Even Happy Valley's Siobhan Finneran can't save Protection from mediocrity
Down a suburban cul-de-sac, a seemingly normal family of three live in increasingly paranoid isolation. They are in witness protection, because the dad, Jimmy McLennan (Kris Hitchen), will imminently be testifying against crime lord Edward Crowther (Alec Newman). The McLennans' temporary sanctuary is overseen by DI Liz Nyles (Siobhan Finneran), a specialist officer 'firewalled' from the rest of the police to protect her charges' identities. But on the eve of Jimmy's court appearance a gunman slaughters the family – with only 13-year-old Amy (Tilly Kaye) surviving – and questions start being asked of DI Nyles. How did the ring of protection around the McLennans fail? And why was a police officer – who was also, rather inconveniently, Liz's lover – in their house at the time of the attack?
This is a tried and tested formula. You take a specialised branch of the police – anti-corruption (Line of Duty), pathology (Silent Witness), political protection (Bodyguard) – and draw them out into a larger story. A larger story, that is, that resembles a classic police procedural. The beats are instantly familiar, right down to the protagonist's troubled home life. In Protection, that takes the form of a truculent father (David Hayman), who has a personal history in the police that he is starting to lose to dementia. 'I knew everyone,' he tells his daughter. 'Trouble is, can I remember them?' The familiarity with this formula means that cliche is all but inevitable.
At any time – the series tells us in an opening title card, establishing the faux-seriousness of the premise – there are around 3,000 people in the UK under witness protection. The show is written by Australian scribe Kris Mrksa (who has previously worked for the BBC on shows like Requiem and The Slap) who calls it a 'le Carré-esque conspiracy thriller'. In reality, it's really neither an exposé of an under-reported part of the police, nor a taut spy drama. Instead, it's entirely of a piece with the fare we are constantly served by ITV (and other domestic broadcasters), whether that's set on a submarine (Vigil), in a bomb disposal unit (Trigger Point) or in the torrential rain (After the Flood).
Because it is a well-worn story, it requires a familiar face. Finneran (superb in Happy Valley, which successfully subverted many of these tropes) is a reliable performer, bringing a down-to-earth vulnerability to the lead role. The script doesn't give her much in the way of wit, but she is effective as a flawed heroine. 'I'm drowning,' she confesses to her hospitalised lover. The 'defective detective' is an over-exposed trope, but 'being quite crap at your job' is a fairly original defect. Despite the insistence of ITV's promotional documents, this isn't quite le Carré's world of half-competent men bearing responsibility for the fate of the world, but it does slightly undercut the everyman hero dynamics we see so often. Other police officers – hard-nosed Wheatley (Katherine Kelly) and beady-eyed Bewley (Andrew Knott) – are more familiar archetypes.
ITV are not trying to do something new with Protection. Quite the opposite: they're trying to provide living rooms across the nation with more of the same. More of that thing you quite enjoyed a few months ago, but which has largely slipped your memory. Something that, by the summer, you'll have forgotten about, ready to be replaced in your mind by – I don't know – a five-part thriller about mounted crowd control officers discovering a plot to blow up Wembley. Nothing new, nothing memorable, but nothing much to object to either.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
41 minutes ago
- Metro
Erin Patterson found guilty of murdering her in-laws with death cap mushrooms
Australian Erin Patterson was found guilty today of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives with a poisonous beef wellington. The jury in the Supreme Court trial in the state of Victoria returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that had gripped Australia. Patterson faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date, but showed no emotion as the verdicts were read out loud. Three of Patterson's four lunch guests – her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson – died in the hospital after the 2023 meal at her home in Leongatha. The meal of choice was individual beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who survived the meal. It was not disputed that Patterson served the mushrooms or that the pastries killed her guests – the jury was tasked with deciding if she knew the lunch contained death caps, and if she intended for them to die. Prosecutors did not offer a motive for the killings, but had pointed out strained relations between Patterson and her estranged husband, and frustration that she had felt about his parents in the past. The case turned on the question of whether Patterson meticulously planned a triple murder or accidentally killed three people she loved, including her children's only surviving grandparents. Her lawyers said she had no reason to do so – she had recently moved to a beautiful new home, was financially comfortable, had sole custody of her children and was due to begin studying for a degree in nursing and midwifery. But prosecutors suggested Patterson had two faces – the woman who publicly appeared to have a good relationship with her parents-in-law, while her private feelings about them were kept hidden. Her relationship with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, who was invited to the fatal lunch but did not go, deteriorated in the year before the deaths, the prosecution said. Patterson acknowledged some lies during her evidence, including that she had never foraged mushrooms or owned a dehydrator. More Trending But she said that those claims were made in panic as she realised her meal had killed people. She said she did not become as ill as the other diners since she vomited after the meal because of an eating disorder. Erin denied that she told her guests she had cancer as a ruse to explain why she invited them to her home that day. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Scientist's death being treated as murder with man, 20, to appear in court MORE: Manhunt launched after woman raped in Humberside flat MORE: Man arrested after Windrush exhibition vandalised in south London
