Talk:The Curse of Steptoe

Legal section
I can't quite put my finger on it, but reading through the items about the legal challenge on this drama programme's accuracy, I wonder whether there is a possibility that one of the involved parties may have had something to do with writing it; there does seem to be an awful lot of criticism of the inaccuracies presented from one viewpoint (no defence of artistic/dramatic licence argument, etc). Of course all it's mainly doing is presenting statements, but by stating large chunks of the BBC Trust's critical report in detail, and the stuff about the DVD recall it gives the feeling of having some involvement somehow. Just an impression, really. Anyway, I've separated all of this stuff in a new section, as it's now nearly as long as the rest of the page put together! Bob talk 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is rather a long-winded section. However, the multiple challenges to the programme's content did result in the complaints being upheld and significantly, edits being made, which is a somewhat rare event in itself; as well as the apparent "worldwide" lengths undertaken to withdraw the DVD from sale (although one wonders about the popularity of the programme overseas). I agree that it would be interesting to read more about any defences made by the production/writing team, particularly in terms of the research done to arrive at the decisions made about how to portray Corbett and Brambell, and their working relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.24.147 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tm & R symbols
Appear in the last section's rant. Apart from the whole thing not making much sense imho, what are these symbols there for? 110.32.249.41 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) (sorry not logged in: Manytexts)
 * It is a quote and therefore was copied directly from the source page. I can't make any sense of it either though. --Peppage tlk  15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're adding much to have a Guardian journalist telling us that "fictionalised accounts can land the Beeb in hot water" after three lengthy sections detailing the controversy over the programme. Beyond that, it's a review of the Hattie Jacques dramatisation, which isn't the subject of this article; all we can draw from it is "a journalist, reviewing a later programme in the same genre, decided that she didn't like the genre". I've cut the paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)