I couldn't disagree more with your statement. Yes, He did try to have sex with an old friend - do we know if he would have gone through with it? No - I suspect not. Yes, he did have lots of sex with men before he was tested and while he strongly suspected he was positive; he was in denial - so were tens of thousands of people at this time. Does this make him a vile person that deserved the wrath of hate on his deathbed? No. Richie's character represents a typical type of gay man at that time. Was he wrong? Yes; of course. Was he a vile "homicidal, self absorbed cretin" like you say? No. Remember what it was like at that time - no-one had the knowledge we have now, and a diagnosis was like a death sentence. Finally, Richie offered to suck his old crush off; the chances of passing on HIV in this way is close to zero, and that, even then, was pretty well known.

Give Richie a break

This was amazing writing from Russell T Davis; a Genius piece of work.

I thought it was pretty clear Richie said on his sickbed that he had sex with lots of men after being aware he had AIDS (i.e. after he'd been diagnosed rather than after he'd seen one of his partners looking ill). I don't think that scene was remotely ambiguous but apologise if I had a brain fade during that scene and he was on an emotional downer and beating himself up about sleeping with guys after he suspected that he could possibly have it (which is less heinous and would not result in a manslaughter charge, but is still pretty unforgivable to me).

I also think you are being somewhat generous to Richie to suggest he'd only have given head to his old crush and would be informed enough to know there would be limited risk to the other person in doing so (in which case why not just tell the other guy if it is no big deal?). If the guy offered to return the favour or take the lead I doubt Richie would have had the willpower to say no (which I think would have been out of character for him given his own admissions). Serious question, would anyone give this guy the benefit of the doubt if a sympathetic TV drama was made about him?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/wessex/news/man-jailed-8-years-after-infecting-women-hiv

If not, what was fundamentally different about Richie's situation?

I do agree it was bordering on genius as a programme (as per my other thread), I just found it strange for the script to go out of it's way to intentionally show the weakness and dangerous failings of Richie (culminating in his sickbed admission), but then try to pin near 100% of the blame on his mother who didn't even know he was gay and, until the final episode, showed every sign of being a fairly caring mother who had provided a stable enough upbringing. It smacks slightly of a sense of victimhood that I didn't think was merited here.

Loads of relatives are surprised when they learn someone they love is gay, not out of denial or bigotry, but because if you aren't looking for something or are respecting someone's personal space, then you don't join the dots. It's only in hindsight that the clues you missed can become more obvious, but that in no way makes you a bad parent or sibling. For me it was a surprise to learn because I know that some straight guys (like myself) aren't massively preoccupied with having a girl on their arm or prefer to conduct that part of their lives in private until it becomes something more long term. The programme appeared to suggest that any guy who likes to carry a tune, ham it up and doesn't bring a girl home to mother in his teens is clearly gay. If that's the case I'm trapped in the closet and don't even know it!

Indeed, that was said on his deathbed, but following the story, its highly likely that the conclusion was retrospectively. When he said he knew he was positive, he didnt really know he was positive until he was tested. Furthermore, there were many at that time who suspected they might be positive, and assumed that the other guys they had sex with were positive too, there were also those that thought; in the heat of the moment that they might be negative. In addition, like Jill says at the end; because of the underground nature of the nightlife, and the pressure of constant guilt and shame; actions cannot always be seen to be as logical as they can in a more accepting environment.

As for his mother not knowing he was gay; the lack of girlfriends of course cannot be a conclusive sign! but, there are always many, many more signs from young childhood right through. Parents who do not see homosexuality as wrong usually can pick up on those signs; parents who see it as negative or wrong usually cant or more likely, wont.

Was Ritchie's mother a bad parent? Yes! Awful. The first response to his illness and his homosexuality was too shift blame away from herself by looking for something, anything to blame - a reason she could keep her head high at the hairdressers or the supermarket - classic signs of a vile selfish bitch Mother. In addition, when she found out she was more angry at not being told, not knowing everything rather than her son's illness. i.e. the concern was all about her, totally, utterly selfish.

At the end - Jill was 100% correct - I was in floods of tears when the bitch said "he died yesterday", still in floods of tears I was smiling after Jill spoke. Tho Richiose final words were words of truth. Cruel yes, but cruelty the mother deserved.

She stopped her son being with people he loved and could relax with at the end. Why? because of her selfishness. She, was a selfish bitch.

