Sport on TV: Stan in the dock over a grievous charge of self-importance
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.There's been something of a hung jury, as it were, concerning The Verdict (BBC 2, all week), in which 12 good celebs and true have overseen a rape trial in which the officials were real, and the victims, defendants and witnesses actors. "Vile and indefensible" spat The Guardian - and that was just Stan Collymore. Only joking, Stan.
Actually, maybe not. Towards the end of the jury's deliberations on Thursday, Patsy Palmer, the former EastEnder, accused Collymore - last seen having his fingers sucked by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct 2 - of having come into the trial determined to find the fictional defendants, a footballer and his mate, not guilty. "That is bang out of order," Collymore raged. But she was right. It was obvious where his vote would be going.
On day two, when the defence theorised that an anal tear "may have been caused by consensual sex," Collymore leaned forward and murmured, "Good point," and throughout the week, by dint of a sustained campaign of hectoring and interrupting, he tried to drum into his colleagues the importance of sticking to the facts without being swayed by the alleged victim's tears.
Michael Portillo was elected unofficial chairman by the others to keep Collymore in check, with only partial success. "He's shouting everyone down," complained the young entrepreneur Dominic McVey, while Jacqueline Gold (chief executive of Ann Summers) muttered to camera, "He's a lovely guy, but..."
Intelligent and articulate, Collymore wasn't all bad. After telling Jeffrey Archer that he was not a fit person to be on a jury in the first place (fair enough, seeing that ex-lags are barred, but still a bit rich, as Ulrika Jonsson might observe), he suggested that people should not go into jury service raw but should do a course beforehand, which is a valid idea. "Michael [Portillo] and I are quite similar in some regards," he also suggested, which is not quite so valid.
He also distinguished himself by sending a note via the clerk of court to one of the defence barristers, Jane Humphryes QC - "she's cute" - asking for her phone number. Humphryes smiled wryly. "No, he can't have my phone number. I've got five children." You got the feeling that, her brood notwithstanding, she would rather eat her wig with a side order of rusty nails than be chatted up by Collymore.
During the final anguished deliberations (enlivened somewhat by his revelation that he was not wearing any underpants), he pushed his hard-logic line. "'The counsels' summaries are arguments,'" he intoned, quoting the judge's instructions. "'The counsels' summaries are not evidence'. It seems that human nature has superseded the remit of our jury." Good lord. You used to kick a ball around for a living, and now you play bit parts in bad films. Do shut up.
For the record, the footballer and his mate got off.
On charges of first-degree arrogance, the ex-footballer did not. The verdict? Stan Collymore, get back in your box.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments