Episodio #6.5

Geordie and Will have one eye on a clever robbery, and the other on Leonard, who's trial is imminent.

What an absolute, stratospheric difference to last week, this was classic Grantchester, this is what the show used to be like in its prime. I felt this showed a bit more of a balanced view of homosexuality back at the time, however I'm not going to dwell on that here, as this was a brilliant episode.

The focus here was on story, it wasn't quite so fussed on moralising, it focused more on the story, and it was a brilliant story.

I have been full of praise for Al Weaver throughout, and rightly so, he's awesome, but here I feel I must rain down praise on Tom Brittney, for me this was his best outing, he was terrific here.

The best episode for years, I'd score it a 9.5, but why not, I'll go a 10.

Even though it was heartbreaking, I thought the writing, the acting, and the general temper of the show were outstanding. In the wake of Leonard's trial, Geordie and Will face a case of the theft of a large sum of money. The twists and turns of the investigation lead to some betrayal and a good deal of evil. During the robbery in question, an elderly woman is run down and killed, her husband watching her die. There are several characters, including an old friend of Geordie's who is the opposing lawyer, who hav no moral sense. This is contrasted against the idiotic trial of Leonard who finds being honorable a kind of curse.

I thought the plot line about Leonard vastly more interesting than the inane robbery story. And I still can't understand why Will acts more like a policeman than a vicar, actually driving the police car and chasing the suspect through the streets. It's so unbelievable, as it has been through most of the series. Just drop the quote mystery unquote plots and concentrate on the character studies and there would be less eye-rolling. ..... .......... .......... .............. ........................ .............. .......... ............ ........... .......... ....................................................................................................................................

While yes people hid their sexual sins back then, it would not have been as acceptable as they make it out to be by a leader in the church This is the 50's not the 2000's. The Bible is quite clear. The person who is not straight isn't an abomination but the sin of not being straight is. This is wrong to change beliefs and change the scripture to suit your desires like people have done in the 21st century. This has nothing to do with the more accurate belief in the church in the 50's. Yes this is a fictional show, but they are trying to act like the 50's, so in order to do that a man of God would not act like these fake preachers. A true man of God would show love but would have values too. Be compassionate to the sinner while not letting the person who is sexually sinning serve in the church. The Same goes for unmarried straight people. You can't have sex outside of marriage and be a leader in the church. And sex inside marriage is actually very fun and not prudish either.

The same for drinking preachers I might add too. No Christians are not perfect and yes everyone sins. But God has rules for a man of God in the scripture that is plain and clear. We can't change God's words and His righteousness and what He wants for His creation just to please people who don't want to follow God's words.