Mike W

Not having watched from the start, I don't understand how a full-time parish priest can apparently spend so much of his time working with the police, neither do I understand how the police would have allowed him to. But I can live with that. However, my biggest gripe came in series 6, episode 5, the courtroom. I have watched the current series so far, and moderately enjoyed it... until. this travesty . I began my legal career in 1964 when, as 10 years previously, there were Magistrates' courts, Quarter Sessions and Assizes. Grantchester doesn't look like a place likely to warrant an Assize Court, and the setting wasn't big enough. Actually, it would have struggled to hold Quarter Sessions, which were held - quarterly. So they were invariably busy and full of barristers, solicitors and their clerks (e.g. me) and the public waiting for listed cases to be called. OK, Covid doesn't allow crowded situations. In the Magistrates court, barristers didn't wear wigs and gowns, so we are back to QS. But in no Court I ever attended would a prosecuting barrister have considered, let alone be allowed, to launch into a full-blown attack on the character and conduct of a prisoner who had pleaded guilty, insist that he stood up and all but demand a death sentence, while a dozy-looking judge looked on, half asleep. Nor was I convinced that a six-month prison term for a first offence would have been imposed, but I am open to other opinions. Finally, I get the feeling that there are anachronistic "inclusivity" issues here - viewers have raised this elsewhere.