The writers of this show seem to have intended to razzle dazzle us with so many strange events that we cannot keep up. I am starting to think they believe their audience likes this-or they do it to avoid having to offer up some rationale for the basic paradox of time travel. "Don't give them time to think about that paradox, hit them with another" or something like that. Trying to keep up with Claudia Tiedemann's travels is just about impossible. I don't know if the writers even have a good map of them.

From what I can tell, Claudia Tiedemann disappeared from Winden in 1987 after she was visited by her older self. She dug up a time machine her older self had buried in her yard 33 years earlier (How many of those damned time machines are there? I thought there were just two, but people keep showing up with another one.) So Claudia disappeared in 87 and starts traveling around. She is working against Noah and Adam. But something happens at some point because we were told by Jonas "In the end she became exactly what she was trying to fight." When she took over as head of the nuclear plant she discovered that they had found the "God particle" and wants to do research on it. She disappears around that time after she dug up the time machine.

Anyway, when she returned she learned that Aleksander Tiedemann, her son in law, was now the plant manager. He is the mysterious guy who showed up as a young man carrying a gun and who saved Regina from being mistreated by Ulrich and Katarina. Because of this Claudia gives him a job at the nuclear power plant working special projects she wants kept secret. And he winds up getting married to Regina. Claudia was shocked to hear he was the plant manager when she returned in 2019. She shocked her daughter Regina by showing up after going missing for 33 years, without aging a day, and then takes Regina to the bunker to survive the apocalypse. I guess Aleksander didn't make it since he was arrested without evidence and no lawyer by that special investigator.

I know what you mean about Gillian Anderson's manner of speech in The Fall. And about the whispering bit also. Anderson's performance was a bit annoying to me, and not just because of the way she spoke. (She is not the first American actor to adopt an annoying, droning attempt at a British accent.) The show is peppered with feminist gripes, 'we're either frigid or sluts', 'men are violent', the male gender is a birth defect, etc. Anderson at one point objects to her male superior's characterization of the serial killer they are after as a "monster", saying he is just a man, adding "after all, you came to my room and made an unwanted sexual advance on me". Really? She compared a man who tortures and murders women with a drunk guy who pawed begged her to sleep with him again. (She had a one night stand with him some years before). I guess both behaviors are unwanted, so she finds them similar enough to compare them.

Well, traffic tickets are unwanted too. But I would not equate them with torture and murder on that basis. If you pick a common denominator that low you can equate about anything.

But this is the reasoning for her objection to calling Paul Spector a "monster"; there is already a term for what he is; he is a man.

That is some serious, ball busting, man hate.

In another scene, two police officers questioned a local hood. One officer is a female, the other male. The hood is a tall, short tempered guy, and the female officer is getting testy with him. The hood, who is always set to lose his temper, takes issue with her and approaches her, wanting to toss her out of his house. The male officer, who has been trying to keep the conversation low key and non confrontational steps in between them to back him down. When they leave the house the female officer unloads on her partner. "What was that? I don't need you defending me." He replies that he always "knuckles up" for his partner. She tells him not to do it again, that she can handle herself. Yeah, right. The hood towered over her and was no stranger to street fighting. I doubt she would have faired well without shooting him.

What if he had done nothing and she had gotten her butt kicked? Would she have thanked him for staying out of it? Doubtful. She would probably have had him written up for failing to come to her defense when she needed help.

I've been watching a few episodes again now and it is coming back to me. I actually didn't notice all of this the first time.

Yes - it's amazing what you don't notice the first time !!! Although I am a woman I have no time for all this false female empowerment going on where women are depicted as equal to men in strength and fighting ability - it is absolute nonsense - unless a man is frail and weak a woman will never be his physical equal - we are not meant to be. In days gone by men were the hunter gatherers and women the nurturers - you can't change history with a buzzword. I am sick and tired of seeing women in their twenties - many of them black females - who have achieved very high status in their professions - police lieutenants - captains - high military ranks etc - all before the age of thirty - of course they are all super slim super pretty super clever super everything - which sends out the message if you are all of the latter then you too can become one of the former . For me it fails in it's purpose to empower women because the inference is that if you are normal and not a mannequin you don't stand a chance. The only black female lieutenant I find believable is S Epatha Merkeson in Law and Order - she is not a super model or portrayed as super clever - just an ordinary black woman who has worked long and hard for her position. But women these days are so hungry for power (not equality) that they will believe anything without thought. Thanks for the Claudia Teiderman explanation - you are very patient !!