I read your comments with interest. Although I don’t quite agree with your views overall, I just focus on two plot points:

SPOILERS

@Fergoose said: we see Richie persistently trying to seduce and infect an old crush with AIDS

That’s incorrectly stated. It would be more accurate to say: we see Richie trying to seduce an old crush, with his usual disregard for the risk of infecting others, which is a point you stress about his character.

a weak choice to try and make it clear that Richie never infected Colin, that could have played out as a nice ambiguity rarhrr than making manslaughter acceptable if it happens to someone the director chooses to keep off screen.

I may be misreading that sentence but the program is quite clear about Colin’s sole sexual partner, who therefore almost certainly infected him.

@dhz said:

Indeed, that was said on his deathbed, but following the story, its highly likely that the conclusion was retrospectively. When he said he knew he was positive, he didnt really know he was positive until he was tested. Furthermore, there were many at that time who suspected they might be positive, and assumed that the other guys they had sex with were positive too, there were also those that thought; in the heat of the moment that they might be negative. In addition, like Jill says at the end; because of the underground nature of the nightlife, and the pressure of constant guilt and shame; actions cannot always be seen to be as logical as they can in a more accepting environment.

As for his mother not knowing he was gay; the lack of girlfriends of course cannot be a conclusive sign! but, there are always many, many more signs from young childhood right through. Parents who do not see homosexuality as wrong usually can pick up on those signs; parents who see it as negative or wrong usually cant or more likely, wont.

Was Ritchie's mother a bad parent? Yes! Awful. The first response to his illness and his homosexuality was too shift blame away from herself by looking for something, anything to blame - a reason she could keep her head high at the hairdressers or the supermarket - classic signs of a vile selfish bitch Mother. In addition, when she found out she was more angry at not being told, not knowing everything rather than her son's illness. i.e. the concern was all about her, totally, utterly selfish.

At the end - Jill was 100% correct - I was in floods of tears when the bitch said "he died yesterday", still in floods of tears I was smiling after Jill spoke. Tho Richiose final words were words of truth. Cruel yes, but cruelty the mother deserved.

She stopped her son being with people he loved and could relax with at the end. Why? because of her selfishness. She, was a selfish bitch.

Thanks. Yes, it does make a sizeable difference if he knew he was HIV positive and was sleeping around or merely had suspicions that he might have been (and I think you are right to suggest the latter and that I picked it up wrong).

Oh yes, the mother was a monster in the last episode, of that there is no doubt (and I agree that this was very impactful). My point is I didn't pick up on anything that would suggest she was a poor parent in Richie's earlier life from any of the other episodes. Richie seemed happy enough to travel a great distance to visit home despite his overbearing father.

From the first 4 episodes only I'd cut her (and all parents) slack for not picking up on their kid being gay if they are not overly camp (Richie being a bit borderline on that score, but probably enough to make most parents join the dots). I grew up with a gay sibling and didn't have the faintest clue until they were 30+ years old. They didn't have the slightest clue I was straight until I was about the same age.

@Renoir said:

I read your comments with interest. Although I don’t quite agree with your views overall, I just focus on two plot points:

SPOILERS

@Fergoose said: we see Richie persistently trying to seduce and infect an old crush with AIDS

That’s incorrectly stated. It would be more accurate to say: we see Richie trying to seduce an old crush, with his usual disregard for the risk of infecting others, which is a point you stress about his character.

a weak choice to try and make it clear that Richie never infected Colin, that could have played out as a nice ambiguity rarhrr than making manslaughter acceptable if it happens to someone the director chooses to keep off screen.

I may be misreading that sentence but the program is quite clear about Colin’s sole sexual partner, who therefore almost certainly infected him.

Yes. My point is that it was a bit of a cop out to go out of it's way to be so clear that Richie and Colin hadn't had sexual relations. Would you both be so sympathetic to Richie if the series was identical but instead it was suggested Richie had had sex with Colin at some point?

If yes, then fair enough. If no, then why should we care more about the horrifying fate of Colin compared to that of Richie's other sexual partners that likely happened (albeit offscreen).

Or would viewers be so sympathetic with Richie if the series showed someone who was healthy before Richie slept with them either subsequently disappear or develop Aids on camera?

In a series that was extremely direct I think it pulled a punch on this front in order to keep the viewer on side with Richie and I dont like bits like that where the programme is trying to help you 'pick a side' or resolve a moral conundrum for the viewer.