affair.
I thought that at the time but thinking about it maybe it was a sign that giving what had happened to Danny the affair is insignificant and the community has forgiven her
Because then we wouldn't have had the ramped-up tension of Hardy approaching the house and walking past Tom before going into the garden.
Also, a second series is possible. They could attack it from many angles, but I don't think that they should do it for the sake of it. If there isn't a good method in there, just make a new show.
Wasn't the boat used as a place to remove any traces of forensic evidence before placing Danny on the beach in some sort of misguided attempt at compassion towards his parents?
I didn't analyse anything - I let it all wash over me, and I loved last night's episode all the more because of it, I think. So powerful.
With respect, you're mixing up a lot of variables here and coming out with one definition/answer to explain them.
BIB1 - they were a 'normal, loving couple'. What they did was have a sexual relationship, a consenting one, before the legal age of consent. That does not, and did not, make Mark a paedophile or Beth his victim. I work with teenagers and I'll tell you now that loads of them are in relationships with other teenagers, sexual ones, but if I followed your strange logic I'd also be surrounded by paedophiles because one or other of the couples is over 16 and the other under 16. But would anyone actually think that it was anything to do with paedophilia, rather than just exploring teenage sexuality? Which links to...
BIB2 - Chloe is exploring and indulging her sense of teenage sexuality, just like Mark and Beth did. You might not approve, but like it or not that IS what a lot of teenagers do! For many (most) it's just a passing thing, for some (like Mark and Beth) it's something that lasts into a life of committed parenthood. But neither are examples of paedophilia, just because one is over the age of consent and the other isn't.
BIB3 - Are you honestly saying that you've never heard of a teenager pupil/teacher relationship before? Wrong ethically, yes, and legally if the pupil is under 16, but I can give you many examples of nearly-16 year old girls (and boys) who have had crushes on teachers and believe it's love. I know - I was one of those (although I was 17 - but it was still something the teacher had to tread carefully with when I told him how I felt, and he had a 19 year old son so was well into his 40s). But back then, in my idealistic teenage days, I'd have married him in a heartbeat if he'd asked me (and of course, in my dreams, he did) and it really did feel that 'real' to me, just as I'm sure it did to whoever Jack's young pupil was. Jack didn't make a habit out of 'picking up' 15 year old girls any more than the girl made a habit of going after every teacher she had (we can assume). They fell in love. Massive age gap, yes, teacher in position of authority which he didn't react properly to, yes, teenage girl who was 15 but considered age to be of no matter, yes - but it wasn't paedophilia. In fact, that was the whole point of the Jack story line and suspicions - the thing that made his eventualy suicide for being hounded wrongly so awful.
BIB4 - Susan's story, which you say 'continues the theme of paedophilia', but is in fact the first time it appears as a theme as defined by what true paedophilia is. The other examples you cite above aren't paedophilia.
BIB5 - What Joe claimed to feel for Danny was complicated. His motives for it - something that was 'his' - are complicated, and we don't know what may have happened if he hadn't killed Danny accidentally. At that point he hadn't engaged in serious sexual activity with Danny (as confirmed by the tests they did on Danny's body). Not all paedophiles engage in sexual activity with the youngster or youngsters they form unhealthy attachments to, and all have different definitions to about what (to quote Joe Miller's own words to Danny last night) is "wrong and sick". You have proven that point yourself!
I am not sure where you get the idea that we are being 'groomed' to accept paedophilia as normal. I have, sadly, more experience of it in real life than I would like - I obviously don't want to go into why, but suffice it to say I make my comments in response to yours with some insight which means I have to take issue with some of your blanket terms and approach.
You also say you don't want to understand the mind of a paedophile, but that is exactly why you don't understand the differences between true paedophilia and the examples you give which you think are examples, but really aren't. I don't want to know what I know, and the people I know who've been abused didn't want to experience it, but actually they felt that 'understanding' was an important step on the road to not being a victim, and it is why they wouldn't class Mark and Beth as paedophilia, or Dean or Chloe, or Jack or his pupil/wife. Whether you feel it, believe it or like it, they aren't the same thing.
I know the board will have moved on a lot from when I started my reply this morning, so maybe it doesn't matter now, but Broadchurch wasn't a 'paedophile agenda' issue and to try and say it was is misleading and misguided, albeit I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you've confused your own strongly held moral beliefs about sexual activity between all teenagers and older partners with what is understood in the world of child protection to be true paedophilia.
Joe was going to dump Danny out at sea(or should that be channel). We see him stood up in the boat with Danny in his arms. But he couldn't do it. So decided to dump him further down the coast where he would be found. I suppose it was the compassionate thing to do, in his eyes.
That's an interesting theory. They had said the extra 5 minutes was for tying up loose ends, I suppose it depends how recently they decided on series 2 .
Fab post Avid_Viewer
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned in wanting to really understand the motive, and not just be incredibly moved by the event and it's ramifications.........:(
A marvellous post and a really helpful way of analysing the story. Thank you.
Okay, that makes sense. I remember the bit about Joe making out that he did him a favour by not dumping him in the sea, but I just presumed it was his plan to place him on the beach all along.
Was it just a coincidence that he was placed under the point where Danny was going to jump (and his blood fell) anyway? Or was it planned, to make it look like suicide? (Or can it just be put down to nervous logic in the heat of the moment).
Here you go ...
http://t.co/n3qNUpaos2