Brings me back around to Broadchurch. Ellie Miller in the third season finally had enough of a young female detective with a bit of a know it all attitude. She told her how she worked long and hard, putting up with men who didn't think she should be in their profession, and had to make doubly certain she knew her stuff before she made detective. She told the young girl off for having made mistakes. That's not exactly the same thing of course. But what you said reminded me of that encounter. It shows how much better Broadchurch is than many other shows.

And back to The Fall. When Stella is in bed with the young detective, he asked her why she thought he looked similar to Spector (before she sent him in to speak to the young girl who was infatuated with Spector). She said it was looks. He asked her if it was only that. He said he wanted to know if she saw any other similarities, on a deeper level (obviously worried that he might remind her of Spector in terms of some behavior or attitude). And Stella says: "So, you remind me of Spector, I sleep with you, therefore I sleep with Spector. Is that it?"

Sure Stella. It's all about you.

The kid never mentioned her or indicated what she suggested. Incredible how she is always the victim, the offended or insulted party. And the situations are a bit contrived to show her that way, also.

Maybe the writer is female - personally whenever I see a show written or directed by women I usually sigh and think "Here we go". It is invariably female driven - and women are portrayed to be sisterly and supportive (not in my experience - particularly when it comes to men - they will scratch each others eyes out at the blink of one) and, of course, much more clever than their male counterparts. I am not one for disempowering women - goodness knows they need it after thousands of years of subjugation - but putting out false messages of their physical strength and mental superiority is not the road to go down - lying does not make it so. There are some scenes that just make you want to vomit in these shows - in one - I can't remember the name of it now - a man leaves his wife for a black woman and abandons his three daughters - when he dies his present wife turns up at his previous wife's home and in a stomach churning scene of falsity the previous wife and daughters draw the black woman into their home and close the door. I know Nicola Walker was in it - she played one of the daughters - but I can't find it on her resume in IMDB. Women writers tend to write what they wish would be - not what is. I am not tarring them all with the same brush - there are some vomit inducing male writers too - Richard Curtis springs to mind with "Love Actually" et al. I find his writing sickeningly sweet and basically stupid.

Yeah, Stella was always the calm one, the reasonable one, the one unfairly put upon. When a reporter interrupted her eating supper at her hotel she told him to fuck off somewhere else, she had no comment. He ran a story about her anyway, along with a photo of the two of them seated together to make it appear he interviewed her. She told Burns she told him nothing and told him to leave. Burns had a fit, saying she had to clear any interviews before hand, and complained about how bad he looked before his bosses, etc. Of course, Burns was a twit, out of line, and unfair to her. But the entire sequence was obviously contrived to get the viewers to feel protective of Stella Gibson, to want to defend her.

I don't think film makers realize, or maybe they don't care, that the story would have been great without all those situations which were contrived to promote the various feminist themes, or that the feminist themed subplot actually detracts from the show. If they were not so heavy handed in the manner in which they push those themes, people might not notice so much or be so put off by them. I don't think they really care about the quality of the work, they care more about pushing the ideology. That is what a fanatical ideology does to art; it ruins it.

Stella was also always the one with the insights, the intuition and right instincts. For example, after the uniformed officers had been searching the countryside for weeks looking for the kidnapped woman without success, Stella looks at the aerial photo of the countryside and immediately points and says "what is that?". "Oh that's an outbuilding we have not gotten around to searching yet". Of course, that was where Spector had housed the kidnapped lady before he moved her. Naturally, she took one look and spotted the building from above. lol

Despite all of that I liked the series, for the most part. It had a good story, was well acted, especially Jamie Dornan who played Paul Spector, the grief counselor by day, serial murderer by night. The girl who played the 15 year old baby sitter who developed a very unhealthy infatuation with Spector did a great job in her role as well. Spector's wife was played well. It was well done overall. At times the scenes were too slow, too drawn out, with long, slow conversations with long pauses and belabored points. But it wasn't too bad.

I just watched a French film The Wolf Call about a submarine crew. It was a good film. I could not tell how it would end, which is nice. I like there to be some suspense.