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Australian woman convicted on all counts in mushroom murders case
SYDNEY — An Australian woman on Monday was convicted of murdering three elderly relatives of her estranged husband with a meal laced with poisonous mushrooms, in a case that has gripped the country. Erin Patterson, 50, was charged with the murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband. The four gathered at Erin Patterson's home in Leongatha, a town of about 6,000 people some 84 miles southeast of Melbourne, where the mother of two served them a meal of individual Beef Wellingtons accompanied by mashed potato and green beans, which were later found to contain death cap mushrooms. On Monday, the jury in the case found her guilty of all four charges, the court heard in Morwell, a town around two hours east of Melbourne where the trial was being held. Patterson, who had pleaded not guilty to all charges, saying the deaths were accidental, will be sentenced at a later date. The 10-week trial attracted huge global interest, with local and international media descending on Court 4 at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court in Morwell, the nearest court to Patterson's home where she had requested to be tried, despite being warned of lengthy delays.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Society ‘struggling' to respond to link between smartphones and youth extremism
In an interview as the 20th anniversary of the July 7 attacks is marked, Jonathan Hall KC said current methods used by extremists to influence potential recruits are 'a million miles' from the tactics used in the run up to 2005. Suicide bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19, set off bombs on three Tube trains and a bus, killing 52 people in the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. Ringleader and recruiter Khan appeared to be a pillar of the community, steering local youths away from crime and drugs by organising outdoor activities and helping to set up a gym in a mosque basement, but was in reality a fanatic. Mr Hall told the PA news agency the wide availability of smartphones has transformed radicalisation since then. 'The principal distinction from the era of 7/7 is the smartphone era,' Mr Hall said. 'That has changed the landscape. It has led to a different model of radicalisation. 'With 7/7 the indications were that Mohammad Sidique Khan was grooming people, there was a youth club, they went and did rafting together. 'Those sorts of outdoorsy, in person, group grooming activities, those feel a million miles away from the online world of radicalisation. 'I'm not aware of any sane person who seeks to argue the current wave of very young people becoming involved in terrorism, or extreme violence where it's not ideological, that that's not related to the internet and to the ready availability of smartphones. 'There's a very live debate about the ethics, the legality and the practicalities of which response is best. 'But we are absolutely grasping at straws and struggling, at the moment, as a society to work out what the correct response is. 'No one in their right minds would allow their children to allow a stranger into their bedroom, but that's what we've done with phones.' The attacks exposed the deadly threat from homegrown terrorists with 'appalling clarity', Mr Hall said. 'What 7/7 did, is it revealed with appalling clarity that our fellow citizens are willing to kill us. 'That very unsettling insight is as true today as it was back then, except you now have to bring in British citizens who have been inspired by extreme right-wing ideology to join the predominant Islamist threat. 'But that was the real kicker from 7/7. I think it really brought home this idea of the homegrown threat.' Commander Dominic Murphy said July 7 was 'a seminal moment' for counter-terrorism policing, leading to a series of changes that continued after the five terror attacks in the UK in 2017. He said that while Islamist groups are still the main threat to the UK, right wing terrorism is a growing problem, and there is concern that younger people are being drawn into extremism. In 2024, 39 of the 248 people arrested for terrorism offences were aged 17 and under, while children aged 11 to 15 made up the largest proportion of those referred to anti-extremism scheme Prevent (2,729 out of 6,884). 'Islamist remains our main threat. We do see a growing right-wing terrorist problem,' Mr Murphy said. 'We're increasingly seeing younger people involved in that right-wing threat as well, which is deeply concerning for us. 'But of course, we also see people that don't have a clear or fixed ideology. 'We can't say clearly that they're an Islamist terrorist, we can't say clearly that they ascribe to a right-wing ideology. 'Nonetheless, they're consuming large amounts of violent media online, and they might have a mixed or unclear ideology – that means, of course, we still need to be concerned about the threat to the public. 'It's diversified a lot even since 2017 and I think the online environment and the world environment adds a whole new layer of challenge to the threat that we face.'
