Hugh Grant’s brilliant portrayal of Jeremy Thorpe, and the quality of the whole production, could persuade us that this drama is a factual documentary (‘We’re all watching’: What Liberals make of Thorpe TV drama, 2 June). However, the weakness in the screenplay – and in the book on which it was based – is that crucial episodes depend exclusively on the uncorroborated evidence of Peter Bessell.
I thought I knew Thorpe reasonably well, having served as a Liberal MP under his leadership, but as the trial approached I realised I only knew the public persona. Not so Bessell. As his successor as Liberal candidate in the Bodmin constituency (and subsequently MP) I was able to observe him closely. I have never encountered anyone so skilful in self-deception or deceiving others. I read his book, written after his humiliation at the trial to justify his role in the affair (and published only in the US to avoid a libel action in the UK), which is to my knowledge unreliable.
No doubt the judge had his own curious justification for doubting the Bessell evidence. However, I too would not rely on it to conclude that the TV series has told us the whole truth. In addition to the quality of the acting, for me it still has an extra attraction, since it leaves us with a tantalising element of mystery.
Paul Tyler
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
• I agree with every word of the praise heaped on A Very English Scandal, including the brilliant casting, characterisation and immaculate makeup (Far too late to reopen Thorpe affair inquiry, says director Frears, 4 June). But why in Hugh Grant’s portrayal has Thorpe’s hair parting inexplicably moved from left to right?
Chris Leyland
Marsden, West Yorkshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