At the moment I am desperately searching Netflix for something I haven't already seen and would really like to watch --it aint happening !!! Over here most of the Netflix offerings are Straight to Video - Teen - Animated - none of which I feel like watching. I am watching a series on BBC 1 called "London Kills" about a "team" of police investigators in London - it's all very pc - a white female sergeant - a black female trainee - a white male inspector and a black male detective constable. The female trainee on her first day is allowed to lead interviews - has a massive amount to say when interviewing family members - is allowed to tell said members that their relative is dead - is apparently first on call to a suicide scene - oh - she is also gay. This policewoman interviews a female witness and there is an immediate attraction between them - however policewoman says it can't happen - a short while later in a crowded café she meets the female witness and leans across the table to kiss her on the lips !! That would be her job gone for a start in the real world - but this is pc Britain. The team has no feeling of togetherness - no impression that they would have each others backs - it's all very cold and hostile. They don't come across as a team at all - just four actors trying to get what attention there is. I'll be glad when "Peaky Blinders" returns - have you heard of that show ?

Yes I started watching Peaky Blinders a long time ago. I got into something else and sort of stopped watching it. It is on Netflix here so I should watch it while I have the chance. I know what you mean about that cop show. I just heard a term yesterday; gay baiting. That is when a show has a character act a little like they might be gay in order to appeal to the gay/alternative audience, but they don't admit to being gay in order not to turn off the rest of the audience. Funny, I never heard of that or even thought about that as a consideration in writing a script.

Yes, it is crazy that the policewoman would make out with a witness in an ongoing case. That shows that they are not after realism at all. They are only concerned with appealing to certain audiences and with promoting certain ideas.

I have been watching a series called "Lucifer". I just gave it a try since I was bored. I didn't think I would like it but it turned out to be interesting. The Devil gets tired of running hell and decides to take a vacation in Los Angles. He takes a human form and runs a nightclub called Lux. His name is Lucifer Morningstar. He brought a demon with him, a female demon who is apparently bisexual. Lucifer is a ladies man, but to be PC he is apparently alright with sleeping with a man once in a while.
But the concept was fresh and I kind of got hooked on it. I am hoping they make another season soon.

I just watched another Netflix made movie called Big Kill. It is a grade B western, but has a couple name actors in it. It was OK.

Netflix is a pain - not having the same shows available on both sides of the pond. I watched one episode of Peaky Blinders because Sam Neill was in it and I have followed his career since he began in films many years ago - I sort of gave up quickly and moved on to other shows - but when they ran out I returned to Peaky Blinders and got really hooked on it - it develops really well - I would recommend it. I tried to watch Lucifer - didn't mind the first few episodes - but as you have probably noticed - small things tend to get on my nerves !! and that endless demonic grin really teed me off after a while - so I stopped watching it. There is very little realism in shows today - they are like adverts - all groups are targeted - especially gays - even the pope says that is fashionable to be gay now - the media in all its forms is after the biggest audience which will ensure the biggest profits. I am watching a docudrama called "The Making of the Mob" it is absolutely fascinating and so well done - I am hooked on it at present !!!. Can't see Big Kill at the moment - I will search more when I have a minute.

I started binging on Peaky Blinders and am up to season 3 now. (Where did the name Peaky Blinders come from?) It seems hard to imagine Tommy holding that crime family together as he does with such idiots for brothers, especially Arthur. It is an interesting story. I lost a bit of sleep last night since I couldn't stop watching it. I have watched a lot of mob documentaries and shows. I can't get the one you're watching. I found one called "The Irish Mob" about the Irish mob in America last century. I am taking a break from Peaky Blinders for a bit and watching the documentary series now.

Re - Peaky Blinders - I think the term is thought to have originated because some gangs in that era wore flat caps with peaks - it's thought to be inaccurate that they sewed razors into these peaks that they would cut people's foreheads with causing their own blood to blind them. I think Tommy has a really hard time controlling that family - I might watch if from the beginning again so as I am up to date when the next season starts! I am sure I have watched "The Irish Mob" but it was a long time ago. How annoying you can't get "The Making of the Mob" - maybe it will turn up on your Netflix later on - I hope so.

OK, that makes sense to me now. That would be disconcerting, getting cut and having to fight through bloody eyes. Plus you would have to worry about getting cut again. But I would imagine the people you cut would be out for revenge. If someone cut me, I might be inclined to use more than a razor blade when next we met. I am glad I wasn't brought up in some place like hell's kitchen or Chicago's south side where cutting people was a normal danger.

