The Accused: National Treasures on Trial; Welcome to Wrexham

“If you are going to make a documentary on such a subject, in such an era, you need to extract better answers than an opinion of an opinion. It is a chance to examine what is surely a great part of how we measure the success, or not, of the entire #MeToo movement.”
Lucy Mangan, The Guardian

“Mark Williams-Thomas, who made the 2012 ITV documentary which finally told the truth about Jimmy Savile, remembered it as “a moment that’s changed history”. What, he was asked, of the falsely accused? “Collateral damage,” he shrugged. “It must be very difficult for those people to objectively see the bigger picture but that’s what this is about.” These may feel like weasel words, meriting a little more scrutiny than this film could make space for. At least ITV can say it put its best foot forward. The BBC not so much. This examination of moral and legal complexities generated more heat than light. It was a coup to get him, but Sir Cliff didn’t say much, perhaps because nothing much can be said beyond his imponderable conclusion: “I hate the idea that people can do this to another innocent human being.”
Jasper Rees, The Telegraph 

“One question raised in this sober and thoughtful documentary was, should the accused have a right to anonymity until they are charged? This would have avoided the travesty Richard suffered when the BBC filmed, live, the police raid on his house prompted by one baseless accusation. The counterargument is that when an accused person is named it may prompt other victims who have been too afraid or ashamed to come forward to give evidence, as happened with the black cab rapist John Worboys…The film didn’t come down one way or the other on the anonymity until charged issue. But it successfully showed what a nightmare it is when it happens to you. Gambaccini campaigned for a change in the law to limit bail to 28 days…What the film did well was to evoke the Wild West flavour of the time, perhaps best encapsulated by the unseemly moment when, live on This Morning, the presenter Phillip Schofield handed David Cameron, then the prime minister, a list of alleged paedophiles’ names he had simply printed off the internet.”
Carol Midgley, The Times

“The Accused didn’t have an answer. There was also an absurd attempt to blame inappropriate behaviour on “the 1990s” and bawdy celebrities, such as Chris Evans.The best documentaries present a coherent argument. The Accused tried to have it both ways, simultaneously highlighting the travesty of dragging innocent people through the courts and emphasising the importance of listening to alleged victims and seeing “the bigger picture” of a society where too often predators get away with sex crimes. By the end, the viewer was as in the dark as to who they were supposed to feel sorry for as when the opening credits rolled.”
Ed Power, The i

“Unsurprisingly, the footage has been put together with Hollywood pomp. Matches are given the high-tension treatment, with dramatic music, slow-motion shots and cliffhangers. It is hard not to be gripped by it. I suspect it will be all the more effective on people, like me, who have not followed Wrexham’s journey closely in the past two years.”
Rebecca Nicholson, The Guardian

“Most of the first two half-hour episodes consist of Ryan and Rob insisting that this isn’t a vanity project. That’s difficult to swallow, coming from men with teeth like aircraft landing lights, but I believe them. Thousands wouldn’t. Asked why they chose Wrexham, the world’s third oldest club, Rob went into a long explanation of how much the Philadelphia Eagles, an American football club, meant to him. He’s undoubtedly sincere, but it still doesn’t explain, ‘Why Wrexham?’ Ryan flashed his goofy smile and confessed he was trying to live up to the dreams his late father had for him. They are shaky on the rules of the game, and even the documentary makers were flummoxed by the rules governing promotion and relegation.”
Christopher Stevens, Daily Mail