Well - it's 2019 now - and London is the stabbing capital of the world - there were 17 stabbings in one day a few weeks back. No need to ask the ethnicity of most of them. There are moped gangs like "Gomorrah" (Have you seen that series set in Naples - it's quite good - the author had to go into hiding because the gangs vowed revenge on him) running riot there - the crime rate is at an all time high. Of course this government has seen fit to decimate our police forces so they are completely undermanned and overrun. We used to see policemen on foot patrolling our streets - now they are as rare as hens teeth and if you phone them to tell them a crime is being committed unless it's a very serious one they say "There's nothing we can do". In my area which is a fairly quiet suburb drug dealers operate openly on most every corner - illegal vehicles off road bikes etc are forever roaring around the area not licenced not taxed and being driven dangerously by teenagers - one knocked a pensioner down recently - and simply drove away - the police make no attempt to deal with it. We are a lawless society now - unless of course this affects the more well off. I think Armageddon is already here - it's just quieter than we thought it would be.

I was aware of the significant increase in knife attacks in London. I am assuming you're indicating that the majority of the attacks are being carried out by immigrants from the middle east, and that does not surprise me. I can see that the political correctness situation in the UK and in Europe generally speaking is out of control, and has turned law enforcement on its head. They may arrest someone for "liking" a poem or a comment which is deemed to constitute "hate speech". But they avoid arresting young male Muslims engaged in running prostitution rings using underage British girls, girls they recruit and groom by having sex with and threatening them. Arresting them might make the police appear to be biased against immigrants, so the police were told not to pursue the pimps. One such case in the UK hit the news over here a few years back. A gang was allowed to rape underage girls and force them into prostitution, and the police were prevented from intervening.

['Hate speech' is a nebulous term and is arbitrarily determined. Leftist/liberal governments use this concept to censor and punish those who hold beliefs, political and other points of view, with which the liberals do not agree. It is a tool of totalitarians used to exert control while pretending to protect people. Hate speech might induce someone to commit a crime so it must be punished, while actual crimes committed by the protected immigrant class are ignored, or even enabled. The whole "political correctness" movement reminds me of the "Newspeak" and "Doublespeak" enforced by Big Brother in the novel "1984".]

I don't think I could live in London, New York, Detroit, Chicago, or any of dozens of other large cities with liberal/leftist governments and PC laws in effect. The immigrants operate with impunity, knowing full well that the legal system is slanted to allow them to commit crimes. If I were to successfully defend myself against a felonious assault by one of those immigrants, it is likely that the legal system would scrutinize me, and seek to prosecute me for defending myself.

Wherever law abiding citizens are legally prevented from defending themselves (in jurisdictions I call 'helpless victim killing zones') we see the murders per capita rate is very high compared to jurisdictions which allow citizens to legally employ effective means of self defense. This is true in countries around the world, and certainly within the various states and cities in the United States. More legally owned guns always equates with less violent crime. Criminals don't like the unsafe working environment created when their intended victims may be armed.

Here in the USA a few decades ago, the state of Florida passed a law allowing citizens to legally carry concealed handguns after passing a background check, studying the laws, studying safety rules and procedures, and after demonstrating proficiency in shooting and handling of handguns. The liberals in the news media began a campaign to scare the public, predicting a "wild west" atmosphere in which there would be shootouts in the streets, and so on. But what happened was just the opposite. The numbers of shootings decreased, the rates of violent crimes significantly decreased. Florida became a safer place in which to live. (The criminals began to target people driving rental cars though since they knew that tourists would not have a license to carry handguns. Now the rental car agencies have removed any markings which identify their cars as rentals.)

Suddenly the criminals were unsure whether they could safely mug, assault, rape, etc., their intended victims. That lady, that old man, that smaller and weaker individual might in fact be carrying an effective means of defense. The same trend has been repeated in every state which has adopted similar concealed handgun carry laws. It turns out that law abiding citizens are quite responsible, they are more cautious and seek to avoid dangerous situations. They don't want to ever have to defend themselves. But since they have the means, they are less likely to need to use them.

Knives are devastating weapons, and can deliver lethal wounds very quickly. A law enforcement study determined that an average able bodied young adult male, lying prone on the ground, can get to his feet and travel 21 feet and deliver a fatal wound in under 1.5 seconds. If police officers in the US encounter a suspect armed with a knife, they will command him to drop the knife. If he fails to heed the command and makes any movement toward the officer, officers are trained to shoot him. Failure to shoot him may result in the death of the officer. Knives are that serious.

Your picture of Britain today is entirely accurate. Although our police on the street do not as a rule carry handguns as a matter of course - (that's why they are so easy to kill ) they do have access to weapons but they are usually reserved for specially trained officers. Our police are not allowed to do their job properly - they have to explain in detail why they stop and search anyone - I mean how dare you search a Muslim boarding a plane - that's racial profiling for no reason at all. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry handguns - everybody who can own a gun - farmers - members of gun clubs - must have a licence and a lockable cabinet that they must be kept in. Knives are freely available in most shops but some shops wont sell them to young people. There are gangs now who are paying young teenagers - 13/14 year olds up to £1000 to carry out knife attacks. Our justice system regards them as juvenile offenders and the sentencing is ludicrous anyway. As an unrelated matter of interest - gays are now petitioning M.P.'s to pass a law making online homophobia a criminal offence. They are already protected by existing laws against verbal threats and physical assault but they want to be a special case. No doubt the PC gobby lobby will achieve this also. You have to wonder when all this craziness will end - there was a demand by the Afro-Caribbean community that a sociology text book be withdrawn from sale because it said that most Afro-Caribbean families had absent fathers - they didn't say it was a lie - they said there were "historical" reasons for it. Hmm - there were historical reasons for wearing bustles and cod-pieces - but it doesn't happen now. Same with Enid Blyton's children's book "The Three Gollywogs" that WAS withdrawn from sale. Apparently you can publish any filth you want but not an innocent book that was not written with any insult in mind. I can only hope that at some point common sense will prevail and the world will return to some kind of sanity. Appeasement has gone too far and far right groups are increasing all over Europe in response to it.

America has the same problems in general. An Islamic terrorist can scream Allah U Ackbar while massacring dozens of people and the police and the news will say they cannot call it a terrorist attack, and they cannot say whether it was religiously motivated. They bend over backward to avoid blaming the terrorist. (And though these attacks usually occur in "gun free zones" where it isn't legal to carry a gun, the news focuses on calls for more gun control laws, which of course don't affect the terrorist or the criminal. But do they blame the individual? Not unless they can claim he voted for Trump or something like that.)

The insistence on criminalizing "homophobia" really bothers me. Once again, it sound just like the novel 1984. They want to institute "thought police", to criminalize your opinions, your thoughts and beliefs, if the leftist/liberal class doesn't like them. That is a tool of totalitarian rulers. There isn't a right "not to be offended". It is impossible to legislate or legally regulate a person's feelings. What offends one person may delight another, and vice versa. It is nothing more than a ploy by the protected classes to gain power to censor and punish others.

I just saw a show called "Instinct" and decided to watch the first episode. The show is described this way:

"A former CIA operative (Cumming), who has since built a "normal" life as a gifted professor and writer, is pulled back into his old life when the NYPD needs his help to stop a serial killer on the loose."

It sounded like it might be interesting. But so far it is about Alan Cuming's gay marriage and his catty, bitchy comments. It's like the writers want to intentionally make me throw up in my mouth a little bit as Alan Cuming tells his husband he wants to have a baby, and how sexy he looked at the office, etc.
I think they said he is a former CIA operative to make it sound like it might be interesting, a tease to get people like me to give it a trial. I won't watch another episode.

I know that the gay community in Britain would say this makes me "homophobic". But that word means whatever they want it to mean. I don't care what gay people want to do with each other. But I cannot help feeling nauseous when I see two men kissing and acting effeminate. That pisses them off. It repulses me and they cannot stand that. So they want to criminalize my feelings. That is insane. They want to be dictators.

What if someone made it illegal to criticize a certain genre of music? That would be crazy, but it would make just as much sense as criminalizing my feelings when I see two men kissing and acting effeminate.

Yes, let's hope some sensibility is restored to society. People should be taught to be responsible for their own feelings, not to blame others when they feel bad or offended or upset. But the cultural Marxists WANT young people to believe they can blame others for their feelings.